Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet STANLEY FISH NYTimes

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) the Supreme Court overturned a statute requiring any person who prints a notice or flyer promoting a candidate or an issue to identify the communication’s author by name.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, grounded his opinion in an account of meaning he takes from an earlier case (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti):
“The inherent worth of . . . speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”
Or, in other words, a writing or utterance says what it says independently of who happens to say it; the information conveyed does not vary with the identification of the speaker.

There are at least two problems with this reasoning. First, it is not true that a text’s meaning is the same whether or not its source is known. Suppose I receive an anonymous note asserting that I have been betrayed by a friend. I will not know what to make of it — is it a cruel joke, a slander, a warning, a test? But if I manage to identify the note’s author — it’s a friend or an enemy or a known gossip — I will be able to reason about its meaning because I will know what kind of person composed it and what motives that person might have had.

In the same way, if I am the recipient of a campaign message supporting a candidate or a policy, my assessment of what I am reading or hearing will depend on my knowledge of the sender. Is he, she or it an industry representative, a lobbyist, the A.C.L.U., the Club for Growth? The identity of the speaker is part of the information and is therefore part — a large part — of the meaning. (“Consider the source” is not only commonplace advice; it is a theory of interpretation.)

The practice of withholding the identity of the speaker is strategic, and one purpose of the strategy (this is the second problem with anonymity) is to avoid responsibility and accountability for what one is saying. Anonymity, Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago observes, allows Internet bloggers “to create for themselves a shame-free zone in which they can inflict shame on others.” The power of the bloggers, she continues, “depends on their ability to insulate their Internet selves from responsibility in the real world, while ensuring real-world consequences” for those they injure.

Nussbaum is writing as a co-editor of, and contributor to, a new set of essays on the dark side of the Internet titled “The Offensive Internet.” The question that drives the volume is “what can be done about irresponsible information” spread by the Internet, a medium that allows slander to “be done with a few keystrokes, with complete anonymity, and . . . with no fear that the Internet provider on whose website the slur is found will somehow be held responsible for incorrect . . . or defamatory statements”?
In the course of the volume the Internet is characterized as a cesspool, a porn store, a form of pinkeye, a raunchy fraternity, a graffiti–filled bathroom wall, a haven for sociopaths, and the breeder of online mobs who are no better than “masked Klan members” in their determination to “interfere with victims’ basic rights.”

The authors make these charges against the background of the standard honorific description of the Internet: it is the ultimate realization of “the marketplace of ideas,” that non-physical space dedicated “to the emergence of truth.” Cass Sunstein invokes this hoary metaphor only to call it into question. Rumors cascade, Sunstein explains, when someone relies on what someone else has said and then spreads a falsehood as truth. The Internet multiplies the effect exponentially: an “initial blunder . . . can start a process by which a number of people participate in creating serious mistakes.” Rather then producing truth, the free and open marketplace of the Internet “will lead many people to accept damaging and destructive falsehoods,” and unless there is “some kind of chilling effect on false statements,” the “proper functioning of democracy itself” may be endangered.

An unconstrained marketplace of ideas is often said to facilitate informed decision-making by providing all the information, even erroneous information, that is out there. But how, asks Brian Leiter in a powerful essay, is the process of deliberation helped by the anonymous poster who reports falsely “that Jane Doe has herpes” and announces “that he would like to sodomize her?” The Internet and the real world, Leiter concludes, “would both be better places” if Internet providers were held accountable for the scurrilous and harmful material they disseminate.

How might that be managed? The answer given by the authors in this volume involves the repeal or modification of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that no provider of an Internet service shall be treated as the publisher of information provided by another. That is, the provider is not liable for what others have said, and courts have interpreted that section as immunizing providers even when they “have knowledge that [a statement] is defamatory or invasive of privacy.”

