Clipmarks | First amendment Clips

Web Site Says Justice Department Demanded It Secretly Turn Over Readers' Information

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:41:54 GMT

clipped by: lakotahope
clipper's remarks: What the hell is going on with Justice??? What country do they think they control and do they think the citizens are going to put up with this crap???? These idiots from Justice must have come from Communist China.

Clip Source: www.foxnews.com

An independent news Web site says the Department of Justice ordered it to release detailed information on its readers -- then directed the site to keep quiet about the demand.

"Not only was this request a plain violation of federal privacy law -- which would require the government to at least get a court order based on a factual showing to get that kind of data; not only did it violate Department of Justice regulations that require subpoenas to media organizations to be vetted by the attorney general; not only did it threaten the First Amendment right to read anonymously of all of Indymedia's users, it also violated Ms. Clair's First Amendment rights by ordering her not to disclose the subpoena's existence," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston told FoxNews.com.

Instead, Bankston said, he received a fax from Pryor the next day stating that the subpoena had been withdrawn.

Tags: ipaddress, demand private visits, department of justice

Biggest Counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history: Feds Seize N.Y. skyscraper, 4 mosques

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:25:24 GMT

clipped by: Antara
clipper's remarks: Religious backlash possible
It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Clip Source: atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

Breaking news: Feds move to seize N.Y. skyscraper, 4 mosques

Prosecutors say building owners helping to illegally funnel money to Iran MSNBC hat tip pon

NEW YORK - Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

Seizing the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and seeking a nuclear bomb.

Tags: islam, terrorism, iran, usa, religion, freedom

Constitution As A Suicide Pact

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:55:41 GMT

clipped by: ColoradoRight
clipper's remarks: Political correctness kills 13 and wounds another 30.

Clip Source: minx.cc

Perhaps the Constitution is a suicide pact after all.

Investigators would have been "crucified" over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News.

"Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified," the investigator said, adding that the communications were shared with the "appropriate chains."

Of course they are right. "Better dead than to offend" after all is practically the motto of the terrorist apologizes on the left and within the government.

Rest assured however there are still some restrictions in place. I mean, imagine if Nadal were Smith and he were email buddies with the leader of the Aryan Nation or the KKK. How fast would our mythical Maj. (or Pvt.) Smith last in the Army?

Their first amendment rights wouldn't even be consider (and rightly so).

Tags: political correctness, rights, constitution, suicide

Tragedy at Ft. Hood

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:26:41 GMT

clipped by: jatfla
clipper's remarks: An American with a brain AND common sense along with a resume and experience. He dares to speak the truth. Excellent article.

FTA: "There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional."

Clip Source: www.redcounty.com

“Tragedy at Ft Hood”

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas.

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”.

Pages, Costs, and Agencies Added To The Obama/Pelosi Health Care Behemoth

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:49:13 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: “Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense " we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.

“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”

And listen…this is what our government believes will be the cost. But look at programs our government has run historically and you find decades of added costs and overruns that our forced onto the taxpayer.

Insanity

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/11/07/how-to-go-from-1200-to-2000-pages/

Clip Source: www.floppingaces.net

Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog has updated his map of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare behemoth and what it creates. Namely 111 agencies, regulators, committees, boards and offices

Meanwhile Senator Gregg reacts to the new CBO estimate:

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

Tags: $3 trillion price tag, power grab!, socialism, $628 billion cuts critical medicare and medicaid

House passes health care reform bill!

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:41:01 GMT

clipped by: aklimento
clipper's remarks: This is our first victory of historical significance. We did it! It will be much less injustice and suffering in the society, where taking advantage off weak and defenseless is not viewing as breaking the right of every human for decent existence.

Clip Source: www.nydailynews.com

House passes health care reform bill; Vote garners only one Republican

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Obama successfully lead an effort to pass health care reform in the House of Representatives.

WASHINGTON - The biggest overhaul of America's medical system since Medicare took a big step forward Saturday night, narrowly passing the House with a controversial amendment to restrict coverage of abortion.

The bill passed 220-215, with 39 Democrats voting no and one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), voting in favor of the landmark bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to allow the abortion amendment after a deal with conservative Democrats collapsed and they threatened to sink the reform bill.

The move enraged liberals, but most agreed to stay on board and President Obama traveled to the House to make a personal appeal and seal the deal.

The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls

A $61 billion GOP substitute bill failed

Tags: congress, house, senate, health care reform, human rights

Sedition Act of 1918

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:49:59 GMT

clipped by: katsteevns
clipper's remarks: U.S. citizens, including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union, were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protesters were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war became illegal under this law.

