Archive for the First Amendment Category

Bulk Collection Of Telephony Data. Again. (December 16, 2013)

Posted in Book Reference, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Due Process, First Amendment, FISA, Journalism, Judicial Arrogance, Law, Newspapers, O'Bama, Politics, Press/Media, Privacy, Republican Federal Judge Syndrome on December 16, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “You never know what a Monday will bring.  A federal judge ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephony records likely violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

L2        “You did not hear the word ‘telephony’ in polite parlance two dozen years ago.  The courts must now address the interplay of law with technology far more sophisticated than a pair of soup cans and a string.”

L1        “Most federal judges were ‘Arts and Crafts’ majors in college who may understand Tennyson but really do not understand technology.  Listen to the techs who install IT systems in the state and federal courts.  Some of these judges are still looking for the rotary dial.”

L2        “The government’s reliance on a case from the prehistoric days of telephony – way back in 1979 – is proof positive that the issue must be addressed anew in light of the new technology today.”

L1        “They will need to refer more often to Newton’s Telecom Dictionary than to Black’s Law Dictionary.  That will be fun.”                  

. . .

L1        “Within a fortnight of the Democrats’ decision to require the Senate to ‘advise and consent’ and vote on O’Bama’s appointments to places such as the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision will have consequences.  One or more of the new appointees could be assigned to the reviewing tribunal.  If there is en banc review of the three panel decision, there are now more Democrats than Republicans.”

L2        “But will the Democrats defer to their benefactor?  Is there another Republican appellate court judge who may be a fan of the Constitution rather than unchecked federal intrusion?  And we always have the five Supremes who will get to chime in.” 

L1        “Who just don’t get it.  They do not even want to admit that the NSA exists.”

. . .

L1        “Judge Leon (Bush II) overcame the always pernicious ‘Republican Federal Judge Syndrome’ that almost always plagues Republican appointees.  Yet the judge once again displays the occupational hazard of these imperial federal judges.  His opinion is snarky, arrogant, condescending, intemperate, and sloppy.  The screed deserves a B+ for intuiting basic truth, a C- for style and an F for arrogance.”

L2        “When you are going to be courageous, you must be flawless.”

L1        “There are more than a few good women and men who are concerned that collecting the metadata is constitutional and may prevent a great catastrophe.”

L2        “But in the final analysis, there is the Constitution.” 

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled USA PATRIOT ACT (April 4, 2005), Less Government Regulation Series: Google (Nov. 30, 2009), Boycott Facebook? (August 2, 2010), Brave 1984 Farm: The Best Of All Possible Worlds (March 19, 2012) and Hero or Traitor? (June 10, 2013) and I Spy, You Spy, They Spy (October 28, 2013).]

[See the “e-ssays” titled Judicial Activism: Rogue Republican Judges (January 28, 2013), The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge: Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013) and Past Time: Exercising The “New Clear Option” (November 25, 2013).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Free Edward Snowden

Pardon Edward Snowden

Bestow a Presidential Medal of Freedom on Edward Snowden

Quash the sub poena issued to James Risen

Free the Press

In a dozen plus years and without a debate or a vote, technology has deprived us of privacy.  With little debate and many hasty votes, Congress has deprived us of privacy at every opportunity.  We as a society should create a rebuttable presumption in favor of privacy even if it appears to sacrifice security.  Our personal insecurities are actually creating greater national insecurity. 

Holding The Raters Accountable? (February 11, 2013)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Drones, First Amendment, Judges, Kleptocracy, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Rating Agencies on February 11, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

NNN     “So the government is going after the rating agency Standard & Poor’s for its grossly inflated ratings of toxic mortgage securities.”

OOO    “It is a start, yet they were among the bit players in the grand fraud.  Madoff made off with millions from connected characters who were not willing to let him off.  Corzine still has enough stroke as a former Senator to avoid prosecution.  The banksters and the brigands and the big players at the core got away with it and are getting away with it and no one in power does anything about it.”

. . .

NNN     “Some bonehead judges have looked for an excuse to let them off and resorted to the First Amendment.”

OOO    “The First Amendment is a limitation on government restrictions on speech not a source of individual rights, so a person does not have ‘First Amendment rights.’  The government did not restrict or regulate Standard & Poor’s speech in any way.  Standard & Poor’s is seeking to avoid prosecution for what it said not for what the government would not allow it to say.  That ends the First Amendment inquiry.”

