Adult Photography Record-Keeping and Inspection Law Threatens Free Speech

By Andrew Crocker

EFF and the ACLU of Pennsylvania have joined forces to file an amicus brief in a long-running challenge to two criminal statutes that unconstitutionally limit the free expression of millions of adults who use the Internet and other electronic forms of communication. These statutes bring the threat of criminal sanctions for private, lawful speech and also violate important privacy rights, including both the First and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

At issue in the case, Free Speech Coalition v. Attorney General, are provisions of federal law that require anyone who produces a visual depiction of sexually explicit expression to maintain extensive records--including copies of drivers' licenses, the dates and times images were taken, and all URLs where images were posted--and often force public disclosure of a creator's home address. Even more troubling, the regulations allow law enforcement warrantless entry into homes or offices in order to inspect the records that are supposed to be kept. In this case, the plaintiffs are a range of producers of adult material. But while these statutes regulate the commercial pornography industry, they also potentially apply to a staggering number of Americans who create and share images of themselves over social networks, online dating services, personal erotic websites, and text messaging.

The case has followed a complex procedural trajectory. EFF previously filed an amicus brief when it was first heard before a Pennsylvania federal district court in 2010. Subsequently, the case was dismissed, appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanded back to the district court. In September 2013, the district court sided with the plaintiffs on one issue--the statutes' authorization of warrantless entry into homes or offices--which could not be squared with the Fourth Amendment. However, the court found that the statutes did not violate the First Amendment, and the plaintiffs have appealed once again to the Third Circuit.

EFF hopes the Third Circuit will take this opportunity to protect individuals' First Amendment rights to produce and share private, lawful speech.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'
- California City Achieves New Lows In Anti-Bullying Laws, Makes Public Entirely Subject To Other People's 'Feelings'
- State Dept Launches 'Free the Press' Campaign Same Day DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Jail Reporter
- Los Angeles Law Enforcement Looking To Crowdsource Surveillance
- TSA Ejects Mute, Disabled Woman From Flight Because She Couldn't Speak
- NSA Exploited Heartbleed for Own Use
- An NSA 'Reform Bill' of the Intelligence Community, Written by the Intelligence Community, and for the Intelligence Community
- Britain to Jail Parents Who Don't Love Their Children Enough

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"

Chris | InformationLiberation

Being assaulted by a police officer is grounds for being charged with battery on a police officer, at least according to this Boston police "Sargent" caught on video intimidating and threatening a man for videotaping.

From Carlos Miller:

A hefty plainclothes sergeant from the Boston Police Department figured the best way to not be exposed on camera was to physically confront a videographer, shoving him with his belly and pushing him back while threatening to arrest him for felony assault on an officer.

This, of course, is another common practice used by police, ranking right up there with ordering a non-resistant suspect to ?stop resisting? while physically pummeling him.

?You touch me again and I will lock you up for assault and battery on a police officer,? the burly sergeant told the burping videographer.

The sergeant and another plainclothes cop who identified himself as Fabiano told Jay Kelly that he needed to move out of the area because there was a police investigation.

Meanwhile, a shirtless jogger trots right through their investigation while numerous cars also drive through in opposite directions in two lanes.

The level of criminality one has to be comfortable with to boldly threaten to falsely charge someone with a crime while simultaneously committing a crime is almost incomprehensible, yet the cop clearly thinks nothing of it, knowing full well he is being videotaped.

Does anyone out there actually think this man was "served" by these police officers?

Would anyone out there voluntarily pay these men to protect them?

This is the problem with the compulsory monopoly that is the state, there is absolutely no accountability because there is no one to "watch the watchers." When the man asks to speak to the cop's supervisor, he says, "I am the supervisor." While the bald faced liar's word is completely worthless, we'll will know what his "supervisor" and his supervisor's supervisor thinks based on whether or not the cop is fired and charged with intimidation.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now
- Terrorist Group Seeks Military Tank In New Hampshire

Sargent: "What, you can't see my badge?"
he couldn't even see his badge. he barely found it under his tax-fed belly.

