Translate

GPA Store: Featured Products

Showing posts with label FIRST AMENDMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FIRST AMENDMENT. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Want to Record The Cops? Know Your Rights



Source
Nadia Kayyali

There are some very disturbing videos circulating the Internet right now, depicting the deaths of unarmed civilians at the hands of trained, armed men. Many of these videos even show individuals being shot in the back, or as they try to flee.

These are videos of police officers in America killing unarmed black men like Oscar Grant and Eric Garner. And, as the most recent case shows, without these recordings, much of America might not have any idea exactly how much of a problem this is.

Citizen videos of law enforcement encounters are more valuable than ever. And for those who are wondering—it is legal to record the police.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

“Free Flow of Information Act” Targets Independent Journalism

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
James Tracy

The fact that the US Senate is now defining what a journalist actually is sets a dangerous precedent threatening the present marketplace of ideas that in recent history has been greatly expanded by the internet.

According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF) that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Under such a law presumably only the news reporters and analysts employed by moderate-to-substantial revenue-generating news entities are regarded as “legitimate” journalists. This is because the Feinstein-Durbin amendment’s wording is especially vague on exactly what type of news organization the writer needs to be affiliated with to be able to comment and report freely.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Glenn Greenwald "JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME AND IT'S NOT TERRORISM!"

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Youtube

Mox News

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Anonymous Donor Posts $500,000 Bond to Free Teen Jailed For Sarcastic Facebook Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
image source
Paul Lawrance

19-year-old Texan Justin Carter, who has been jailed since March over a sarcastic Facebook comment, has had his $500,000 bond posted by an anonymous donor.

According to MSNBC, the bail was made by the “anonymous good Samaritan” on Thursday, July 11th.

The comment that landed Carter in jail read, ”I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them.” Following the gross remark were the acronyms ‘Jk’ and ‘Lol’. (Just kidding and laughing out loud)

Someone had seen the comment and tipped it off to police.

During the teenagers time in detainment he had been brutally beaten, left in solitary confinement black eyed, concussed and in depression.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Ag-gag in Action: National Geographic Photographer Arrested After Aerial Photos

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Image
Heather Callaghan

Ag-gag laws are cropping up like Whac-a-Mole across the states in an attempt to protect large-scale farming and cattle operations from those pesky activists who find out about abuse and cruelty. Instead of addressing the systemic issue of transparency and animal/food safety, lobbying leads to more laws that inhibit the freedom to speak out about dismal conditions - clear 1st Amendment violations. Always in the name of "safety" and protecting trade secrets. It's one thing to keep people from committing theft, destruction of property, breaking and entering, intellectual property theft and privacy violations - which basic laws support. But it's wholly another to prosecute well-intentioned tourists or try peaceful protesters as terrorists.

The latest to get burned is prominent world photographer and freelancer for National Geographic, George Steinmetz. He often gets government clearance to roam the airways for his aerial photography and uses a motorized paraglider with parachute and what looks like a lawn chair.

Even though the ensuing brief arrest on June 28th, and $270 bail each stems from trespassing, the underlying cause (fear) and reason for phone call to the sheriff appear to stem from upholding the Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act. It was one of the first state laws of its kind enacted in 1990 and criminalizes farm photography.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

2nd Amendment Activist Removed from NJ Gun Control Hearing for Exercising 1st Amendment Rights

The Daily Sheeple

Activist James Kaleda was giving testimony when state legislators did not agree with what he was stating and claimed that Mr. Kaleda was “Out of Order”, requesting that he be forcibly removed from the hearing on a new gun control bill in NJ.

Mr. Kaleda receives a standing ovation from the spectators as he is removed by NJ state troopers. Everyone is entitled under the 1st Amendment to express criticism of the government, but when Big Brother doesn’t like what you have to say, the Constitution is thrown out the window.



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Leaked NYPD Footage Shows Brutal Crackdown on Protesters

Youtube


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Be the Change! Share this using the tools below. Sharing on Reddit and Newsvine will help the most.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

US lawmakers to push for online piracy bill

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
"Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system" is a "reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech," it (EFF) said.

