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.
Another Assault on the First Amendment
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Nov 10, 2009.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
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.
-
If you ignore the evidence like you do that of absentee voter fraud, it won't matter what the case law is. -
Sounds like a fishing expedition and an egregious violation of privacy rights to me. -
-
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.
-
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. -
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...
-
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.
-
Not everyone is unsure enough of themselves that they feel compelled to express it twice. Both times with nothing to back it up. -
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. -
-
Maybe 3 times would make you feel better about yourself?
Here. Let me do it for you:
Feel better?:laugh:
-
Nice try. You're still left without any backing for your claim.
-
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. -
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.
-
-
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.
-
Whatever you say.:rolleyes: -
Now you're just being infantile. I take it back, you started being infantile several posts ago. So, whatever you say..... :rolleyes:
Page 1 of 2