Clip Source: en.wikipedia.org

Sedition Act of 1918

President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

A Privileged Press?

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:25:38 GMT

clipped by: WhatAreWeDoing

Clip Source: www.americanthinker.com

A Privileged Press?

November 04, 2009

The New York Times reported on Saturday that the "Obama administration, leading Senate Democrats and a coalition of news organizations have reached tentative agreement on legislation providing greater protections against the fining or imprisonment of reporters who refuse to identify confidential sources." The "Free Flow of Information Act" would allow federal courts the power to stifle subpoenas for information from reporters or privileged "covered" persons if the judge determines the public interest is better served by protecting their source information.

By codifying privileged legal status for a press that already acts as if it is above the law, we open ourselves to a wide range of abuses, none of which will serve the citizen or the nation. The first amendment does not bestow special status for the press beyond the public's collective freedom of speech.

First Amendment doesn’t shield us from private infringements

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:30:35 GMT

clipped by: wiccantexan

Clip Source: www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Every American is protected by the guarantees of the First Amendment, but protections for religious liberty and free expression apply only when government actions are involved — and therein is the rub for some of our fellow citizens.

In both instances, the concept that as citizens we are free to express ourselves as we see fit runs smack into the legal reality that private employers, associations, Internet companies and such aren’t restrained by First Amendment protections regarding religion, speech, press, assembly or petition.

Public officials, public schools and public agencies all must present such strong proof of significant public benefit or safety concerns before our First Amendment protections can legally be overridden.

But for now, although the First Amendment protects your right to speak in the marketplace of ideas from government interference, it doesn’t automatically shelter what you want to say at work or on the Web.

Tags: first amendment, free speech

Troubling Signals on Free Speech

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:24:12 GMT

clipped by: kareval
clipper's remarks: The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.

To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.

Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes.
more at source

Clip Source: www.nationaljournal.com

Troubling Signals On Free Speech

In his eagerness to please international opinion, President Obama has taken a small but significant step toward censoring free speech.

by Stuart Taylor Jr.

Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009

It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.

But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I'm not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:26:00 GMT

clipped by: Normn8or
clipper's remarks: Outstanding...!!!!! rest of article here.... http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun

Clip Source: www.resistnet.com

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and
his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New

England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require
them to pay a $500 fee to the state.
Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a

fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun

Maslack read the

"militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear
mandate to do so.
He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by

the government as well as criminals

Tags: 2nd amendment, guns, gun rights, rights, liberties, freedom, defense

Fair and Balanced

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:05:27 GMT

clipped by: mklosinski

Clip Source: townhall.com

But Obama's war against the network is about much more than Fox News. It is about his and his fellow liberals' intolerance for political dissent and their war on political criticism from any corner. Unless you shower Obama with adulation 24/7, you are ripe for targeting. They will abuse the power and prestige of the office of the presidency to "call you out."

Unless you refrain from asking even marginally difficult questions of the administration, you are not only boycotted from access to interviews but demonized to boot. This way, Obama scores a twofer: He avoids almost all scrutiny from the mainstream media, scrutiny that even the Founders said is necessary to good government, and he discredits his political critics in the process.

What should alarm all First Amendment proponents is that so many liberals don't really champion the free and open expression of ideas; they only support the advancement of liberal policies,

Tags: obama, news media

A Public Or Private Act

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:34:32 GMT

clipped by: debbyski

Clip Source: www.latimes.com

The Supreme Court voted last week to block release of the names of more than 138,000 people in Washington state who signed petitions seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law in a ballot scheduled for Nov. 3.

Is signing a petition and delivering it to the government a public act, like voting on a bill in the legislature or contributing money to a campaign? Or is it more like casting a secret ballot at the polling place?

The case in Washington was the latest in which gay rights advocates had sought to use public records to expose supporters of anti-gay measures.

"We've put close to a million names online," said Aaron Toleos, co-founder of Boston-based KnowThyNeighbor.org. He said the group had posted the names on petitions seeking rollbacks in gay rights laws in Massachusetts, Florida, Arkansas and Oregon.

First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA questioned whether petition signers have a constitutional right to anonymity.

Six years ago, Fox News successfully argued in court that it had a constitutional right to report lies

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:02:56 GMT

clipped by: sincitykitty

Clip Source: blogs.e-rockford.com

Six years ago, Fox News successfully argued in court that it had a constitutional right to report lies

The mainstream media have almost entirely ignored a court case in which lawyers for Fox News argued six years ago that their client has a right under the First Amendment to peddle falsehoods in the guise of news.

On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:40:06 GMT

clipped by: jay8h

Clip Source: cnsnews.com

Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com yesterday that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion.

Under Stupak’s plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House “rule” that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.