My respect for the ACLU of Southern California (the Los Angeles branch) is reaffirmed. But once again I am disappointed in the San Diego ACLU. Who is calling the shots in the San Diego ACLU regarding school issues? Certainly not people who are interested in equal education or civil rights for ordinary students and employees.
A lawsuit was brought against the state of California by the Public Council and the ACLU of Southern California regarding fake classes for poor kids.
“Settlement in suit over Oakland schools’ ‘sham’ classes
Jill Tucker
SFGate
November 5, 2015
Students in Oakland and two other California school districts will no longer have to languish in bogus courses or miss weeks of class because of scheduling fiascoes, under a settlement reached in a lawsuit targeting the loss of learning time in some of the state’s lowest-performing schools.
The class-action lawsuit said that students at Castlemont and Fremont high schools in Oakland, along with four schools in Los Angeles and Compton (Los Angeles County), received much less learning time than other, more affluent children across the state. Civil rights attorneys filed the case against the state Department of Education and Board of Education, saying the state and not individual school districts are responsible for ensuring all students have the opportunity to get an education.
Other court cases have challenged unequal access to quality teachers or classroom materials, but this was the first case in the country to address the time students spend learning, plaintiffs’ attorneys said.
The suit cited cases in which youths had been assigned to “sham” courses that had them perform tasks in the school office or pick up trash.
Schools cited in the lawsuit had students retake courses they had already passed or sent them home early because there was no room in classes, attorneys said. Some schools employed rotating substitute teachers rather than fill full-time vacancies, the suit said.
The state Board of Education voted to approve the settlement Thursday. The agreement requires state education officials to track students assigned to classes without educational content and provide assistance in class scheduling if necessary. The settlement also requires the state to pay $400,000 in attorneys’ fees.
“No child’s time in school is disposable,” said Kathryn Eidmann, staff attorney with Public Counsel, a public interest law firm that filed the suit with the American Civil Liberties Union in Alameda County Superior Court. “Many students in California’s most disadvantaged schools were put in fake classes, made to run errands, sit in the back of classrooms or go home early.”
Showing posts with label American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Friday, March 01, 2013
Defamation case dropped by football player who tweeted photo of unconsious girl who was raped; he didn't like the criticism that followed
"That there was much local coverage at all seems like a small miracle, based on what one source familiar with the Steubenville media told us. The source knew of one instance in which a higher-up ordered a local reporter not to touch the story, apparently out of deference to Steubenville's beloved football program."
How An Alleged Rape Involving Ohio High School Football Players Unfolded On Twitter, Instagram, And YouTube
Tom Ley
deadspin.com
Dec 17, 2012
Yesterday's New York Times has a thorough and thoroughly unsettling story about two members of Ohio's Steubenville High School football team who stand accused of raping a drunk and unresponsive 16-year-old girl during a night of partying in August. Maybe most unsettling of all: The girl may never have learned of the night's events had they not been so diligently tweeted, YouTubed, and Instagrammed.
The boys—Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, both 16 years old—were arrested Aug. 22, 11 days after the alleged incidents. They are currently awaiting trial, which is scheduled for Feb. 13. The girl is not a Steubenville High School student; according to the Times, she attended "a smaller, religion-based school."
...That there was much local coverage at all seems like a small miracle, based on what one source familiar with the Steubenville media told us. The source knew of one instance in which a higher-up ordered a local reporter not to touch the story, apparently out of deference to Steubenville's beloved football program.
Mays, a quarterback, and Richmond, a wide receiver, weren't allowed to play this year. But the school's head football coach, Reno Saccoccia—who testified as a character witness on behalf of Mays and Richmond—decided not to discipline any of the other players who testified to witnessing the assault until there were only two games left in the season. When pressed on this by the Times, the coach became combative:
Saccoccia, pronounced SOCK-otch, told the principal and school superintendent that the players who posted online photographs and comments about the girl the night of the parties said they did not think they had done anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players.
[...]