NNN     “When S & P spoke, they lied and intended others to rely on the lies; they are culpable.  The government must start somewhere.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled Rating The Rating Agencies And The Courts That Should Berate Them: FFF (May 3, 2010) and other “e-ssays” under the Category titled “Rating Agencies.”]

[The charges against Standard & Poor’s are discussed at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/standard-poors-stands-accused.html?_r=0.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

FFF:       Rating Agencies

Why All The Shouting: Campaign Finance And The First Amendment (June 18, 2012)

Posted in First Amendment, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Sports, Supreme Court on June 18, 2012 by e-commentary.org

 

. . .

C1        “Hard for me ever to depart from an absolute view of the First Amendment right of free speech.  But adhering to an absolute view of the First Amendment right of free speech requires one to depart from an absolute view of the First Amendment right of  free speech.”

C2        “I think I hear you.”

C1        “Limits on campaign spending are limits on free speech.  But not to place limits on free speech for those who can shout and scream and drown out others with their dollars places a limit on the free speech rights of others who are silenced because they do not have the dollars to make their speech heard.”

C2        “Without some limits, one person can shout louder and shout down another person.  Without some limits, one person can silence hundreds of other persons.”

. . .

C1        “Johnny Edwards is exonerated of charges that he engaged in campaign shenanigans and Roger Clemons is exonerated of charges that he lied to Congress.  But Johnny Roberts misled Congress and then distorted a ready case to change the law involving campaign finance in Citizens United.”

C2        “Does not seem right.  Johnny E. is still a sleaze and Roger Clemons fibbed to Congress but not beyond a reasonable doubt.”

C1        “The decision in Citizens United allows Johnny R’s cohorts to stack and pack the Senate and preclude any inquiry.”

C2        “Still does not seem right.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled ”Why Johnny And Roger? (April 30, 2012).”  The John Edwards and Roger Clemens trials are additional indictments of the failing American legal system.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

 “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”  Citizens United v. FEC, __ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 876, 954 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

 

Boycott (Advertisers On) AM (Anger Mongering) Radio (March 5, 2011)

Posted in Boycott Series, First Amendment, Government Regulation, Less Government Regulation Series, Market Solutions on March 5, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

C1          “Rather than getting the government into the business of regulating evil, vile and loathsome speech, let the citizens decide.”

C2          “I plan to design an easily remembered website providing an updated list of the names of the advertisers on AM (Anger Mongering) radio and television programs.”

C1          “Don’t buy the products or services.  e-mail your friends and neighbors with reminders not to buy the products or services.  Create something creative to spread the word on the net and design it to go viral.  If it does not go viral, try again.  Viral is virile.  Create a contest for the cleverest post.”

C2          “And tell the companies why you are not buying their stuff by writing a short e-mail note to the “Contact Us” address at the company website.  Make it a regular part of your daily routine.  Make a difference.  Make the airwaves safe for reasoned debate.”

. . .

[See http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/05/147954477/limbaugh-loses-seventh-advertiser-over-comments-about-law-student for an example.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Boycott (Advertisers On) Hate Radio

Vote with your dollars

Lapel sticker of the week:

I boycotted _______ .  Ask me why.  [Fill in the product]

At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, First Amendment, Judges, Less Government Regulation Series, Military, Supreme Court on February 27, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

O          “Some guys who spent their days folding diapers at Fort Dix are proclaiming that they single-handedly won World War II.”

P          “And good old Congress comes to the rescue and imposes some more government regulations.  Congress again dictated that the government must decide and provided for more buffoons to be sent to prison at my expense.  The issue is so clear and simple.  We could agree to direct the government to make bumbling efforts to criminalize the goonery or we could vest individuals with the responsibility to determine the truth.”

O          “The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a misnomer.  Those in the service fought valorously for the First Amendment of 1791 not some shallow rah-rah legislation.  Curious that the government and business are in business to lie, yet we want the government to come in and prosecute someone who is not telling the truth and then deny that person his or her liberty.”

P          “The government already fulfills its role without the additional legislation and imposition on our First Amendment guarantees.  Look at the Department of Defense Form DD 214 prepared at government expense that provides the actual information about a person’s military service and awards.  The Court should take notice of the fact that little is private today particularly one’s military service from his or her first day as a private.  Perhaps the government could expunge the social security numbers and publish all DD 214s upon retirement.”

