This is unconstitutional and hopefully won't see the light of day. Liberal bloggers should be the most concerned as they are by far the most vicious, abusive, condescending individuals on the internet. If they want to continue with their verbal defecation, they better hope this bill doesn't pass.
Rees
Proposal 'comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet'
May 06, 2009
By Bob Unruh
from WorldNetDaily
A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls "cyberbullying" – communications that include e-mails and text messages that "cause substantial emotional distress."
The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.
But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.
At Wired.com, in a report labeled "Threat Level," writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand "up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to 'coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'"
"Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag," he wrote.
Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, "unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing," he wrote. "So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying."
The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.
The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"Sanchez's bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone," Kravets wrote. "The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages."
"We can't say what we think of Sanchez's proposal," he said. "Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement."
Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, "If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn't] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation."
The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support
severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
It states: "Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide."
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Left’s New Back-Door Strategy to Silence Talk Radio
from the Media Research Center
Free Speech Alliance
May 1, 2009
The Left’s New Back-Door Strategy to Silence Talk Radio
The Left is launching a new and more deceptive strategy to implement the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine -- under different names and without a vote in Congress. But their goal remains the same – the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio.
Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is preparing to use regulatory terms like “diversity,” “localism” and serving the Left’s definition of the “public interest” as new, backdoor “Fairness” Doctrines to indirectly impose radio censorship. This new line of attack could be implemented without a vote in Congress and without ever using the name “Fairness” Doctrine.
Obama’s acting FCC Chairman, Michael Copps, says he believes the government has a role in enforcing media “diversity” -- including the re-examination of station licensing and making popular conservative and Christian radio programming somehow “more reflective” of “public interest!”
Copps added that given the new political climate, “we have a tremendous opportunity going forward to reinvigorate our media, to ensure that the public airwaves truly deliver the kind of news and information that we need to sustain our democratic dialouge and to reflect the great diversity of our country.”
This government intrusion on our Free Speech Rights must be stopped.
Click to go to the article
Free Speech Alliance
May 1, 2009
The Left’s New Back-Door Strategy to Silence Talk Radio
The Left is launching a new and more deceptive strategy to implement the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine -- under different names and without a vote in Congress. But their goal remains the same – the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio.
Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is preparing to use regulatory terms like “diversity,” “localism” and serving the Left’s definition of the “public interest” as new, backdoor “Fairness” Doctrines to indirectly impose radio censorship. This new line of attack could be implemented without a vote in Congress and without ever using the name “Fairness” Doctrine.
Obama’s acting FCC Chairman, Michael Copps, says he believes the government has a role in enforcing media “diversity” -- including the re-examination of station licensing and making popular conservative and Christian radio programming somehow “more reflective” of “public interest!”
Copps added that given the new political climate, “we have a tremendous opportunity going forward to reinvigorate our media, to ensure that the public airwaves truly deliver the kind of news and information that we need to sustain our democratic dialouge and to reflect the great diversity of our country.”
This government intrusion on our Free Speech Rights must be stopped.
Click to go to the article
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'
Clarence Thomas: Controversial policy 'deep intrusion' into broadcasters' rights
Posted: April 29, 200911:04 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.
In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."
The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission. There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.
The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas "very significant."
"To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue," Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND.
"It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it's unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court."
Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.
"The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.
"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."
He also noticed "the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 ... to 15,273 by the end of 2004."
If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly.
"We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "Justice Thomas' opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate."
Meanwhile, as WND is also reporting today, the leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.
"I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called "Don't Touch My Dial."
"The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," Hedgecock said.
"Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'"
Click to read the rest of the article of the comments
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Just Say No to Harold Koh!
Obama is just flaunting his power now. He's decided he's going to damn well do what he wants and is challenging anyone to stop him.
Harold Koh isn't even border line acceptable for this position. It will be a travesty of justice, and also an assault on our justice system if his nomination is approved.
His nomination is finally getting some traction in the news. The Senators that vote to approve his nomination may be voting themselves right out of office. I believe the American people have had way too much of Obama shoving his extreme left, socialistic agenda down their throats. The American people are finally starting to pay attention. I believe that this time around, they will remember these things next time they enter the voting booth.
Rees
The Long Arm of the Law
A looming battle over the role foreign judges should play in U.S. courts.
from Newsweek
By Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas
Published Apr 18, 2009
Koh argues that American law should reflect "transnational" legal values—and that in an interconnected world it inevitably does to some extent already. In his writings, Koh has campaigned to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution—and perhaps shrink some others, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech—to better conform to the laws of other nations.
But Koh would go much further. To show regard for "the opinions of mankind," he asserted in a 2002 law review article, the death penalty "should, in time, be declared unconstitutional." Were his writings to become policy, judges might have the power to use debatable interpretations of treaties and "customary international law" to override a wide array of federal and state laws affecting matters as disparate as the redistribution of wealth and prostitution. He has campaigned to write into U.S. law the United Nations "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women," signed by President Carter in 1980 but never ratified by Congress. A U.N. committee supervising the treaty's implementation has called for the "decriminalizing of prostitution" in China, the legalization of abortion in Colombia, and the abolition of Mother's Day in Belarus (for "encouraging woman's traditional roles"). In 2002 Senate testimony, Koh stressed that these reports are not binding law, and he dismissed as "preposterous" the notion that the treaty would "somehow require the United States to abolish Mother's Day." Still, the reports are very much part of the "transnational" legal process that Koh celebrates.
