Comments on: Are Bloggers (& Comments) Due 1st Amendment Protections?

By: Transor Z

Transor Z — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:17:47 +0000

@Lynn:

Define “false information” please. And define “you.” Are you a public figure or a private person?

The First Amendment question that Barry brought up originally hasn’t been squarely addressed, which might be causing some confusion because we jumped right to abusive litigation practices. Should the law treat blogging as journalism (i.e. free press, free speech) or as something else? What if the blogger blogs on company or government agency time?

The general rule is that there is no constitutional protection for defamatory speech (which includes written speech). But that is a misleadingly simple statement of the rule because how we define “defamatory” depends on factors like the ones I mentioned above: the target of the speech and the nature of the speaker.

It’s 1973. According to an anonymous source, Richard Nixon personally authorized the Watergate break in. Richard Nixon doesn’t like that statement about him, published in the Washington Post, and is in a powerful position to destroy evidence that would establish the truth or falsity of the statement. At the time of publication, Nixon demands to know the identity of the anonymous source, insists the WaPo has defamed him, and sues. His lawyers demand to know the indentity of Deep Throat.

How would you parse that one out, Lynn?

By: Lynn

Lynn — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:53:15 +0000

Let me ask the question another way: If someone posts something about you anonymously, do you have a right to know who posted the comment, especially if it is false?

Secondly, why would a blogger want to protect someone who posts false information?

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:27:57 +0000

DeDude,

It has nothing to do with “conspiracies paranoia”, this: “what extent people can be pulled out by the courts, and in that regard the saved logs that courts are demanding play a key role for protection of sources.” sounds good, but the mechanics of the system, that we’re talking about, operate differently.

assuming one could, via rhetoric, and legal argument, make the case that the sub·poe·naed party didn’t have “logs”/”relevant info”, it is a no guard for anyone’s Privacy…

see: Privacy Coalition Seeks Investigation of DHS Chief Privacy Office: EPIC joined the Privacy Coalition letter sent to the House Committee on Homeland Security urging them to investigate the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Chief Privacy Office. **DHS is unrivaled in its authority to develop and deploy new systems of surveillance. The letter cited DHS use of Fusion Center, Whole Body Imaging, funding of CCTV Surveillance, and **Suspicionless Electronic Border Searches as examples of **where the agency is eroding privacy protections. EPIC Fusion Centers, EPIC Whole Body Imaging, and EPIC CCTV. (Oct. 23, 2009)
Department of Homeland Security releases Fusion Center Privacy Impact Assessment. The Department of Homeland Security has released the Privacy Impact Assessment for the State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative. The assessment examines the privacy implications of the State, Local and Regional Fusion Centers and the DHS’ State and Local Program Management Office. In May, EPIC prevailed in its freedom of information request to disclose documents describing the federal government’s involvement in efforts to limit Virginia’s transparency and privacy laws and uncovered a secret contract between the State Police and the FBI that **limits the rights of Virginia citizens to learn what information the State Police collect about them. For more information, see EPIC’s page on Information Fusion Centers and Privacy. (Dec. 17, 2008)
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/
Administration Announces Cloud Computing Initiative, but Privacy Umbrella Missing: Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra announced the launch of “Apps.gov”, a website where federal agencies can obtain cloud-based IT services. The initiative is aimed at “lowering the cost of government operations while driving innovation.” Currently, the administration’s main goal is to increase the size and scale of cloud computing, but key concerns, such as security and privacy, have received little attention. In March, EPIC filed a complaint with the FTC urging the agency to open and investigation into Cloud Computing services, such as Google Docs, to determine “the adequacy of the privacy and security safeguards.” Subsequently, thirty-eight computer security researchers and privacy academics sent a letter to Google’s CEO, asking Google to uphold privacy promises made to users of Google Cloud Computing services. The FTC investigation is ongoing; no response has been received from Google. For more information, see EPIC’s page on “Cloud Computing”. (Sep. 17, 2009)
EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media Companies, Privacy Terms Missing: In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act Request, the Government Services Administration released several contracts between the federal government and web 2.0 companies, including agreements with Blip.tv, Blist, Google (YouTube), Yahoo (Flickr), and MySpace. EPIC also obtained amendments to agreements with Facebook, Slideshare.net, Vimeo.com, and AddThis.com. The contracts do not address the privacy obligations of social media companies. The GSA letter to EPIC explained that “no specific Web 2.0 guidance currently exists,” but provided EPIC with Training Slides that raise privacy issues. The GSA Agreement with Google actually states that, “to the extent any rules or guidelines exist prohibiting the use of persistent cookies in connection with Provider Content applies to Google, Provider expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google.” Some of the agreements also permit companies to track users of government web sites for advertising purposes. For more information see EPIC Social Network Privacy, EPIC Facebook, and EPIC Cloud Computing. (Aug. 12, 2009)
http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/
House Members Introduce PATRIOT and FISA Reform Bills: Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and Scott introduced two bills today that would amend the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Patriot Amendments Act of 2009 will enhance reporting and judicial oversight of law enforcement powers, including the National Security Letter process. The FISA Amendments Act of 2009 will place new limits on the government’s ability to collect and store Americans’ communications without a warrant and repeals retroactive immunity. For more information, see EPIC FISA, EPIC PATRIOT Act. (Oct. 20, 2009)
PATRIOT Act Revisions Introduced in Senate: Today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and seven cosponsors introduced the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act. The bill would amend the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act, and other surveillance and intelligence laws. Among other changes, the JUSTICE Act would reform the National Security Letter process, revise the guidelines for business records orders, eliminate the catch-all provision for “sneak-and-peek” searches, and add new safeguards for FISA roving wiretaps. The JUSTICE Act would also repeal retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, and is supported by many civil liberties organizations. For more information, see EPIC USA PATRIOT Act, EPIC FISA, EPIC Wiretapping, and EPIC National Security Letters. (Sep. 17, 2009)
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/
sorry, for the long post..