"Would anyone out there voluntarily pay these men to protect them?" -Chris

if takes only money, then, i'd prefer to pay police to sit on their asses at home.

videographer did a pretty good job.

the fat prick fabiano in the purple shirt has no right to invade your personal space, i teach this on day one of self-defense - don't even let a person get within your personal space if they're being aggressive because it allows you to be in too much danger, BARK orders at them to back the fuck off you will defend while placing hand on your weapon or if unarmed getting ready to strike or takedown.

fat prick in the purple - if me you'd have been SHOT, you aggressed on a peaceful person WHILE WEARING A GUN - NOT HAPPENING WITH ME PRICK, you'd be dead. ENFORCE THE ACTUAL LAW, YOU'RE NOT JUDGE DREDD.

@18443, actually, "actual law" would be physics and thermodynamics. you're a Christian, so, in your world, "actual law" is only 2 commandments + eight ways to create a serene life.

"statutory law," is not "actual." I can write-up a bunch of rules, trick people into believing in those rules, though, only your belief in them, can make them "actual."

for what reason, would the officer in the purple shirt, have to shoot you? you seem a bit off balance, like you're living the scenario in the video, on a daily basis... i don't like cops - would never be one, but, i wouldn't run about threatening an undercover. what if you threatened someone, who you thought was an undercover cop, but, they turned out not to be? "actual law" just might adhere, and, not to your benefit

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Canadian Woman Threatens To Film Out Of Control Cop, Cop Beats Her In "Sexual Assault" & Charges Her For Resisting

Chris | InformationLiberation

A Canadian dental surgeon says an out of control cop beat her on the side of the road, slammed her face into the pavement after she was handcuffed, and committed a "sexual assault" by repeatedly hitting her breasts while she was restrained -- all because he was infuriated she threatened to record him with her cell phone.

GlobalNews.ca reports:

EDMONTON ? A Camrose woman says she was left battered and bruised on Saturday following a traffic stop she will never forget.

Dr. Simona Tibu was on her way to see patients in Edmonton that morning, when she was pulled over by an Alberta sheriff for speeding.

Tibu claims the sheriff violently hit her window. When she opened it, he asked her to hand over her drivers license and insurance information.

?I advised him I would do so if he stopped hitting my car.?

Tibu also told him that if he didn?t, she would record him on her phone.

?At that moment, he became very violent. He took his hands through my window, hit my right hand, where I have bruises on it, smashed my cell phone out of my hands, and told me? ?Get out of your car now.??

She listened to the sheriff, who handcuffed her. With her arms behind her back, Tibu says the sheriff then began hitting her breasts.

Fearing for her life, she began to scream, hoping someone would hear her and help.

Tibu says that only made the sheriff even more aggressive. She claims he pressed his knees into hers until they were bruised, and pushed his pelvis into her back.

?I felt a hit in my head then he smashed my head on the pavement on the road until I was full of blood. Then he told me, ?Now I?m going to walk all over you.??

She remembers seeing a man show up, and eventually an RCMP officer and ambulance arrived at the scene.

Tibu was taken to hospital. She suffered bruises all over her body, including her breasts.

After speaking with an RCMP officer, she was shocked to learn she was being charged with resisting arrest, but the sheriff involved in the alleged incident wasn?t facing any charges.

?I am going to make justice happen,? she says. ?No individual should be handcuffed and be beaten by the police. No women should be handcuffed by the police and be sexually assaulted.?

According to this post on West Coast Native News Dr. Tibu filed for and received a restraining order against one "Sherrif Behills."

It appears the police have still yet to respond.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

OMG, I can't believe this happened not far from where I live. How are we to respect the police if they do not respect us. Is there some kind of petition we can sign to have this sheriff lose his job. Alberta should never have decided to get sheriffs. And now that Canada may be allowing US cops to work on our streets???? How many more men and women will get beat up? Theses pigs are out of control. she's so beautiful! now she'll have a scar on her beautiful face you fucking faggot! From now on, if your wife or children are stopped by the cops tell them to call you and keep their windows closed until you arrive and gather up friends and family and provide an ARMED escort home. if a first cop who stops you is overly aggressive you should say back off while i call a legitimate cop, i don't know you, i don't trust you, you are violating your own laws you piece of shit, do not attack me or i will defend myself.

obviously the first cop will get furious you resist his tyranny, and will attack,

that's when you shoot the flying fuck out of him, don't stop firing until he stops moving.

afraid of jailtime? afraid of death? then don't tell me you're a Christian, God hates liars.

atheists, agnostics, etc., go ahead and bend over, your years on earth are all you had anyway.

kill, evil, now.