Saul Levmore (Nussbaum’s co-editor) suggests that immunity might be conditioned on the willingness of a provider either to take down a message after notice of its falsity or defamatory character has been given, or “to enforce non-anonymity” and thus open the way for an injured party to seek redress. The law, writes Anupam Chander, “should allow the individual to find information to lead her to the person who committed the privacy invasion.” As it is now, with an expansive reading of Section 230, “the law no longer puts any obstacles in the way of the Sociopath” who, traveling on the Internet, can go anywhere and spray venom that lasts forever. (Leiter)

But, as Geoffrey Stone reminds us in his essay, putting obstacles in the way of anyone’s speech (even the speech of sociopaths or perverts or subversives ) has been frowned on by the Supreme Court ever since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which holds that, at least as regards public officials, debate should be uninhibited and wide open even if it is “vehement” and “caustic” and contains both “factual error” and “defamatory content.” In subsequent decisions, the category of “public officials” was widened first to include “public persons” and then to include persons who wander into the ambit of a public event, in short, almost everyone.

The idea (which goes back at least as far as Milton’s Areopagitica) is that false and defamatory speech openly published will provoke counter speech and lead to correction; the truth will ultimately prevail. (Justice Louis Brandeis: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”) But however likely that happy outcome may be in the world of books and newspapers (and I have always thought it extremely unlikely), the special conditions and powers of the Internet conspire against it and the more likely outcome is the one prophesied by Alexander Pope in the final lines of “The Dunciad”: “Light dies before thy uncreating word . . . / And universal darkness buries all.”

What is remarkable about this volume is that the legal academics who make the arguments I have rehearsed are by and large strong free-speech advocates. Yet faced with the problems posed by the Internet, they start talking about “low value” speech (a concept strong first-amendment doctrine rejects) and saying things like “autonomy resides not in free choice per se but in choosing wisely” and “society needs not an absence of ‘chill,’ but an optimal level.”(In short, let’s figure out which forms of speech we should discourage.)

Perhaps the most amazing statement is made by Daniel J. Solove when he declares that “the law is hampered because it overprotects free speech.” The conventional first-amendment wisdom is that free speech cannot be overprotected, but that wisdom is put on trial by these thinkers. Some years ago, I wrote a book titled “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing, Too.” This book could be titled “There is Such a Thing as the Free Unregulated Internet and It’s a Bad Thing, Too.”

GOP owned & paid for by Big Business! Proof: Issa to business: Tell me what to fix

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants the oil industry, drug manufacturers and other trade groups and companies to tell him which Obama administration regulations to target this year.

The incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - in letters sent to more than 150 trade associations, companies and think tanks last month - requested a list of existing and proposed regulations that would harm job growth.

"It was a broad net that we cast," Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella said.

Bardella did not have a complete list of groups that received an inquiry from Issa or their responses.

But a partial list obtained by POLITICO includes ones sent Dec. 13 to Duke Energy, the Association of American Railroads, FMC Corp., Toyota and Bayer. Others receiving inquiries from Issa over the course of the month included the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) and entities representing health care and telecommunication providers.

The goal is to investigate the Obama administration's promise through the 2009 economic stimulus bill and other measures to create jobs, which "has gone unfilled, I guess is the nicest way to put it," Bardella said.

"Is there something that we can do to try to ease that [regulatory] burden and stimulate job creation?" he added. "Is there a pattern emerging? Is there a consistent practice or regulation that hurts jobs? Until you have all the facts, you really can't make a lot of determinations and judgments."

At the same time, Issa is getting his cue from and a voice to a chorus of largely disgruntled industry groups and companies that have collectively groaned about regulations in the pipeline and on the books.

"I believe for the last couple of years that we were honestly shut out of this debate at least on the House side," NPRA President Charles Drevna said. "Our policy positions haven't changed one iota. [But] is there a better chance of what I would consider a more fair hearing? Absolutely." Drevna received a letter from Issa late last month.

Issa has no qualms about giving Drevna and other administration critics a louder mouthpiece.

"As a trade organization with members that must comply with the regulatory state, I ask for your assistance in identifying existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in your members' industry," Issa wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to NAM. "Additionally, suggestions on reforming identified regulations and the rulemaking process would be appreciated."

The letter to NAM is a template for ones Issa sent other groups over the course of last month. In the NAM letter, Issa notes that federal agencies in fiscal year 2010 "promulgated 43 new regulations" ranging from new limits on "effluent" discharges from construction sites to rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. The "effluent" rule, Issa charged, will cost $810.8 million annually, resulting in the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs.

The list of regulatory grievances appears wide-ranging.

