Andrew Giuliani, a 22-year-old rising senior, contends he had dreams of becoming a professional golfer and was dismissed without cause from the golf team in February without a chance to defend himself. He said in a statement Thursday that he sued "to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else at Duke."

Giuliani was dismissed because coach O.D. Vincent III wanted to cut the team from 13 players to about half its size, the lawsuit said. He claims a breach of contract because he was recruited by Duke's previous coaching staff.

"This has been heartbreaking," Giuliani's mother, Donna Hanover, said in a statement. "We tried for many months to convince members of the Duke administration that this situation should be corrected and we are sad that we have now had to turn to the court."

The coach said Giuliani "flipped his putter a few feet to his golf bag" and drove fast while leaving a golf course parking lot, according to the lawsuit. Giuliani also was accused of playing a team football game harder than the other players liked and of being disrespectful to a trainer.

The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is the latest twist in a decade-long legal battle over the Child Online Protection Act. The fight has already reached the Supreme Court and could be headed back there.

The law, which has not taken effect, would bar Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet. The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional in the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU challenged the 1998 law on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists, health educators and the publisher Salon Media Group.

ACLU attorney Chris Hansen argued that Congress has been trying to restrict speech on the Internet far more than it can restrict speech in books and magazines. But, he said, "the rules should be the same."

Indeed, the Child Online Protection Act would effectively force all Web sites to provide only family-friendly content because it is not feasible to lock children out of sites that are lawful for adults, said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law.

One of her first stops after being released from prison was the Jefferson County Voter Registrar's Office. But she was told she was a convicted felon and couldn't vote.

"I couldn't believe it," Pruitt said. "They continued to give me numbers to call. It was very much demeaning."

Now she has gone to court to try to get her right to vote restored.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Montgomery Circuit Court on behalf of Pruitt and two other ex-felons seeking restoration of their voting rights. The lawsuit claims Alabama law is unclear on the subject, citing a bill passed by the Legislature in 2003 that says felons can vote unless convicted on "crimes of moral turpitude," but never defines those crimes.

The Legislature adopted a list of 15 crimes, including murder, treason and some sex crimes, that would exempt a person from having their voting rights restored. But the lawsuit says it's up to the state's voter registrars and the attorney general to decide in other cases if a person's rights can be restored.

"The Marriage Protection Act" otherwise known as Proposition 8 goes to the California voters in November 2008. But what exactly is this proposition? It would amend the California Constitution to include the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional thus allowing gay and lesbians to marry as early as June 17, 2008. Many did and many more are to follow, reveling in the fact that the gay and lesbian individuals are now equals in the state for marriage. But that was short lived for as soon as that ruling was past those who oppose, filed for a measure to be placed on the ballot to amend the constitution.

It is believed that those who wish to have the constitution amended convoluted the truth when they obtain the requested signatures to have the proposition placed on the November ballot, thus ensuring that it would stay. The California Supreme Court denied a motion to have the proposition stricken from the ballot as they would not hear same, thus California gets to vote on same.

Churches of various denominations as well as non-denomination support the change to the California constitution stating that they are doing same to "protect one of our nation's most sacred institutions." This is the second attempt to change the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage and supporters are confident that it will pass based on a random polling. For all the rhetoric that is being said, individuals hide behind their religious texts to support their cause who no real basis for having the constitution amended. Those who oppose spend massive amounts of money in trying to force their will on others. This is not right; there are far more important issues to address such as the war in Iraq, the economy and those who really do need help.

The unanimous decision means that, barring further legal action, voters will consider a constitutional amendment in November that would again limit marriage in California to a union between a man and a woman. The court did not give a reason for deciding not to accept the case.

"This was a frivolous lawsuit. It was a desperate attempt to try to keep the voter initiative off the ballot in November," said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the measure's sponsors.

If it passes, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would overrule the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state as of June 16.

Equality California and other gay rights groups issued a statement Wednesday saying they were confident that the initiative, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states, will fail.

"We're disappointed, but this ruling does not affect the campaign against Prop. 8 in any way," the groups said. "We have been focused on continuing the election and moving forward."

Equality California filed a petition last month arguing that the signature petitions used to put the proposal on the ballot, printed up before the court struck down the state's marriage laws, were misleading because they stated that the initiative would have no legal or financial effect.

The gay rights group also claimed that Proposition 8 would so drastically alter the promise of equality written into the California Constitution that it was improper to put it before voters as an amendment.

Dick Heller showed up early Thursday at the police department, but he's still upset with the city even after winning his case.

He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court's ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

They allow handguns to be kept in the home if they're used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days. Police say the permitting process could take weeks or months. 6