This reminds me of an old headline from several years ago: More beat cops for Edmonton. Now we know why they are called beat cops, ha ha. You do not tell cops you will comply with them 'on condition X'. No, it doesn't work that way.

Is it possible that this officer used excessive force? Yes. Do I believe it? I don't know, maybe if this woman wasn't being defensive and essentially baiting the cop from the get-go I would be more apt to believe her, but right now it sounds like she was being unnecessarily non-compliant, the officer pulled her out, she resisted, and she was forcefully arrested. You don't play fucking mind games with officers - how is he to know she was grabbing a phone and not a gun? Being a woman doesn't mean you get soft baby treatment when being defiant. If you resist arrest, you get your ass shoved to the ground and cuffed.

If the rest of her story *is* true, that's one thing, but I have a feeling there is a lot of exaggeration and compensatory finger pointing going on here.

to anon 24215 - you can actually look at those pictures, and know that it is a female and a male cop involved, and say what you said?

all i can say is good luck when you meet God, you're in for a rude awakening.

as for "you can't do this to cop", again you're sinning against God by placing a human - ANY human - before God. you don't have to believe in God, i couldn't care less about you, but you've been warned. good luck with that.

@ 24215
if you were a cop and you just handcuffed a woman, hence she's laying on the ground because your small dick dictated you to put her there and you keep beating the poor woman do you think you just earn a medal? no my friend you just became the lowest scumbag on earth. in the police business there's no place for ego, because you're armed and in cases like this the opponent is defenceless and there's no place for rage like this in the police force or anywhere else for that matter.
it's true, neither of us knows what happened exactly but unfortunately that's why it's called "police brutality" and it happens like it or not.
i really hope that if this was such a case that piece of shit get's jail time. at least that's justice

learn more about police brutality: www.policebrutality.info

Absolute disgrace. That us tax payers are paying for such stupid egotistical law enforcement such as him . Wow , a big Harry ass galoot like him saying he was assaulted by a tiny woman like her absolutely appalling . And then to hand cuff her and then beat her like he did . That so sick and you wonder why people in society are loseing respect towards law inforcement , it's because there's stupid psychologist doing the screenings and approving these morons . So last but not least I'd love to meet this arsehole that beat that lady , I'd give him a taste of his own medicine . He should be put in jail for what he did . And then the wolves can take care of him and jail . You insecure control FREEK . Lol. And ya wonder why cops like him are getting there lives taken , what a joke , who in the hell wants to respect an inforcer like him ? If I ever had a chance to meet him I'd honestly pound his face in

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Cali. officer threatens illegal car search: 'Doesn't mean I can use what I find but I can do it.'

LOS ANGELES, CA -- After stopping a car "because we have a lot of problems with fraud rental cars here," a female officer threatened to illegally pull a man out of his car and illegally search it, when the citizen asked a simple question: "I being detained or I'm free to go?"

"I'm asking you a question but you can be pulled you out of the car and I can search it if you really want," says the officer.

"Um, how is that?" asks the citizen.

"Any way I want. Doesn't mean I can use what I find, but I can do it. So you wanna do that? You wanna play that game? You little hardass?"

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

Isn't swearing in public 'assault' ??
Or is that only if a pleeb swears at a pig ??? Should have returned the favor, and addressed her other than "officer". "You want to know what I want? I want you to fuck away from my car and go jump in the lake, fucking bitch". You'd see how quickly the bravado would come off.

This site not long ago featured the hillarios video of the guy swearing at the cops in police department when they made slightest attempt to prevent him from filming. Must-watch for everyone.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

NSA Spying Threatens Law-Abiding Americans

By Randall Holcombe

I was talking with an older German citizen about the NSA?s data collection program that has recently been the subject of much debate. He worked for the East German government during the Cold War and viewed the NSA?s activities as similar to the Stasi?s under communist rule, but potentially more threatening.

