Labor Department backs off plan forcing reporters to use government-issued computers

The Labor Department has backed off a plan to force news agencies to use government-issued computers and other equipment to report on jobless reports and other key economic data, following a GOP-led House hearing this week, according to several published reports.

Agency officials have said they want reporters who analyze, then write about economic reports inside their so-called ?lock up? room to use U.S. computers, software and Internet lines so the government can further protect against such potential security breaches as hacking.

But the plan also resulted in cries about potential free-speech violations and the government now having computer access to news agencies.

?This proposal threatens the First Amendment,? Bloomberg News Executive Editor Dan Moss said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. ?The government would literally open the reporters? notebooks.?

Read More

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- US Continues To Try To Block Megaupload From Using Its Lawyers, Pretends It Has Jurisdiction Over The World
- Rand Paul proposes bill to prevent warrantless drone surveillance
- Agent Provocateur At Bilderberg 2012 Tried to Set Up Protesters With Fake Bomb Threat
- U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show
- US Government Still Insisting It Can't Be Sued Over Warrantless Wiretapping
- FBI Did Not Steal Megaupload Evidence Because It's "Digital"?
- Obama Administration Argues No Warrant Required for GPS Tracking of Citizens
- Caveman Blogger Fights for Free Speech and Internet Freedom

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

Justice Department Backs RIAA Against Pirating Student

by Ernesto

The Department of Justice has filed a brief siding with the RIAA in its civil case against the file-sharing student Joel Tenenbaum.The RIAA is protesting a demand from the student?s legal team, who want the court to reduce the massive $675,000 fine on due process grounds, to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song.

More than half a decade ago, the RIAA sued tens of thousands of alleged file-sharers. While the music group settled with the majority for a few thousand dollars each, student Joel Tenenbaum chose to put up a fight.

As of today, the case is still ongoing.

In 2009, a jury found Tenenbaum guilty of ?willful infringement? and awarded damages mounting to $675,000. A year later this amount was reduced by 90% when Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the penalty was excessive and unconstitutional. In 2011 this decision that was reversed after a new hearing at the Court of Appeals.

In yet another appeal, Tenenbaum?s legal team, headed by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, is asking the court to reduce the $22,500 fine per song to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song. This request is made on due process grounds.

As expected, the RIAA doesn?t agree with the request and presented its arguments to the court last Friday. But they were not alone ? on the same day the Department of Justice also filed a brief with the court, backing the RIAA?s vision on the case.

In a 26-page filing the Department of Justice makes the argument that previous cases, as cited by Tenenbaum?s legal team, do not apply in this instance. It concludes that the due process grounds are not relevant yet and that the damages therefore shouldn?t be reduced before the case continues.

The due process question should only be answered when the court decides that the jury?s award of $22,500 per song is not excessive, according to the Departement of Justice.

?The only circumstance in which the Court can reach Defendant?s due process challenge at this time is if the Court first determines the jury?s statutory damages award is not excessive under the common law remittitur standard. The United States, therefore, does not believe it is necessary at this juncture to address the merits of Defendant?s constitutional claim,? the DoJ writes.

Although this is not the first time the Justice Department has become involved in an RIAA civil case, it remains unclear why they chose to intervene this time. What we do know is that the authorities are very up-to-date with the legal proceedings, as five former RIAA lawyers are now employed by the Department of Justice.

Whether these connections between the Justice Department and the RIAA have increased the likelihood of the authorities getting involved is hard to say. However, it is clear that Tenenbaum and his legal team are up against some serious resistance, and that the US authorities don?t want the student to get off that easily..