O          “Most of these scoundrels and fools are insecure and desperate but not criminal.  What if the Court simply issued a two word decision:  ‘First Amendment.’”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

First Amendment Rules

The Stolen Valor Act – steals honor and denies rights

Occupy America: The “Bonus March/Chicago Police Riot/Kent State” Of 2011? (October 17, 2011)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Boycott Series, Economics, First Amendment, Journalism, Kleptocracy, Newspapers, Occupy Movement, Politics, Society on October 17, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

a          “They will only tolerate it as long as they regard it as harmless.  When they regard it as a threat to their domination, they will do harm.”

A          “Another inevitable repeat of history.  But when the Chicago police rioted in ’68 outside the Democratic National Convention and beat and tear gassed the populace, at least they only used night sticks and tear gas as weapons.”

a          “There are videos you can download to your tube with a few clicks.  You can see that the police even beat the press.  Back then, the press got it and got in the way and got it from the police.”

A          “Today, the authorities are armed with far more dangerous armaments and arsenals.  Even toll booth operators and beach patrols sport their own SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) Teams equipped with grenade launchers and flame throwers.  In an old black and white tv show, Barney Fife, a deputy sheriff in a small North Carolina town, carried one bullet, probably a .38, in his shirt pocket and was required to ask Andy, the sheriff, before he could even chamber it.  Different times.”

a          “Not many police officers realize that the kids are trying to protect the police union while the governor is trying to kill it.  When the federal government begins providing Homeland Security grants to allow local libraries to acquire armed drones, will anyone care or comment.”

A          “Not to worry, they are closing the libraries.  It might be Oak Park, it might be Oakland, it might occur on some other park or land that will become part of our national lore.”

a          “Even if the kids keep their heads, the authorities are going to bust them.  The problem is that one person may make a threatening comment that will provide the police with a pretext.  An undercover police officer could make a threatening comment to one of his colleagues and provide the pretext for a police riot.”

A          “A few young Boomers got their heads busted and then when older busted a booming economy.  Now the Boomers will bust some concerned youngsters’ heads – the youngsters who must endure the long bust but will never experience a lingering boom.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “Ohio – Not Forgettin’ Ohio; The Battleground State Battles On (May 2, 2005)” and the “e-ssay” titled “The Residue of Unrelenting Fear: PTSD Afflicts The Populace (August 28, 2006).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do you want the kids to be activists or pacifists?

Occupy Mayberry, R.F.D.

Kids (and older kids) who know and care are doing something

The kids are alright

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

Occupy America (October 10, 2011)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Boycott Series, Economics, First Amendment, Journalism, Kleptocracy, Newspapers, Occupy Movement, Politics, Society on October 10, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

A         “Commentators are having a hard time because there isn’t one spokesperson to interview nor one manifesto to mine.”

a          “Most commentators don’t understand what has happened in America over the last decade, so I don’t expect them to understand what is going on today.  I am aware enough to know that something’s clearly wrong, yet it is hard to describe.  What I do know is that I don’t have a future.”

A         “It’s simple and obvious.  The ruling class is strip mining the middle class.  And then accusing those who dare to point out the obvious truth that the astute observer is instigating class warfare.”

a          “They are clearcutting the kids.  They are not allowing a college grad let alone the ordinary Joe to immanentize the eschaton, although they are immanentizing the eschaton in a big way at my expense.  I really don’t have much hope of improvement or advancement.”

A         “Listen carefully.  That may be the big difference this time – an underlying absence of hope and a more pronounced sense of desperation.” 

a          “Hope died a few years ago.  Hope is so 2008.  Yet what do you have if you don’t have hope.”

A         “When hope totally disappears, an individual who can’t take it often takes one of three paths.  At the extreme, he takes his life, takes someone else’s life, or takes someone else’s life and then takes his life.”

a          “Someone sure took the life of the American Dream.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “Boycott Big Banks (February 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Occupy Wall Street; Occupy Our America

You don’t need a sportscaster to know which way the ball bounces.