Approached in November to be interviewed about the case, Saccoccia said he did not "do the Internet," so he had not seen the comments and photographs posted online from that night. When asked again about the players involved and why he chose not to discipline them, he became agitated.
"You made me mad now," he said, throwing in several expletives as he walked from the high school to his car.
Nearly nose to nose with a reporter, he growled: "You're going to get yours. And if you don't get yours, somebody close to you will."
Saltsman v. Goddard
January 17th, 2013
DMLP Staff
In August 2012, two football players from Steubenville High School were arrested and charged with the rape of a 16-year-old girl. Classmates circulated Twitter posts, videos, and photographs indicating that the players may have carried the girl, unconscious, from party to party and sexually assaulted her while others watched. A police investigation uncovered pictures of the girl, naked and apparently unconscious, from partygoers' phones.
Cody Saltsman, a football player who was not indicted, tweeted a picture of the girl looking unresponsive as two boys carry her by her wrists and ankles. He also tweeted comments about the girl, including the phrases "whore status," "sloppy," and "I have no sympathy for whores."
Alexandria Goddard, a blogger who writes under the pseudonym "Prinnie" at prinniefied.com, wrote a series of blog posts on the case. She posted screen shots of related Twitter posts and photos. She also suggested that a number of unindicted individuals had participated in the rape, including Cody Saltsman. In response to a comment on her blog reading "students by day ... gang rape participants by night," Goddard wrote, "Cody Saltsman [is] playing tonight. Reno, SHAME ON YOU." She also wrote that his fellow football players should "roll on their pal Cody Manson" and "[p]erhaps when scumbag is finally arrested I will post a picture of him for his mother that says ‘How do you like your scumbag son now?' ... Tell Cody not to feel too bad, he is not the lone asshole in all this."
A number of commenters on the blog also posted about Saltsman, including statements that he was there when the rape was occurring, that he was the "mastermind" behind the crime, that he had previously stated he would "ruin that bitch," and that he had sent the victim's father the picture of her being carried by her wrists and ankles with text reading "look at your whore daughter now." Other commenters made comments including: "[g]et CS and his posy [sic] off the field and problem solved"; "Cody needs to suffr some consequences too!"; and, in response to the question "[w]hat is [the Saltsman's] business because I never want to spend money there," the statement "CS father owns Fort Steuben Plumbing/Maintenance."
On October 25, 2012, Saltsman and his parents, James and Johna Saltsman, filed a complaint against Goddard, fifteen anonymous commenters identified by screen names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (including those who made the above statements), and ten additional John Doe defendants. Saltsman sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and punitive damages. The complaint was amended on November 19, 2012 to add claims for false light and spoliation of evidence.
Saltsman's attorneys obtained the IP addresses for each anonymous commenter from HostGator, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the "prinnified" blog, which apparently turned over the IP addresses without providing notice to the commenters or to Goddard. On November 16, the plaintiffs moved for authorization to conduct discovery from each anonymous commenter's ISP in order to obtain the commenters' identities.
Goddard's counsel objected to Plaintiffs' motion for authorization to conduct discovery to obtain the identities of the anonymous defendants, asserting that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously barred such discovery.
In a supplemental memo supporting the motion for authority to conduct discovery, Saltsman disputed that the First Amendment protected the identities of the authors, urged the court to act quickly in order to prevent the ISPs from deleting relevant information, and argued that Goddard had no standing to object on behalf of the Does.
Acknowledging that there were no published Ohio decisions on point, Saltsman directed the court to the often-followed test laid out in Dendrite Int'l Inc. v. Doe No. 3. 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001). Under Dendrite, courts allow plaintiffs to conduct discovery on anonymous online posters' identities when plaintiffs (1) attempt to notify defendants that their identities are being sought and explain how to present a defense; (2) quote verbatim the allegedly actionable online speech; (3) allege all elements of the cause of action; (4) present evidence supporting the claim of violation; and (5) show that, on balance and in context, the plaintiff's right to identify the speaker in order to redress alleged wrongs outweighs the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Saltsman asserted that he met all of these elements, particularly focusing on the fifth element, the balancing of rights. Because the First Amendment does not protect false assertions of fact, he argued, the defendants had no right to anonymous speech in this context.