The argument often given for the NSA?s activities is to stop terrorist activities before they occur. Rather than waiting for someone to break the law, our government hopes to stop them before they act. President Obama has told us that many potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted thanks to the NSA?s analysis of their huge database containing all our phone calls, emails, internet searches, and so forth.

The Stasi ? the East German secret police ? undertook significant data collection themselves, but in the pre-computer era were necessarily less effective and less comprehensive than the NSA. My German acquaintance told me that in East Germany they viewed a good Stasi agent as someone who could identify traitors before even the traitors themselves realized they would act against the government. Traitors had certain characteristics in common, and by analyzing individuals, the Stasi was able to spot individuals with those characteristics that could indicate they would act against the state.

The NSA does the same thing, but with much more data. I have heard people say that if you don?t have anything to hide, you shouldn?t be concerned about all the information the government is collecting about you. But that?s not necessarily true when the government is collecting information in an attempt to identify potential law breakers before they actually break the law. Your innocent activities might have some of the characteristics that place you with others who the government views as threats. Then it comes to view you as a threat, even though you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Is this excessive paranoia? I don?t think so. Unless you believe the government can identify future terrorists without error, innocent people are sure to find themselves under suspicion. Government must cast a wide net to identify future terrorists. You may recall former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on a terrorist watch list because of information about someone with a similar name. Do you think this could happen to a U.S. Senator but not to you?

Once under suspicion, you could have trouble boarding aircraft, like Senator Kennedy, you could have trouble getting credit, and as someone under surveillance you could expect to be followed, harassed for minor traffic infractions, have your income taxes audited, and more. You become a suspect.

So, the NSA surveillance program gives people reason to be careful not to engage in activities that might rouse suspicion, even if they are completely innocent. The problem is, what activities the NSA views as suspicious are secret, so people can?t really avoid them. Are your internet searches completely benign? Are you making sure not to put NSA keywords in your emails? Are you emailing or phoning suspicious people? Maybe you should use those programs that anonymize searches and emails. But, I?d guess those would be one of the first indicators the NSA would look at to ferret out potential terrorists.

Over time, expect the definition of a terrorist to grow to eventually encompass anyone who would work against the government, much as the definition of organized crime has grown well beyond the Mafia the definition originally target

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Manning Speaks: "I am a Good Person"
- Judge Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Feds Who Arrested Former Marine For His Controversial Facebook Posts
- Owner of Snowden's Email Service on Why He Closed Lavabit Rather Than Comply With Gov't
- "Parallel Construction": Government Term for Lying About Its Investigations
- Former NSA Boss Calls Snowden's Supporters Internet Shut-ins; Equates Transparency Activists With Al-Qaeda
- DEA Conceals Reliance on Surveillance Conducted by Intelligence Agencies
- Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy
- Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Senate Anti-Leaks Bill Threatens the Rights of the Press and the Public

BY JENNIFER LYNCH AND TREVOR TIMM

The US Senate is currently debating a dangerous bill that, if passed, would have broad consequences for press freedom and the public's right to know. EFF asks senators to stand up for government transparency and the First Amendment and vote it down.

The bill's provisions, buried in the annual Intelligence Authorization Act, are intended to stop leaks of classified information to reporters--a premise worrying in itself--but it is written so sloppily it will also severely impair government transparency and prevent the media from reporting on national security issues.

The problems with this bill are extensive and severe. As the New York Times pointed out in an unusually forceful editorial last Friday, it has been "drafted in secret without public hearings" and bars most government employees from giving press background briefings, even if the information is unclassified--vital for media organizations when reporting on complex issues. Another provision prohibits officials from writing op-eds or appearing on television, again, even if the information is unclassified--a clear prohibition on protected speech.

Classification expert Steven Aftergood documented several specific problems with the bill's broad definitions, most notably that the bill doesn't differentiate between properly and improperly classified information. Even the Freedom of Information Act, which carries a broad exception for classified information. insists it must be "properly classified."

This is especially troubling given that the government's secrecy system has ballooned to absurd proportions, to the point where virtually every government action in the national security or foreign policy realm has been stamped classified, many times improperly. Information is regularly classified to hide embarrassing details, government waste, corruption, and even serious constitutional violations. The former head of the U.S. classification process, J. William Leonard, recently called the system "dysfunctional" because it "clearly lacks the ability to differentiate between trivial information and that which can truly damage our nation's well-being." The bill's definition is virtually an invitation for government officials to further use secrecy to hide their conduct.