In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011)

Posted in First Amendment, Journalism, Law, Newspapers, Supreme Court on March 7, 2011 by e-commentary.org

Torn from today’s headlines:

A          “Justices Rule For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals” also reported as “High Court Rules For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals”  The National Public Radio

B          “Justices Rule For Protestors At Military Funerals”  The New York Times

C          “Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Church’s Right To Picket Funerals”  The Washington Post

D          “Supreme Court Sides With Churchgoers Who Picketed Military Funeral”  The Los Angeles Times

E          “Supreme Court Says Anti-Gay Protestors Have A Right To Demonstrate At Military Funerals”  The Chicago Tribune

F          “First Amendment Protects ‘Hurtful’ Speech, Court Says”  The Wall Street Journal

What is The most correct answer?  F

. . .

G          “Sexy headlines sell.”

H          “Didn’t the Supreme Court simply affirm the First Amendment?”

G          “Exactly.  However, if a sexy headline attracts more readers, go for it.  We need people to read.  And think.  And support the newspaper.”

H          “There are winners and there are losers which may be what the public really is interested in tracking.”

G          “Perhaps the decisions should be posted in the Sports section of the newspaper.”

H          “Judges often make result oriented decisions.  They decide who should win and then spin the facts and law to make the outcome appear to the reader to be a fait accompli and beyond reasonable dispute.”

G          “In this case, the Justices looked at the law.  They acknowledge the hate that motivates the speakers and the hateful message they deliver and reaffirm the fundamental right.  Every attempt to formulate an exception undermines the most important Amendment.”

H          “I read that Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Senate and a few dozen members of Congress filed a brief on behalf of the family.  They endured the vile and evil actions and statements of the protestors.  Can’t they just go away.”

G          “Law should be removed from the political process.  The Supreme Court redeemed itself again in this case and the case involving the Federal Communications Commission and AT&T.  The winds are blowing from a different direction.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” dated June 25, 2007 titled “The Supreme Court On Drugs” and dated January 25, 2010 titled “Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game” discussing bad hair days at the Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I get along with God just fine; it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand.

I’m a big fan of God; I’m not a big fan of his fanatics.

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010)

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, First Amendment, Perjury/Dishonesty, Politics, Supreme Court on February 15, 2010 by e-commentary.org

“In Citizens United, five of our good friends at the Supreme Court decreed that a corporation is a legal person entitled to the First Amendment safeguards amended to the Constitution.  A legal ‘person’ is defined differently in different situations.  The typical ‘person’ is a living, breathing and sentient citizen not a corporation.”

“As I recall, a nautical vessel is also a legal ‘person,’ yet it cannot bring or maintain a lawsuit for instance.”

“Exactly.  A corporation is also a legal person, yet not one that is entitled to the full panoply of constitutional safeguards.  The decision in effect subordinates the First Amendment rights of living, breathing and sentient citizens to the financial interests of corporations.  The case reveals all the sins and crimes of the Court.  Alito recused himself in an earlier case involving a claim for punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case because of his ownership of substantial Exxon stock.  All of the justices also have substantial stock in the very corporations they now have vested with extraordinary power.”

“There is no way to avoid the conclusion that they sought to influence the political debate and protect their corporate benefactors.  And those who decry ‘judicial activism’ are not decrying this blatantly activist and tendentious decision.”

“Roberts testified before the Senate that he would be an umpire.  He is changing the scores before reporting them and making decisions to benefit his bank account.  He rejected the very precedents he promised to uphold.  As I recall, his testimony was under oath.  You can check on that.”

“I think it is perjury to lie under oath to the Senate.  Or it was in the past.”

“The House could bring articles of impeachment for misconduct.  At a minimum, the Senate could require him to testify and explain his earlier testimony.  The proper separation of powers is jeopardized when an individual is allowed to lie to the Senate about what he will do after he is confirmed by the Senate.”

“There was a Senator Exon decades ago and there will be a dozen Senator Exxons in coming days.”

“Law in America today is a groundless and amoral ideological game.”

(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010).)

[See the “e-ssay” dated October 20, 2008 titled “Contemporary American Political Parties 101“ noting that the Republicans “10.  Win” and the Democrats “10.  Lose.”  See also the “e-ssay” dated February 20, 2006 titled “Perjury, The American Way.”]

(“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”  Howard Zinn 1922 – 2010)

Bumper stickers of the week:

The best democracy money can buy.

We the corporations . . .