Rosario Palmieri, NAM’s vice president for regulatory policy, and Drevna both highlighted EPA greenhouse gas controls for major emitters that went into effect Sunday.

Palmieri said the group also highlighted in their response to Issa upcoming EPA decisions over whether to tighten limits on ground-level ozone and controlling hazardous air pollutants from incinerators and boilers.

Many Democrats and the environmental community certainly would push back on efforts to rein in EPA greenhouse and other controls simply in the name of preserving jobs. "The Clean Air Act is one of job creation, not job destruction, plain and simple," said Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund. These controls give companies "the lead time and certainty to invest and bring products to the market and actually create jobs."


NAM's "high-priority" regulatory list also includes OSHA consultation, noise and other policies, upcoming Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission controls regarding over-the-counter derivatives, Transportation Department limits on hours of service for truck drivers, and implementing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush.

"These are all high-priority regulations that can cost manufacturing jobs and will if implemented the wrong way or will as currently proposed or finalized," Palmieri said. "We're anxious for some oversight of these programs."

He said there is a growing voice from "members on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, recognizing that the cumulative burden of regulation is a real problem and if we want to create more jobs and improve this economy, we need to get a handle on it."

Democrats, though, see this as a way for Issa to turn a partisan corner and dig his heels into attacking the administration in the next Congress.

"He's going about it in a way that's not gathering a lot of attention," said one Democratic committee aide. "This is where they're starting to cross the line into the political. They're definitely setting up this committee to go after the administration."

One person knowledgeable about the matter tells POLITICO that Issa on Dec. 29 appears to have re-sent more than 75 letters to administration officials.

Bardella acknowledged that Issa re-sent a host of unanswered missives recently. "This is something we've been working on since the election," he said. "Before we start something new, we want to get answers to the questions that have been ignored."

This includes past letters to Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and White House Counsel Robert Bauer regarding reports by POLITICO and others about the use of official travel for political purposes. In his letter to Bauer, Issa notes he wrote last June to the heads of 21 federal departments and agencies "requesting documents and information about the extent to which White House political personnel have been involved with planning, directing, or coordinating the travel of department and agency officials to participate in official or political public events."

Issa said that former Oversight and Investigations Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) did a similar probe of Bush administration officials in the prior Congress.

A letter from Issa and top Judiciary Committee Republican Lamar Smith initially sent Dec. 16, 2009, to Attorney General Eric Holder forwards information Republicans on those two panels received into the activities of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and reiterating the Republicans' request for a Justice Department criminal investigation.

Another letter initially sent in October 2009 to Holder asks about "new media efforts [that] may be covertly attempting to shape public opinion," citing reports that Justice officials were anonymously posting online comments attacking critics of the administration.

One initially sent Oct. 15, 2009, asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to clarify a letter he sent Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. Issa's request followed a story by POLITICO at the time indicating that then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel coordinated an "assault" on Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and other administration critics by having Salazar and three other cabinet secretaries write letters to Brewer asking if she "wished to forfeit taxpayer money directed to Arizona by the stimulus" bill, Issa wrote.

Democrats are labeling the inquiries as partisan in tone, which Bardella dismisses. "Asking a question shouldn't be labeled partisan or political," he said. "The most constructive way forward would be to resubmit the questions, which we fully expect to be answered, and then, hopefully, move on."

© 2011 Capitol News POLITICO

To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans say Tax the Rich More

A survey from CBS News' "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine shows that most Americans, given a set limited choices for balancing the national budget, would prefer to see taxes increased for the wealthy.

As many as 61 percent said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich over three other options: cutting defense spending, cutting Medicare or cutting Social Security. Another 20 percent chose cutting defense spending as the best option. Just 4 percent said they would cut Medicare, and just 3 percent said they would cut Social Security.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those with higher incomes were less inclined to say increasing taxes on the wealthy would be the best option. Nevertheless, as many as 46 percent of Americans making more than $100,000 said it was the best option -- 26 points higher than the next-preferred option, cutting defense spending.

The poll comes as Congress considers a future vote to raise the national debt ceiling. Several Republicans are hoping to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to pass spending cuts. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling unless Social Security is reformed. He cited some means of reforming the program that have gained bipartisan support such as raising the retirement age -- a move that would cut off Social Security for a segment of the population.