Goddard filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion on November 21, and a supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on November 26. Plaintiffs' responded with a second supplemental memorandum in support of their motion on November 28.
The Court filed an order on November 29, granting the plaintiffs' motion. The court authorized the relevant ISPs to release personally identifiable information associated with the IP addresses identified in the complaint. The court required that notice of the discovery be given to the anonymous commenters and that the commenters be given fourteen days after the notice to file motions to quash.
On December 14, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio stated in a press release that they had offered to represent a number of the "John Doe" defendants. ACLU Volunteer Attorney Scott Greenwood stated, "[w]e believe the real goal of this lawsuit is to discover the identity of anonymous online commenters so that they, and future commenters will be intimidated and discouraged from voicing their opinions. This is just an updated form of a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which is typically used to silence speech that is protected under the First Amendment."
Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Goddard and the anonymous commenters and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 27, 2012. With one exception (defendant Waguespack), the identities of the commenters were not disclosed. No money was exchanged, and Goddard did not retract any statements or agree to stop covering the case. Goddard did write on her blog that she "never had any evidence of [Cody Saltsman's] direct involvement" in the events of the night and agreed to give him space on her blog to present his side of the story.
The "prinnified" blog also ran the following statement from Cody Saltsman: "I deeply regret my actions on the night of August 11, 2012. While I wasn't at the home where the alleged assault took place, there is no doubt that I was wrong to post that picture from an earlier party and tweet those awful comments. ... At no time did my family mean to stop anyone from expressing themselves online - we only wanted to correct what we believed were misstatements that appeared on Ms. Goddard's blog. "
How An Alleged Rape Involving Ohio High School Football Players Unfolded On Twitter, Instagram, And YouTube
Tom Ley
deadspin.com
Dec 17, 2012
Yesterday's New York Times has a thorough and thoroughly unsettling story about two members of Ohio's Steubenville High School football team who stand accused of raping a drunk and unresponsive 16-year-old girl during a night of partying in August. Maybe most unsettling of all: The girl may never have learned of the night's events had they not been so diligently tweeted, YouTubed, and Instagrammed.
The boys—Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, both 16 years old—were arrested Aug. 22, 11 days after the alleged incidents. They are currently awaiting trial, which is scheduled for Feb. 13. The girl is not a Steubenville High School student; according to the Times, she attended "a smaller, religion-based school."
...That there was much local coverage at all seems like a small miracle, based on what one source familiar with the Steubenville media told us. The source knew of one instance in which a higher-up ordered a local reporter not to touch the story, apparently out of deference to Steubenville's beloved football program.
Mays, a quarterback, and Richmond, a wide receiver, weren't allowed to play this year. But the school's head football coach, Reno Saccoccia—who testified as a character witness on behalf of Mays and Richmond—decided not to discipline any of the other players who testified to witnessing the assault until there were only two games left in the season. When pressed on this by the Times, the coach became combative:
Saccoccia, pronounced SOCK-otch, told the principal and school superintendent that the players who posted online photographs and comments about the girl the night of the parties said they did not think they had done anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players.
[...]
Approached in November to be interviewed about the case, Saccoccia said he did not "do the Internet," so he had not seen the comments and photographs posted online from that night. When asked again about the players involved and why he chose not to discipline them, he became agitated.
"You made me mad now," he said, throwing in several expletives as he walked from the high school to his car.
Nearly nose to nose with a reporter, he growled: "You're going to get yours. And if you don't get yours, somebody close to you will."
Saltsman v. Goddard
January 17th, 2013
DMLP Staff
In August 2012, two football players from Steubenville High School were arrested and charged with the rape of a 16-year-old girl. Classmates circulated Twitter posts, videos, and photographs indicating that the players may have carried the girl, unconscious, from party to party and sexually assaulted her while others watched. A police investigation uncovered pictures of the girl, naked and apparently unconscious, from partygoers' phones.
