Another Assault on the First Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking_liberties/entry5595506.shtml?tag=mncol;txt

    November 10, 2009 12:01 AM
    Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists

    In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

    The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if I'd categorize this as a first amendment violation. I'd love to see case law on that. The first amendment might not extend to privacy in a person subscribing to a periodical, or to a person visiting a website. It would, however, extend to guaranteeing that the website or periodical in question be permitted to print or publish its material.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Then, look it up.

    If you ignore the evidence like you do that of absentee voter fraud, it won't matter what the case law is.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295

    Sounds like a fishing expedition and an egregious violation of privacy rights to me.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can find no such case law. If you can, feel free to post it.
    Dude, you're awful puncy this morning. Take a chill pill.
     
    #5 Johnv, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2009
  6. twpaige

    twpaige
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    At first glance I was all worked up over this issue, ready to blame big-brother and the left for trying to trample on someone's rights, but after reading further it becomes totally unclear what they were trying to accomplish, so I see no real reason to get all worked up over it, other than to say the DoD did something slightly stupid.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no such thing as secret on line traffic. What makes this "news" is that a government agency asked first.

    Read a newspaper story that the NSA is building a new facility in Utah that will draw more power than the entire residential power draw of Salt Lake City. That's a lot of snooping power.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    The more we find out, the worse this totalitarian snooping is.

    The justice department has clear, longstanding rules dealing with subpoenas concerning the media. The U.S. attorney in this case broke most of them.

    He has since pulled back on his requests, but threatened Indy News if the existence of the subpoena was disclosed...


    The Obama Administration continues to show it's disregard for the first amendment. From their aborted attempt to set up a "snitch" program, to their attacks on FOX News, and now this, there is a clear pattern of a desire for fascist like control of the media.
     
    #8 carpro, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2009
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, this doesn't appear to be a First Amendment violation. The first amendment has not been extended to include privacy in a person subscribing to or visiting a website. It would, however, extend to guaranteeing that the website in question be permitted to print or publish its material.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Everyone has an opinion.

    Not everyone is unsure enough of themselves that they feel compelled to express it twice. Both times with nothing to back it up.
     
  11. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, this sounds like a fishing expedition.
    One can only guess that on that date, during the time so described in the supeona, either something was posted or comment made, or some kind of exchange of information which the government finds offensive or threatening.
    Whatever the reason, the fact is that this seems to target all visitors to that site without cause presented as to why their anominity should be invaded.

    This sort of reminds me of government and businesses setting up so many surveillance cameras. On t.v., in the news, the local police and the law 'n order shows, the authorities have sense enough to check the video records..... but when it comes to the federal government investigating things like nooses hung on doors, or racial epitaths and threats, the OK bombing, or the WTC towers and video of ground level..... it is like they don't exist.

    I'm sorry if this statement seems too militant........ But a government who expects the worst in its citizens and treats its citizens like suspects, and targets its profiling simply on strong expressions of oppinion which may oppose its policies or questions the motives of government...... may be deserving of the worst which may come to it from the consequences of its own paranoia.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds funny coming from you, since you're the one claiming it's an Amendment I violation with nothing to back it up.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Care to repeat your opinion again.

    Maybe 3 times would make you feel better about yourself?

    Here. Let me do it for you:



    Feel better?:laugh:

     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice try. You're still left without any backing for your claim.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    It's in the OP, John.

    Sorry you missed it.

    I assume you can read, so I expect you'll be able to find it...

    Of course, you just may not believe that attempts to muzzle the press are not a free speech issue.

    If so, you'll just have to stick to your opinion. Ignorance is bliss, they say. It appears you are determined to be a case in point.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's nothing in the OP that is an example of a First Amendment violation. In fact, I searched for case precedent to support the notion that it might be an Amendment I violation. No such cases exist, and similar cases indicate that it is not a violation at all.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I said is accurate, unless you can cite case precedent to the contrary. I've already looked for case precedent to the contrary, and could find none.
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,915
    Likes Received:
    295
    Ok.

    Whatever you say.:rolleyes:
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you're just being infantile. I take it back, you started being infantile several posts ago. So, whatever you say..... :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...