Senator Patrick Leahy
© AFP/File Mandel Ngan
AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress pledged Monday to pass legislation that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would introduce a new version "soon" of a bill designed to combat so-called "rogue websites."

A previous bill co-sponsored by Leahy, called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 19-0 vote in November, but never made it to the Senate floor.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Media Bloggers Association Stands Up To Copyright Troll Righthaven

It is unfortunate that Righthaven and the companies it "buys" the copyrighted property from are willing to financially wreck a person, often for mere carelessness as they are attempting to add to the public conversation.

Media Bloggers Association
David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Today, the Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") filed its Reply Brief in theRighthaven, LLC v. Hyatt case.  The MBA is opposing Righthaven's attempt to convince the Nevada District Court to award it $150,000 in damages, the domain name for blogger Bill Hyatt's website (1ce.org)  and attorneys' fees.

Hyatt was sued by Righthaven last October after he allegedly copied a Las Vegas Review-Journalcolumn titled "FX's Manly Man Shows Hold Outsider Appeal."  When Hyatt did not respond to the lawsuit, he was defaulted by the court clerk's office.

A default is basically the equivalent of an admission of all liability by the defendant.  If the default is not set aside, the Court will skip the trial on the merits of the copyright claim and proceed directly to a determination of the damages against Hyatt.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Western Civilization Has Shed Its Values

Dees Illustration
Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars

Western Civilization no longer upholds the values it proclaims, so what is the basis for its claim to virtue?

For example, the U.S. print and TV media and the U.S. government have made it completely clear that they have no regard for the First Amendment. Consider CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s reaction to the leaked diplomatic cables that reveal how the U.S. government uses deceptions, bribes, and threats to control other governments and to deceive the American and other publics. Blitzer is outraged that information revealing the U.S. government’s improprieties reached the people, or some of them. As Alexander Cockburn wrote, Blitzer demanded that the U.S. government take the necessary steps to make certain that journalists and the American people never again find out what their government is up to.

The disregard for the First Amendment is well established in the U.S. media, which functions as a propaganda ministry for the government. Remember the NSA leak given to the New York Times that the George W. Bush regime was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court? The New York Times spiked the story for one year and did not release it until after Bush’s reelection. By then, the Bush regime had fabricated a legal doctrine that “authorized” Bush to violate U.S. law.


Glenn Greenwald writing at Salon has exposed the absence of moral standards among WikiLeaks’ critics. WikiLeaks’ critics could not make it clearer that they do not believe in accountable government. And to make certain that the government is not held accountable, WikiLeaks’ critics are calling for every possible police state measure, including extra-judicial murder, to stamp out anyone who makes information available that enables the citizenry to hold government accountable.

The U.S. government definitely does not believe in accountable government. Among the first things the Obama regime did was to make certain that there would be no investigation into the Bush regime’s use of lies, fabricated “intelligence,” and deception of the American public and the United Nations in order to further its agenda of conquering the independent Muslim states in the Middle East and turning them into U.S. puppets. The Obama regime also made certain that no member of the Bush regime would be held accountable for violating U.S. and international laws, for torturing detainees, for war crimes, for privacy violations or for any of the other criminal acts of the Bush regime.

As the cables leaked by a patriotic American to WikiLeaks reveal, the U.S. government was even able to prevent accountable government in the UK by having British prime minister Brown “fix” the official Chilcot Inquiry into the deceptions used by former prime minister Tony Blair to lead the British into serving as mercenaries in America’s wars. The U.S. was able to do this because the British prime minister does not believe in accountable government either.

The leaked documents show that the last thing the U.S. government wants anywhere is a government that is accountable to its own citizens instead of to the U.S. government.

The U.S. government’s frontal assault on freedom of information goes well beyond WikiLeaks and shutting down its host servers. In a Dec. 2 editorial, “Wave Good-bye to Internet freedom,” the Washington Times reports that Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski has “outlined a plan to expand the federal government’s power over the Internet.”

The obvious, but unasked, question is: Why does the U.S. government fear the American people and believe that only news that is managed and spun by the government is fit to print? Is there an agenda afoot to turn citizens into subjects?