Cody Saltsman, a football player who was not indicted, tweeted a picture of the girl looking unresponsive as two boys carry her by her wrists and ankles. He also tweeted comments about the girl, including the phrases "whore status," "sloppy," and "I have no sympathy for whores."
Alexandria Goddard, a blogger who writes under the pseudonym "Prinnie" at prinniefied.com, wrote a series of blog posts on the case. She posted screen shots of related Twitter posts and photos. She also suggested that a number of unindicted individuals had participated in the rape, including Cody Saltsman. In response to a comment on her blog reading "students by day ... gang rape participants by night," Goddard wrote, "Cody Saltsman [is] playing tonight. Reno, SHAME ON YOU." She also wrote that his fellow football players should "roll on their pal Cody Manson" and "[p]erhaps when scumbag is finally arrested I will post a picture of him for his mother that says ‘How do you like your scumbag son now?' ... Tell Cody not to feel too bad, he is not the lone asshole in all this."
A number of commenters on the blog also posted about Saltsman, including statements that he was there when the rape was occurring, that he was the "mastermind" behind the crime, that he had previously stated he would "ruin that bitch," and that he had sent the victim's father the picture of her being carried by her wrists and ankles with text reading "look at your whore daughter now." Other commenters made comments including: "[g]et CS and his posy [sic] off the field and problem solved"; "Cody needs to suffr some consequences too!"; and, in response to the question "[w]hat is [the Saltsman's] business because I never want to spend money there," the statement "CS father owns Fort Steuben Plumbing/Maintenance."
On October 25, 2012, Saltsman and his parents, James and Johna Saltsman, filed a complaint against Goddard, fifteen anonymous commenters identified by screen names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (including those who made the above statements), and ten additional John Doe defendants. Saltsman sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and punitive damages. The complaint was amended on November 19, 2012 to add claims for false light and spoliation of evidence.
Saltsman's attorneys obtained the IP addresses for each anonymous commenter from HostGator, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the "prinnified" blog, which apparently turned over the IP addresses without providing notice to the commenters or to Goddard. On November 16, the plaintiffs moved for authorization to conduct discovery from each anonymous commenter's ISP in order to obtain the commenters' identities.
Goddard's counsel objected to Plaintiffs' motion for authorization to conduct discovery to obtain the identities of the anonymous defendants, asserting that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously barred such discovery.
In a supplemental memo supporting the motion for authority to conduct discovery, Saltsman disputed that the First Amendment protected the identities of the authors, urged the court to act quickly in order to prevent the ISPs from deleting relevant information, and argued that Goddard had no standing to object on behalf of the Does.
Acknowledging that there were no published Ohio decisions on point, Saltsman directed the court to the often-followed test laid out in Dendrite Int'l Inc. v. Doe No. 3. 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001). Under Dendrite, courts allow plaintiffs to conduct discovery on anonymous online posters' identities when plaintiffs (1) attempt to notify defendants that their identities are being sought and explain how to present a defense; (2) quote verbatim the allegedly actionable online speech; (3) allege all elements of the cause of action; (4) present evidence supporting the claim of violation; and (5) show that, on balance and in context, the plaintiff's right to identify the speaker in order to redress alleged wrongs outweighs the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Saltsman asserted that he met all of these elements, particularly focusing on the fifth element, the balancing of rights. Because the First Amendment does not protect false assertions of fact, he argued, the defendants had no right to anonymous speech in this context.
Goddard filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion on November 21, and a supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on November 26. Plaintiffs' responded with a second supplemental memorandum in support of their motion on November 28.
The Court filed an order on November 29, granting the plaintiffs' motion. The court authorized the relevant ISPs to release personally identifiable information associated with the IP addresses identified in the complaint. The court required that notice of the discovery be given to the anonymous commenters and that the commenters be given fourteen days after the notice to file motions to quash.