In a CBS News poll released in early December, as many as 73 percent of Americans called the budget deficit a very serious problem. More than half of Americans said at the time that Congress should let the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
However, President Obama cut a deal with Republicans to extend the tax cuts for everyone. The deal, which included other spending measures, won strong bipartisan support, even though it increases the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

New health-care rules to take effect

The new year will bring important changes to U.S. health-insurance rules, as new provisions related to last year's massive health-care overhaul take effect.

The new rules are designed to help those caught in Medicare's "doughnut hole," offer seniors more preventative care, and limit how much of their customers' money health-insurance companies can keep for overhead and profit.

They all go into effect on Saturday.

These provisions were not affected by a Dec. 13 federal court ruling in Virginia that declared another piece of the new health-care law - the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance - unconstitutional.

The judge allowed implementation of the overhaul to continue until a higher court rules on the issue.

The new rules include:

*A provision that limits what health insurers can do with the money their customers send in as premiums.

The rule requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of this money on the customers themselves. The companies must either spend this money to pay insurance claims or use it for activities that improve customers' health.

For policies that are sold to large groups instead of small companies and individuals, the number is even higher: 85 percent. The remaining 15 or 20 percent of the money can be used for a company's salaries, marketing and overhead - or kept as profit.

Previously, there was no federal restrictions on insurance companies' spending. The federal government says some insurers kept 30 or even 50 percent.

Insurance companies say this could cause them to cut back on the services they offer, or even pull out of states where administrative costs are higher.

State officials also worry that the companies might cut the fees they pay to insurance brokers. That, they fear, would eliminate key middlemen who help individuals navigate a complicated insurance system.

*A provision that provides prescription-drug discounts for seniors in Medicare's "doughnut hole."

The doughnut hole is a controversial gap in the Medicare prescription-drug benefit passed in 2003. In 2010, for instance, Medicare paid for part of the cost of drugs - until the total cost of the drugs hit $2,830.

After that, seniors were responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their drugs, until they had spent $3,610 of their own money. That was the other side of the doughnut hole, and federal insurance kicked in again.

This provision will give Medicare recipients stuck in the doughnut hole a 50 percent discount on the price of brand-name prescription drugs. Health-care activists are worried, however, that drugmakers will jack up their prices. In that case, customers would receive 50 percent off that higher number - which might not be much less than what they were paying before.

*A rule giving seniors free screenings for cancer and other diseases.

Nearly all Medicare beneficiaries will be able to receive for free all "preventive services" screenings given an A or B rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That could include mammograms, colorectal cancer screening, bone mass measurement and nutritional counseling. Medicare will also provide one free "wellness visit" per year for patients who want a checkup.

*The creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation.

This new agency is aimed at slowing down the rapid rise of health-care costs. It is supposed to foster innovation in both caring for patients and processing their payments and claims.

David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post

Obama's 2010: By the Numbers

WASHINGTON - No numbers in the year just ending are more consequential for President Obama than the results of the midterm elections. His party lost seats in the Senate and its majority in the House. The full impact of those numbers will only start to be felt when the 112th Congress convenes next Wednesday.

But other numbers from 2010 add shading and perspective to other aspects of the second year of the Obama presidency:

Speeches, statements and remarks: 491

-Since taking office: 883

News conferences and press availabilities: 27

-Formal, solo White House Press Conferences: 6

-Since taking office: 69 total, 11 WH.

Town hall meetings: 17

-Since taking office: 40

-Backyard chats: 7

Domestic trips: 65 spanning 104 days

-Since taking office: 111 spanning 176 days

States visited for the first time: 9

-Since taking office: 38

Vacation trips: 6 (all or part of 32 days)

-Since taking office: 10 spanning 58 days

Foreign trips: 6 trips to 8 countries spanning 22 days.

-Since taking office: 16 trips to 25 countries spanning 70 days.

Flights on Air Force One: 172

-Since taking office: 328

Flights on Marine One: 196

-Since taking office: 386

Unemployment Rates:

-January 8 2010: 10 percent.

-December 3, 2010: 9.8 percent.