Perhaps the most discouraging development is the accusation that is being spread via the Internet that Julian Assange is a dupe or even a covert agent used by the CIA and Mossad to spread disinformation that furthers U.S. and Israeli agendas. This accusation might come from intelligence services striving to protect governments by discrediting the leaked information. However, it has gained traction because some of the cables contain false information. Some have concluded, incorrectly, that the false information was put into the documents for the purpose of being leaked.

There is another explanation for the false information. Diplomats concerned with advancing their careers learn to tell their bosses what they want to hear, whether true or false. Diplomats understand that the U.S. government has agendas that it cannot declare and that they are expected to support these agendas by sending in reports that validate the undeclared agendas. For example, the U.S. government cannot openly say that it is endeavoring to create a climate of opinion that gives the U.S. a green light for eliminating the independent Iranian government and re-establishing an American puppet state. U.S. “diplomats,” a.k.a. spies, understand this and fabricate the information that supports the agenda.

In my opinion, the most important of all the cables leaked is the secret directive sent by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to 33 U.S. embassies and consulates ordering U.S. diplomats to provide credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, frequent-flyer account numbers, and biographic and biometric information including DNA information on U.N. officials from the secretary-general down, including “heads of peace operations and political field missions.”

The directive has been characterized as the spy directive, but this is an unusual kind of spying. Usually, spying focuses on what other governments think, how they are likely to vote on U.S. initiatives, who can be bribed, and on sexual affairs that could be used to blackmail acquiescence to U.S. agendas.

In contrast, the information requested in the secret directive is the kind of information that would be used to steal a person’s identity.

Why does the U.S. government want information that would enable it to steal the identities of U.N. officials and impersonate them?

The U.S. government loves to pretend that its acts of naked aggression are acts of liberation mandated by “the world community.” The world community has been less supportive of U.S. aggression since it learned that the Bush regime lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, the U.N. has not given Washington the green light Washington wants for a military assault on Iran. Neither has the U.N. given Washington the extreme sanctions that it wants the world community to impose on Iran.

As the U.N. refused Washington’s menu of sanctions, Washington unilaterally added its own sanction package to the U.N. sanctions, to the dismay of the Russians and other governments who believed that they had arrived at a compromise with Washington over the Iran sanctions issue.

Could it be that Washington wants to be able to impersonate U.N. officials and country delegates so that it can compromise them by involving them in fake terrorist plots, communications with terrorists real or contrived, money laundering, sex scandals, and other such means of suborning their cooperation with Washington’s agendas? All the CIA has to do is to call a Taliban or Hamas chief on a U.N. official’s telephone number or send a compromising fax with a U.N. official’s fax number or have operatives pay for visits to prostitutes with a U.N. official’s credit card number.

The report in the Guardian on Dec. 2 that the CIA drew up the U.N. spy directive signed off by Hillary Clinton is a good indication that the United States government intended to compromise the United Nations and turn the organization, as it has done with so many governments, into a compliant instrument of American policy.

Perhaps there is another plausible explanation of why the U.S. government desired information that would enable it to impersonate U.N. officials, but as a person who had a 25-year career in Washington I cannot think of what it might be.  

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.

RELATED ARTICLES:
WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation for Internet


Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

PureWaterFreedom

Friday, October 8, 2010

Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents

Couple who took part in Oath Keepers online discussion forum have child snatched in shocking new level of police state persecution


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

A newborn baby was ripped from its mother’s arms by officials from the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services accompanied by police last night after authorities cited the parents’ association with the Oath Keepers organization as one of the primary reasons for the snatch, heralding a shocking new level of persecution where Americans’ political beliefs are now being used by the state to kidnap children.

What was supposed to be one of the most joyous occasions of their lives turned into a nightmare for John Irish and Stephanie Janvrin, after they were told by The Director of Security and the Head Nurse at Concord Hospital that their baby would be taken to be checked by the hospital pediatrician.

“They lied to us – they got us to allow them to take our daughter under false pretenses, we didn’t even have a choice,” said Irish.


When Irish tried to stop his daughter being taken, the baby was immediately wheeled out in a bassinet, after which Irish saw three men in suits accompanied by uniformed police officers as well as detectives and social workers. who proceeded to try to search Irish.