On December 14, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio stated in a press release that they had offered to represent a number of the "John Doe" defendants. ACLU Volunteer Attorney Scott Greenwood stated, "[w]e believe the real goal of this lawsuit is to discover the identity of anonymous online commenters so that they, and future commenters will be intimidated and discouraged from voicing their opinions. This is just an updated form of a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which is typically used to silence speech that is protected under the First Amendment."
Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Goddard and the anonymous commenters and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 27, 2012. With one exception (defendant Waguespack), the identities of the commenters were not disclosed. No money was exchanged, and Goddard did not retract any statements or agree to stop covering the case. Goddard did write on her blog that she "never had any evidence of [Cody Saltsman's] direct involvement" in the events of the night and agreed to give him space on her blog to present his side of the story.
The "prinnified" blog also ran the following statement from Cody Saltsman: "I deeply regret my actions on the night of August 11, 2012. While I wasn't at the home where the alleged assault took place, there is no doubt that I was wrong to post that picture from an earlier party and tweet those awful comments. ... At no time did my family mean to stop anyone from expressing themselves online - we only wanted to correct what we believed were misstatements that appeared on Ms. Goddard's blog. "
Friday, January 25, 2013
A bouquet for the Los Angeles ACLU for caring about education in San Diego; a brick for the San Diego ACLU
The Los Angeles ACLU has been working hard for years for education reform. The San Diego ACLU has actively tried to suppress information about what's wrong with schools.
The San Diego ACLU seems to have some conservative donors who demand that educational issues NOT BE PURSUED in San Diego. I am disgusted with the board of the San Diego ACLU, as well as lawyers David Loy and Kevin Keenan. It seems that their principles are for sale. They all seem to serve as rubber stamps for unknown, powerful paymasters.
Here's some recent evidence of the vigilance of the Los Angeles ACLU.
State Error Led ACLU to Jump on Grossmont Union HS District
“False” report on English learners “reflects a data reporting problem,” says the school district.
By Ken Stone
La Mesa Patch
January 24, 2013
The state Department of Education fed the ACLU bad data, suggests the Grossmont Union High School District in a response to accusations by that and another activist group.
According to a statement released Thursday [attached as PDF], an error in state data led the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center to accuse the district of not giving English-language learners the help they need.
The groups this week sent a letter to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and the state Board of Education, threatening to sue unless English-language classes were provided to non-native speakers in the Grossmont and other districts in compliance with state and federal law.
“Each additional day an EL child goes without language instructional services is another day that child is effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education,” said Jessica Price, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.
“The children who are neglected today, in schools with no EL services, become the long-term English learners of tomorrow, sometimes struggling their entire school careers without anyone stepping in to make sure they have the tools to learn,” she said.
But the Grossmont district rebutted that idea, saying district data made it look as if 1,300 English-learning students were not getting the help they needed.
“This is false and reflects a data reporting problem,” according to a district statement. “GUHSD will work with the California Department of Education to better align our data to CDE’s classifications.
“The Grossmont Union High School District serves more than 3,300 English Learner students. The 1,300 English Learner students in question are in fact proficient enough to be enrolled in mainstream English classes and receive extra support.”
The four-paragraph statement concluded: “The Grossmont Union High School District has been committed to enhancing and expanding services to our ever-growing English Learner population.”
The ACLU is being contacted for its response.
—City News Service contributed to this report.
The San Diego ACLU seems to have some conservative donors who demand that educational issues NOT BE PURSUED in San Diego. I am disgusted with the board of the San Diego ACLU, as well as lawyers David Loy and Kevin Keenan. It seems that their principles are for sale. They all seem to serve as rubber stamps for unknown, powerful paymasters.
Here's some recent evidence of the vigilance of the Los Angeles ACLU.
State Error Led ACLU to Jump on Grossmont Union HS District
“False” report on English learners “reflects a data reporting problem,” says the school district.
By Ken Stone
La Mesa Patch
January 24, 2013
The state Department of Education fed the ACLU bad data, suggests the Grossmont Union High School District in a response to accusations by that and another activist group.