Still, conservatives have a point that Koh and the other "transnationalists" are using their legal theories to advance a political agenda. The international legal norms they wish to inject into American law by and large reflect the values of Social Democratic Europe and liberal American academics. Koh is not suggesting, for instance, that American judges adapt Islamic law that discriminates against women. Koh's writings—especially when exaggerated—will add to charges from the right that Obama is a closet socialist. The president may have to answer whether he agrees with Koh's more provocative views.
Click to read the rest of the Newsweek article
Harold Koh isn't even border line acceptable for this position. It will be a travesty of justice, and also an assault on our justice system if his nomination is approved.
His nomination is finally getting some traction in the news. The Senators that vote to approve his nomination may be voting themselves right out of office. I believe the American people have had way too much of Obama shoving his extreme left, socialistic agenda down their throats. The American people are finally starting to pay attention. I believe that this time around, they will remember these things next time they enter the voting booth.
Rees
The Long Arm of the Law
A looming battle over the role foreign judges should play in U.S. courts.
from Newsweek
By Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas
Published Apr 18, 2009
Koh argues that American law should reflect "transnational" legal values—and that in an interconnected world it inevitably does to some extent already. In his writings, Koh has campaigned to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution—and perhaps shrink some others, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech—to better conform to the laws of other nations.
But Koh would go much further. To show regard for "the opinions of mankind," he asserted in a 2002 law review article, the death penalty "should, in time, be declared unconstitutional." Were his writings to become policy, judges might have the power to use debatable interpretations of treaties and "customary international law" to override a wide array of federal and state laws affecting matters as disparate as the redistribution of wealth and prostitution. He has campaigned to write into U.S. law the United Nations "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women," signed by President Carter in 1980 but never ratified by Congress. A U.N. committee supervising the treaty's implementation has called for the "decriminalizing of prostitution" in China, the legalization of abortion in Colombia, and the abolition of Mother's Day in Belarus (for "encouraging woman's traditional roles"). In 2002 Senate testimony, Koh stressed that these reports are not binding law, and he dismissed as "preposterous" the notion that the treaty would "somehow require the United States to abolish Mother's Day." Still, the reports are very much part of the "transnational" legal process that Koh celebrates.
Still, conservatives have a point that Koh and the other "transnationalists" are using their legal theories to advance a political agenda. The international legal norms they wish to inject into American law by and large reflect the values of Social Democratic Europe and liberal American academics. Koh is not suggesting, for instance, that American judges adapt Islamic law that discriminates against women. Koh's writings—especially when exaggerated—will add to charges from the right that Obama is a closet socialist. The president may have to answer whether he agrees with Koh's more provocative views.
Click to read the rest of the Newsweek article
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Senators Tell Napolitano To Show Us The Data!
from Michelle Malkin.com
By Michelle Malkin
April 17, 2009 12:58 PM
Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS conservative hit job:
April 16, 2009
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
The Department of Homeland Security
310 7th street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20528-0150
VIA FASCMILLE
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today concerning the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that we must fight extremists who are both foreign and domestic we are troubled by some of the statements your department included as fact in the report titled above, without listing any statistical data to back up such claims.
First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups?
Thirdly, the report states that those that believe in issues such as pro-life legislation, limited government, and legal versus illegal immigration are potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliation, male and female, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.
Also, you list those that bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck.
In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. We also ask that you provide us with the data that support the unfair claims listed in the report titled above and to present us with the matrix system used in collecting and analyzing this data?
Finally, we look forward to your prompt reply and we offer our assistance to DHS in our shared effort to fight terrorism both home and abroad by using data that is accurate and independent of political persuasion.
Click to read the article and comments
By Michelle Malkin
April 17, 2009 12:58 PM
Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS conservative hit job:
April 16, 2009
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
The Department of Homeland Security
310 7th street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20528-0150
VIA FASCMILLE
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today concerning the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that we must fight extremists who are both foreign and domestic we are troubled by some of the statements your department included as fact in the report titled above, without listing any statistical data to back up such claims.
First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups?
Thirdly, the report states that those that believe in issues such as pro-life legislation, limited government, and legal versus illegal immigration are potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliation, male and female, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.
Also, you list those that bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck.
In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. We also ask that you provide us with the data that support the unfair claims listed in the report titled above and to present us with the matrix system used in collecting and analyzing this data?
Finally, we look forward to your prompt reply and we offer our assistance to DHS in our shared effort to fight terrorism both home and abroad by using data that is accurate and independent of political persuasion.
Click to read the article and comments
Saturday, March 21, 2009
When the L.A. Times criticises Obama, you know the awakening has begun
I don't think that's the White House fence we're looking at. I think those are Jail bars, and we're on the wrong side of them.
Rees
Obama White House bars press from press award ceremony
from The Los Angelos Times
March 21, 2009
We are not making this up:
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
From the president's official schedule:
"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."
Maybe they'll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Click to read the rest of the article
Rees
Obama White House bars press from press award ceremonyfrom The Los Angelos Times
March 21, 2009
We are not making this up:
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
From the president's official schedule:
"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."
Maybe they'll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Click to read the rest of the article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
