I wouldn't have known the submitter's name if I hadn't seen a "+5 insightful" with the man's name in the subject and his university in the body.
BendingSpoons (997813) writes "A new study suggests that "educational" DVDs aimed at toddlers may do more harm than good. The study, led by two researchers from the University of Washington, concludes that videos such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Babies may actually delay language development in toddlers. Walt Disney Co. (the parent company of Baby Einstein) has responded by calling on the University of Washington to retract its news release of the study. In his public letter to the University, Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger attacks the study for its "doubtful methodology, anomalous data, and unreliable inferences." NPR has interviewed one of the researchers, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, concerning his findings; the program also interviewed the DVD Reviewer of Parenting Magazine, who finds the study unconvincing . It should perhaps be noted that the American Academy of Pediatricians reccomends that children under two not watch any television at all."
BendingSpoons (997813) writes "The Supreme Court ruled against a high school student who was suspended after displaying a 14ft banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student, Joseph Frederick, unfurled the banenr as the Olympic torch passed through his hometown of Juneau, Alaska. As a result, principal Deborah Morse suspended him for ten days, stating that banners advocating drug use had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick challenged his suspension in court, arguing that the banner's message was nonsensical and expressed only his right to say whatever he wished. Frederick's lawsuit was supported by various religious groups, who were concerned that a negative outcome would restrict students' rights to religious expression. In the end, the Court upheld the suspension by a 5-4 majority. "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," wrote Chief Justice Roberts. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one." The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278."