According to a statement released Thursday [attached as PDF], an error in state data led the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center to accuse the district of not giving English-language learners the help they need.
The groups this week sent a letter to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and the state Board of Education, threatening to sue unless English-language classes were provided to non-native speakers in the Grossmont and other districts in compliance with state and federal law.
“Each additional day an EL child goes without language instructional services is another day that child is effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education,” said Jessica Price, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.
“The children who are neglected today, in schools with no EL services, become the long-term English learners of tomorrow, sometimes struggling their entire school careers without anyone stepping in to make sure they have the tools to learn,” she said.
But the Grossmont district rebutted that idea, saying district data made it look as if 1,300 English-learning students were not getting the help they needed.
“This is false and reflects a data reporting problem,” according to a district statement. “GUHSD will work with the California Department of Education to better align our data to CDE’s classifications.
“The Grossmont Union High School District serves more than 3,300 English Learner students. The 1,300 English Learner students in question are in fact proficient enough to be enrolled in mainstream English classes and receive extra support.”
The four-paragraph statement concluded: “The Grossmont Union High School District has been committed to enhancing and expanding services to our ever-growing English Learner population.”
The ACLU is being contacted for its response.
—City News Service contributed to this report.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
The ACLU's Andrea Guerrero speaks in La Mesa
See ACLU lawsuit to stop Los Angeles Unified School District from laying off large percentages of staff at schools with inordinately large numbers of new teachers: Lawsuit: Layoffs hurt minority kids
See also: Judge to LAUSD: No Layoffs at Gompers, Liechty and Markam This Year
See all ACLU posts.
See all David Blair-Loy posts.
Last night ACLU speaker Andrea Guerrero told La Mesa Democrats, "We defend you whether you are of our political liking or not." The fact is that it's impossible for a large organization to function--and even harder for it to get funding--without some horsetrading. Of course the ACLU plays politics; it just does it in a more restrained manner than most organizations.
There have been times when the ACLU has defended people with whom it disagreed. An example of this was when Oliver North testified before Congress about shenanigans in the Reagan administration such as selling missiles to Iran to get secret money to quash the uprising in El Salvador. (Now there's an example of some heavy-duty horsetrading: selling missiles to Iran!?! I don't recall the ACLU ever sacrificing its principles to that extent.) The ACLU insisted that the government couldn't use anything Oliver North said before Congress in its criminal case against him. A huge firewall was instituted between prosecutors and the congressional hearings.
Ms. Guerrero indicated that the new Arizona law ordering local police to act as immigration agents is unconstitutional because only the federal government is authorized to deal with such matters. This is the reason that California's Proposition 187 was enjoined several years ago.
Andrea Guerrero is the Field & Policy Director of the ACLU in San Diego & Imperial Counties.
See also: Judge to LAUSD: No Layoffs at Gompers, Liechty and Markam This Year
See all ACLU posts.
See all David Blair-Loy posts.
Last night ACLU speaker Andrea Guerrero told La Mesa Democrats, "We defend you whether you are of our political liking or not." The fact is that it's impossible for a large organization to function--and even harder for it to get funding--without some horsetrading. Of course the ACLU plays politics; it just does it in a more restrained manner than most organizations.
There have been times when the ACLU has defended people with whom it disagreed. An example of this was when Oliver North testified before Congress about shenanigans in the Reagan administration such as selling missiles to Iran to get secret money to quash the uprising in El Salvador. (Now there's an example of some heavy-duty horsetrading: selling missiles to Iran!?! I don't recall the ACLU ever sacrificing its principles to that extent.) The ACLU insisted that the government couldn't use anything Oliver North said before Congress in its criminal case against him. A huge firewall was instituted between prosecutors and the congressional hearings.
Ms. Guerrero indicated that the new Arizona law ordering local police to act as immigration agents is unconstitutional because only the federal government is authorized to deal with such matters. This is the reason that California's Proposition 187 was enjoined several years ago.
Andrea Guerrero is the Field & Policy Director of the ACLU in San Diego & Imperial Counties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)