And if classification were used to hide such wrongdoing, "there is no exception carved out for whistle-blowers or other news media contacts that advance the public's awareness," as the New York Times reported. At the same time, Congress, its staff, and other high level officials are exempt from many of the bill's provisions.

The Obama administration has already been far too aggressive in prosecuting whistleblowers--its charged more leakers than all other administrations combined--and the latest, wide ranging FBI investigation into new leaks is "casting a distinct chill over press coverage of national security issues as agencies decline routine interview requests and refuse to provide background briefings" as the New York Times reported on its front page last Thursday. The new anti-leaks bill has the potential to permanently alter the way news media can interact with government officials. ??As the New York Times editorial board said in its criticism Friday, this won't just chill the press, but potentially "undermine democracy by denying Americans access to information essential to national debate on critical issues like the extent of government spying powers and the use of torture."

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this bill is the fact that it has been proposed at all. As Steven Aftergood notes, "there is something incongruous, if not outrageous, about the whole effort by Congress to induce stricter secrecy in the executive branch, which already has every institutional incentive to restrict public disclosure of intelligence information." Aftergood reminds us that, in the past, leaks led to investigations into the programs exposed and to "substantive" Congressional oversight. In stark contrast, the response to leaks in the years since September 11, 2001--by both Congress and the Executive--has been to prosecue whisteblowers--and even reporters--and to ensure even more information is kept secret from the American public.

Take, for example, the national debate on the use of classified drone strikes in overseas military operations.? As the New Yorker's Steve Coll wrote, the new book by Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman on President Obama's use of classified drone strikes discusses "the first instance in American history of a sitting President speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial." Similarly, when the New York Times reported on U.S. cyberattacks against Iran--another target of recent leak investigations--the Times said the decision to engage in offensive cyberattacks was so consequential and unprecedented, that it is comparable to "the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s."?

These are just two instances of decisions by the President which -- whether you agree with them or not-- should be debated and scrutinized in both the halls of Congress and the public sphere. Yet because they are hidden behind giant walls of secrecy, there is no oversight or accountability, and the public has no say in decision as to whether the country should be engaging in them at all.

Late Friday, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein said the committee would "reconsider" some of the proposals after receiving a firestorm of criticism last week. She should go farther and strike them entirely--they have no place in a democracy that values government transparency and prides itself on press freedom and justice under the law.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Leaked: Stratfor Emails Reveal Secret, Widespread 'TrapWire' Surveillance System
- FBI: Constitution Stands In Way of Government Thwarting "Extremist"? Groups
- FBI Monitored Dotcom Raid Via Live Video Link, Secret Govt Group Involved
- Google Starts Punishing "Pirate" Sites In Search Results
- Court: Feds Can Spy On Americans Without Warrants With No Legal Repurcussions
- Demonoid Busted As A Gift To The United States Government
- FBI's Facial Recognition is Coming to a State Near You
- Did You Know That Professional Writing Is Dying And Only Taxing The Public To Pay Writers Can Save It

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Who Would Jesus Sue? Tim Tebow Threatens Bogus Lawsuit Against Maker of 'MY Jesus' T-Shirt

Chris | InformationLiberation

Intellectual property laws frequently make people do stupid things. Case in point, Tim Tebow apparently threatened a lawsuit against the seller of a "MY Jesus" T-shirt because they claim the site is using his likeness. That the site specifically says they've got nothing to do with Tim Tebow nor the NY Jetts is apparently of no consequence to his idiot lawyers, they're just hoping their threats and intimidation get the T-Shirt maker to submit to their will -- as Jesus would have.

Fortunately the T-shirt maker, CubbyTees, is not submitting to Tim Tebow and his lawyer's thuggery.

Via TMZ:

TMZ obtained the cease and desist letter Tebow's attorneys sent to cubbytees.com last month -- in which they claim "The Merchandise makes it appear as if Mr. Tebow actually endorses Cubby Tees and its products."