National Debt in 2010: Up $1.56-trillion

-January 1, 2010: $12.311-trillion

-December 28, 2010: $13.871-trillion

Bills signed in 2010: 203.

-Since taking office: 329.

Cabinet meetings: 6

-Since taking office: 12

Visits to Camp David:

-In 2010: 4 visits, 8 days.

-Since taking office: 15 visits: 35 days.

Recreation:

-Golf: 29 rounds in 2010

-Since taking office: 57 rounds.

-Basketball: 20 basketball outings.

-Since taking office: 28

Interviews: 107 in 2010

-Since taking office: 254

Meetings with foreign leaders: In 2010, President Obama had face-to-face meetings with 61 foreign leaders, 30 for the first time.

Days of no appearances: 24

-Since taking office: 45

Presidential pardons: 9

-President Obama granted the first and only pardons of his presidency on Dec 3, 2010.

After 'progress,' Obama rating stays

President Obama has averaged a 46 percent approval rating since November.

Close The spate of legislative accomplishments in the lame-duck session celebrated by the White House appears to have had little effect on President Obama’s approval rating, according to Gallup’s latest tracking poll.

Between Dec. 26 and 28 – soon after Obama arrived in Hawaii for his Christmas vacation – Obama’s approval rating was 47 percent, two points lower than his rating from the previous week, Gallup reports.
He has averaged a 46 percent rating since November.

Before leaving for Hawaii, Obama called an end-of-the-year press conference to recall some of Congress’s final moves, like repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” ratifying the START pact with Russia and passing his tax-cut plan with Republicans.
He labeled the activity “a season of progress for the American people.”

Where were these jerkoffs when GWB REAGAN GHB where taking their vactions in Texas, California, Maine!?

Obama vacation costing more than $1.4M, paper claims

No one knows exactly how much President Obama's vacation in Hawaii is costing taxpayers -- neither the White House nor the Secret Service like to provide such information -- but one local news outlet is putting the tab at more than $1.4 million, at least.

The Hawaii Reporter did some calculating, though, as we've explained before, it's almost impossible to assess the true cost of these kinds of trips.

For example, most of the cost of the Reporter's estimate is the president's Air Force One ride to Hawaii on the night of Dec. 22; Air Force One is under constant maintenance, and could well be used even if the president wasn't on vacation. (The paper also points out that Mrs. Obama and the Obama daughters flew out early to the islands.)

Secret Service costs are included, but they would be guarding the president anyway, though their housing has to be paid for when they are on the road. The same applies to the president's staff.

President Obama gets a Shave Ice in Hawaii.CAPTIONBy Pool, Getty ImagesWe should also point out, as the Reporter does, that Obama is paying his own house rental.

And there are also a host of unknown costs, and one basic truth: Being president is expensive, especially when they are on the road.

Here's part of the paper's breakdown:

With estimates secured from a host of professionals, city officials and law enforcement, Hawaii Reporter estimates costs to taxpayers will at least include:

Mrs. Obama's early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)
Obama's round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)
Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800
Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) -- excluding meals and other room costs
Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)
Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)
TOTAL COST: $1,474,200

UNKNOWN COSTS:
Rental of office building in Kailua on canal
Security upgrades and additional phone lines
Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel (Secret Service imports most of the cars used here to escort the president)
Surveillance before the president arrives
Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President

US Teen Birth Rate Still Far Higher Than W. Europe

ATLANTA (AP) — The rate of teen births in the U.S. is at its lowest level in almost 70 years. Yet, the sobering context is that the teen pregnancy rate is far lower in many other countries.

The most convincing explanation is that contraceptive use is much higher among teens in most Western European countries.

Last week, U.S. health officials released new government figures for 2009 showing 39 births per 1,000 girls, ages 15 through 19 — the lowest rate since records have been kept on this issue.

That's close to the teen birth rate for Romania, Turkey and Bulgaria in 2007, the latest numbers available from the World Bank, which collects a variety of data gauging international development.

The teen birth rate for Western Europe and a few other countries is dramatically lower. In the United Kingdom it's 24 per 1,000 girls. In traditionally Catholic Ireland, it's 16 and in Italy it's 5. France's rate is 7 per 1,000. Canada's rate is under 13, Sweden's is under 8, Japan's is about 5, and in the Netherlands it's close to 4.