By: DeDude

DeDude — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:29:59 +0000

MEH; I am not that hot on them there big conspiracy theories to begin with although admittedly there are possibilities for abuse of those brain implants the aliens from CIA stuck in my head People decide for themselves about conspiracies paranoia and how much they think they can defend themselves against that. The realistic issue is to what extend people can be pulled out by the courts, and in that regard the saved logs that courts are demanding play a key role for protection of sources.

By: ThreeFold Commonwealth

ThreeFold Commonwealth — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:54:19 +0000

Don’t get me going on Mortgage Specialists. It was my ex sister in law’s shop. She was Gill’s hatchet lady. All her daughters my niece’s worked there. Got one daughter into a mortgage that she couldn’t afford. Mom made the commission. Pill’s and insanity followed for the daughter but the good news daughter was foreclosed and recovered her mental health. Met her boyfriend in the institution. It’s working out. Mom is up on mortgage fraud charges. Fraud and usual criminal indictments that Goldman Sachs will face.
The funny part of the story is that my sister in law started as a teller and then Countrywide discovered her talents as a mortgage specialist. The heat turned up at Countrywide and Mortgage Specialists hired her. So back in the day when she was divorced through annulment her father calls and asks if I have $5000 for a house downpayment. For my nieces and their mother. Sure. I don’t charge interest but if she can ever pay it back. I do enjoy capital returns. After she flipped the third house and was in a multimillion dollar Mortgage Specialist lake home. I asked if I could have my $5000 back. This was 2007. She acted as if I was an idiot. Mortgage Specialists don’t repay chumps. I thought I’d ask. If I didn’t I’d be reneging my part of the contract. But insult to injury is that though she was annulled from the marriage to my brother with 3 children. Catholicism still sells indulgences. She kept our family name. When she was brought up on charges for mortgage fraud our family name was besmirched throughout the papers. The part of the story to remember is that “The lawyer for Mortgage Specialists says neither claim is true.” The Mortgage Specialist shredders ran hot on the weekends before the indictments came down.
Let us not forget that this Mortgage Specialist criminal behavior would not have been tolerated without securitization. Junkies would not have been able to sell the junk. The deep capture of the Congress by the Shadow Banking System. Greenspan not Madoff was the shrill for the biggest Ponzi scam ever. Give him immunity with 30 days in prison in return for state’s evidence. Sure there are banks that are too big to fail. Build the criminal case. How about starting with “Truth in Lending?” Try them for the crimes against the public. Too big to fail but not too big to sell off. Liquidate their assets. Hold financial meltdown criminals personally responsible. No corporate veil. Sell their assets at auction to repay those harmed. Change is not enough when you are talking trillions.
When you take money from those with criminal intent and aid and abet those with their securities and banking frauds then you are libel to punishment. Campaign donations are bound to criminal law. If a politician receives a legitimate campaign donation then the politician must recuse themselves from legislation that benefits that contributing party to the detriment of the public good. Otherwise it is not a political donation it is a bribe. And the politician is subject to the same legal consequences that the criminal is subject to. The problem with the Senate and Congress is not who is guilty? Who is innocent?

By: Transor Z

Transor Z — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:11:43 +0000

If a complaint states a claim that, if proven, entitles the plaintiff to relief, ain’t no dismissal.

By: bergsten

bergsten — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:30:30 +0000

@TransorZ — yeah, which is why the Judges (hell, the Clerks) shouldn’t even consent to file/hear the case.

By: Transor Z

Transor Z — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:07:03 +0000

@bergsten: The point isn’t going to trial; the point is companies (abusively, IMO) using discovery in litigation as a means to “out” anonymous bloggers/commentors and chill public discussion of issues.

By: bergsten

bergsten — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:31:51 +0000

I thought Libel required proof of malicious forethought (or some such) that was virtually impossible to prove. Also I think you can’t Libel someone when testifying.

Since virtually NOTHING on the web is created with any forethought, I suspect the Libel cases will be few and far between (well, the nonsense, frivolous ones will be there, but the prosecution will lose).

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:27:44 +0000

for more on ACTA, see http://www.eff.org/search?text=ACTA
“…Why You Should Care About ItACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil liberties, for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet, legitimate commerce, and for developing countries’ ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development.

ACTA is being negotiated by a select group of industrialized countries, outside of existing international multilateral venues for creating new IP norms such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and (since TRIPs) the World Trade Organization. Both civil society and developing countries are intentionally being excluded from these negotiations. While the existing international fora provide (at least to some extent) room for a range of views to be heard and addressed, no such checks and balances will influence the outcome of the ACTA negotiations.

The Fact Sheet published by the USTR, together with the USTR’s 2008 “Special 301″ report make it clear that the goal is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement, above the current internationally-agreed standards in the TRIPs Agreement, and increased international cooperation including sharing of information between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies. The last 10 bilateral free trade agreements entered into by the United States have required trading partners to adopt intellectual property enforcement obligations that are above those in TRIPs…”
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta
setting up another ’secret tribunal’, much like the WTO y Otros..
~~
Forbes Says:
good going, linking this back to ACTA..truly related..