To be continued, indefinitely.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Skype Chats Between Megaupload Employees Recorded with a Governmental Trojan?
- Feds Seize Sports Streaming Domains in New Super Bowl Crackdown
- FDA's New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug--and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!"
- Ireland: Website accused of defamation is closed by judge
- Estonia Next In Line To Receive US 'Encouragement' To Adopt Harsher Anti-Piracy Laws
- Pirate Bay Verdict Signals Threat Of Huge New Anti-Piracy Campaign
- DEA investigates Montana state legislator for medical marijuana views
- Pirate Bay Founders? Prison Sentences Final, Supreme Court Appeal Rejected

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

Cop harasses citizen for open carrying, backs off due to videotape

Chris | InformationLiberation

This is a great video. A costume clad taxfeeder approaches an ex-vet who was open carrying an unloaded gun in Oceanside, California, and starts to harass him for exercising his rights. The cop asks if he's a marine to which the man says yes, the cop says he is a vet too and he's OK with him open carrying, but he's 'just doing his job.'

The cop then demands the man's ID to which the man refuses (he said he wasn't carrying any, but earlier he said his name was "Jeremy"). The cop says that's fine, but he needs his full name, which Jeremy then refuses to give. The cop says he knows the video is going up on YouTube, and says "that's fine" to the man refusing his name, but he still tries several times to get "Jeremy" to give him his last name. The cop fails because Jeremy holds his ground and consistently refuses. It's pretty clear the cop didn't want to be a YouTube star, because he drops demanding the guy's last name and 'pals around with him' before finally leaving him alone.

It's rather nice to see a government gang member having some small sense they may be held accountable for their actions, cheers to "Jeremy" for posting the great video.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Campus police officers caught using security keys to steal food from cafe
- The New FBI Powers: Cointelpro on Steroids
- Lawsuit: Union tells cops to "lie" about beatings
- Police Demand Video Camera.. Owner says NO
- When cops are the reckless drivers and try to instigate high speed chases for TV
- "No Knock Raid" by Lindy - A song about the drug war's deadliest tactic
- Kids Lemonade Stand At U.S. Open Fined $500 And Shut Down By Montgomery County
- Video shows Julian Assange's life under never-ending house arrest

I don't see this as harrassment. The cop is doing his job. Without any sort of identification there is no validation that this guy really is a marine. ANYONE can say they are....especially those that are mentally unstable.

Bottom line....cop doing his job.

The headline for this video ?Cop harasses citizen for open carrying; backs off due to videotape" should be changed. We can only wish all cops were as good as this guy. The headline should be changed to "A Few Good Cops"... Cops like this should be praised, not condemned. Sorry, but I don't think cops should be praised for *not* killing random people. This cop's job is to harass innocent strangers. "Just doing his job" is predominantly "just harassing innocent people for non-crimes," as he did in this case.

Did he kill the man? No, he didn't. Did he tase the man? No, he didn't. Did he harass the man for his last name? Yes, he did. Did he treat him like a criminal for legally open carrying? Yes, he did. If the cop's job was to get his full name, he failed at doing his job because the guy didn't give it. The cop doesn't even know if his first name is Jeremy. If you think the cop's job was to ID the guy, he didn't do his job.

I'm not in the excuse making businesses and I'm not of the belief experiencing mild harassment from government goon-squads is "good enough."

The fact of the matter is the cop is multiple times more likely to kill someone than any random stranger open carrying. See: http://nevergetbusted.com/2010/articles/police-twice-as-likely-to-murder The cops are the ones who should be under extreme scrutiny, not random citizens.

I disagree with this headline. This officer Actually followed the law here. The Officer also clearly identified himself and gave his badge number. He also did not object to being recorded.

As long as the officer is protecting the community and not assaulting citizens, then he is doing his job.

More officers should use this as their model in protecting civil rights and protecting the community in which they serve.

Let's recognize when the police do something right and praise that behavior. Let's support officers who follow the law and actually do the job the citizens want them to do.

I am not a law enforcement officer. I hate criminals who wear badges and pretend to be peace officers. I do not work for the government (other than my indentured servitude of the tax farm). I hate tyranny and want this country returned back to the constitutional government it was originally intended to be.

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