The disparity has existed for decades. Several experts say the reason mostly has to do with more realistic approaches to birth control.

Birth control is less expensive and easier for teens to get in many other developed countries than in the United States. And teachers, parents and physicians tend to be more accepting of teenage sexuality and more likely to encourage use of contraception, said Sarah Brown, chief executive of the Washington, D.C.-based National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Teen births are a concern: The hazards of teen pregnancy include higher dropout rates, as well as possible health and other problems for young mothers and their kids.

There are few comprehensive studies of why teen birth rates vary from country to country. And experts say there's probably not one overarching explanation. For example, the reason for a low teen birth rate may be different in the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, than in Japan, which traditionally has a more conservative culture when it comes to sex and sex education.

Some countries may have predominant social values that discourage teenage sex, but abstinence-only education programs — a hot topic in the United States — are generally not considered a major reason other countries have lower teen birth rates.

"Not at all," said Cecilia Ekeus, a researcher in international public health at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute.

"We're working the opposite way," she added, describing Sweden's comprehensive sex education and easy teen access to condoms and birth control pills.

Experts say teen births can be lower when:

—Teens have less sex.

—Teens use contraception correctly and often.

—A larger proportion of pregnant teens has an abortion.

But do those explain the international differences?

As to the first, there is no evidence teens in Europe are having less sex than American teens, so that's not considered a likely explanation.

If anything, "there may be more sex there than here" among teenagers, said Carl Haub, a demographer with the Washington, D.C.-based Population Reference Bureau.

As to the third, most international comparisons of abortion rates are considered dated and somewhat unreliable because of incomplete information. One smaller study found the United States had a higher abortion rate than Canada and some European countries, and not all experts think it's a major reason for different birth rates.

But some researchers say abortion is a significant factor in some nations. In Sweden, for example, abortions are legal without parental consent — and quite common. Indeed, one in two women who get pregnant in their lifetime has an abortion, said Ekeus.

There's much more consensus that birth control is the key to a lower teen birth rate.

Studies indicate that about 80 percent of sexually active teen girls in Sweden and about 88 percent in England and France use contraception. In the United States, it's about 61 percent.

And in some European countries they are more likely to use longer-lasting forms of birth control, such as the IUD, experts said.

Other explanations? Perhaps race and ethnicity, said Dr. Monique Chireau, a Duke University assistant professor who researches adolescent pregnancy.

She noted the birth rate for white U.S. teens — about 26 per 1,000 — is much lower then the black and Hispanic rates (59 and 70, respectively).

"There are distinctions between different ethnicities," and the U.S. whites are more comparable to countries with more homogenous white populations, she said.

Factors like proportions of teens that are married in each country, proportions living in poverty, and other demographics also should be considered, she and others said.

Cultural expectations have a lot to do with it, too, said several sources pointing to societies where teen childbearing is not considered an attractive option.

In Sweden, teen motherhood is so far outside the norm that young moms often are assumed to have other problems like a psychiatric diagnosis or drug addiction, Ekeus said.

Swedish teen mothers "differ very much from the general population," she said.

Man Strips at Va. Airport Checkpoint in Protest

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Police say a man stripped to his underwear at a Virginia airport checkpoint in a protest against security procedures.

Airport police said the man took off his shirt and pants at Richmond International Airport on Thursday. He had scrawled across his chest a reference to the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Police identified the man as 21-year-old Aaron B. Tobey of Chalottesville, Va. He told police he was a student at the University of Cincinnati.

Tobey was interviewed by airport police and federal authorities, issued a citation for disorderly conduct and released. He is scheduled for arraignment on Jan. 10.

Julie may have a death wish going after Arabs who don't know meaning of 'due process!'

Julian Assange Threatens To Name Arab Leaders With CIA Ties

Julian Assange has set the ultimate dead man's switch: Arrest or kill him and thousands of files will be automatically released, including documents that out CIA-backed Arabs.

The Wikileaks leader had previously claimed to have files on auto-release. That he had info on CIA ties was first-mentioned in an interview yesterday with Al-Jazeera.

This is exactly the type of information that lead people to condemn Wikileaks as dangerous. If released it would certainly endanger many American operatives and cause a massive political disruption.