Interestingly, the tee shirts in question do not use Tebow's image or name -- but instead spell out "MY Jesus" using the colors and font of his new team ... the NY Jets. In fact, the website clearly states, "This fun design is not officially endorsed by New York's backup quarterback or the Son of God, but plays off the themes of Tebow's faith and his new team."

Still, Tebow's attorneys are demanding the site stop "any use of Mr. Tebow's name and/or likeness" -- and according to Cubby Tees, Tebow already successfully petitioned eBay to remove the tees.

The shirt makers tell TMZ they aren't backing down, and actually sent a response to team Tebow ... saying the design "shares nothing with Mr. Tebow except for promotion of a common Lord and Savior." The shirts are still for sale.

It's amazing how bad laws can turn otherwise seemingly friendly people into piranhas. I'm sure Mr. Tebow thinks he was somehow wronged by this T-shirt maker using his "likeness," in reality all that happened was someone printed a T-shirt promoting him at no cost to himself.

Nonetheless, thinking in line with the idiocy of IP laws, he thinks in order to "right" this "wrong," he must threaten to haul the person into court and use the state to shake the person down for everything they've got.

All these wrongheaded IP laws should be repealed, from likeness to slander to reputation rights, etc. They're all nonsense, and they're serving to turn even Jesus lovers like Mr. Tebow into devils.

Latest Commentary
- Even Worse Than Democracy
- A Century of Cosmetics: Is the End Near?
- The War on Drugs: Cui Bono?
- Sending Your Kids to Public School Is Child Abuse
- Five Pillars of Economic Freedom
- Seize Chuck Schumer's Ill-Gotten Assets & Banish Him From The Country
- Brazil and the Spirit of Liberty
- Heat and Light in the TSA Line

I have great respect for Mr. Tebow, but this lawsuit is just plain silly (and I have a feeling that it's his lawyers, not Tebow himself, who are behind this). This is clearly a Christian parody shirt, which is perfectly legal and the likes of which can be found in virtually any Christian bookstore. CORRECTION: What I meant to say in the first sentence was, "...but this threat of a lawsuit is just plain silly".

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Caught On Tape: Officer Threatens to Make Up Evidence After Arrest of Innocent Men

By Tracy Vedder

SEATTLE -- A Seattle police officer has been caught on tape talking about "making up" evidence while two wrongly arrested men sit in jail. It's the latest shocker uncovered by a KOMO 4 Problem Solver investigation into the Seattle Police Department's vanishing dashcam videos.

Josh Lawson and Christopher Franklin filed a claim against the city Monday for excessive force and wrongful arrest.

The two were arrested at gunpoint on November 16, 2010 and said the incident changed their lives forever.

"I thought I was gonna die," Lawson said about that night.

Franklin said it was "the most terrifying thing I've ever experienced."

Both men said they suffered facial bruises and swelling after one was kicked and the other man-handled into the pavement while being arrested. But then listen to what an officer says on an audio recording after he takes the two to holding cells: "Well, you're going to jail for robbery that's all."

You then hear Franklin ask, "for robbery?" And the officer responds, "Yeah, I'm gonna make stuff up."

Franklin believed him.

"He showed me that he has the power to do whatever he wanted that night," he said. "He has a badge, and all we can do is nothing."

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Killer on the Loose: Grandpa 'Armed' With Baby Is SWAT Veteran's Seventh Kill
- Seattle Police Vindictively Take Dash-Cam Video Of Man's Traffic Infraction & Show It To Man's Boss
- How an Attractive, Undercover Cop Posed as a Student -- Then Entrapped a Smitten Teen to "Sell" Her Marijuana
- 25 Signs That The Nazification Of America Is Almost Complete
- 'Crystal clear' evidence that MTA worker didn?t try to run down cop
- Caught On Tape: Cop Sucker Punches Suspect In Back Of Head, Then Charges Him With "Assaulting A Police Officer"
- Video Shows Sheriff Attacking A Deaf-Mute Throat Cancer Survivor Who Accidentally Entered Courthouse Through Wrong Door
- Police: An Army By Any Other Name

The officer should have been fired, no just reprimanded. They were exonerated, meaning they did nothing wrong. The Sargent also needs to be fired. They are CLEARLY NOT PUBLIC SERVANTS any longer!!!! Fear fear fear. Obey obey obey.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here