“They forced me to stand up, held my hands behind my back and patted me down,” said Irish, before police told him they were taking the baby.

“My fiancé didn’t even get any time to bond with the baby – they came in and stole our child,” said Irish. The parents were given a couple of minutes with their daughter before being forced by police to leave the hospital. Irish was subsequently told that a “security officer” would follow his every move.

The affidavit in support of the decision to take the child, which has been verified by Oath Keepers, states, “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers,” confirming that political beliefs were, amongst other reasons, one of the primary factors behind the snatching of the baby.

Read Full Article


Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Free Speech Cases at Top of Supreme Court's New Term

Mark Sherman
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — First Amendment cases top the Supreme Court's docket as it begins a new term with a new justice and three women on the bench for the first time.

The court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, "is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.



Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, marking his fifth anniversary on the court, and with the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, the court has been more sympathetic to arguments that blur the line between government and religion, as long as one religion is not favored over another.

Justice Elena Kagan, confirmed in August, is the one new face on the court, but nearly everyone will be sitting in different seats when the term opens on Monday.

Like so much else at the Supreme Court, the justices sit according to seniority, other than the chief justice at the center of the bench. The retirement of John Paul Stevens, who had served longer than the others, means Roberts now will be flanked by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court last year, will sit at opposite ends of the bench. The woman with the longest tenure, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also is now the senior liberal-leaning justice with Stevens gone.

Read Full Article


Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Are you ready to evacuate?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Government Bans Tea Party From Celebrating U.S. Constitution

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
September 16, 2010
Government Bans Tea Party From Celebrating U.S. Constitution 150910We
Local government representatives in an Ohio town have taken it upon themselves to prohibit a Tea Party celebration of the US Constitution, prompting a lawsuit over restrictions on First Amendment rights.
Members of the Andover Tea Party in Ohio have been informed that they cannot hold a public rally in the Town’s central square on Constitution Day (September 17) because of the group’s “political affiliation”.
The decision was taken by the Township’s trustees, and members of the Tea Party group were informed by letter that they would not be able to use the square for speakers and performances of patriotic songs.
Township officials informed the residents that speech at the Constitution Day rally could be of a “political nature,” and thus inappropriate for the public square, writes the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a nonpartisan, non profit law group that has filed a complaint and temporary restraining order against Andover Township (Ashtabula County) in U.S. District Court in Cleveland.
In the complaint, 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson writes, “It cannot be contested or doubted that the speech in which Plaintiffs seek to engage—honoring and discussing the fundamental law of this nation, i.e., the Constitution—is at the core of the speech protected by the First Amendment. And no venue could further reinforce such message as doing so in the center and heart of the community.”
“In this case, the communicative nature of Plaintiffs’ proposed activities, as well as the selection of the venue for such speech, is indisputably protected by the First Amendment.” Thompson adds.
A copy of the complaint and temporary restraining order are available here and here.
“The government’s action in this case, ironically, demonstrates the need for greater public understanding of Constitutional rights,” Thompson added in a written statement. “One way to do that is through commemoration of Constitution Day.”
In an interview with CNS News, Thompson elaborated on the case:
“The first thing that you note is the extreme irony of the unconstitutional prohibition of the commemoration of the Constitution.”
“[A]nd the second thing that’s notable is either the extreme arrogance or ignorance of many local government officials. There’s so much focus on federal government, yet some of the worst actors are at the ground level,” Thompson said.
A ruling is expected to be made on the case in the next 24 hours.
——
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.



Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"! Print this page

Justice Breyer Suggests “Globalization” Trumps First Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 15, 2010
undefined
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was indecisive when answering a question about whether or not Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Koran burning was protected by free speech, suggesting that “globalization” now trumps the First Amendment in the eyes of lawmakers.
During an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book, Breyer was asked by host George Stephanopoulos if Jones’ ability to broadcast his actions in an age of global media poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.
“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Koran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”
“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” responded Breyer indecisively“People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are — in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”
Breyer went on to say that while the “core values remain,” the application of the First Amendment can change over time.
Breyer compared Jones’ actions to yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, an action not protected by the First Amendment by legal precedent because it could lead directly to violence and harm.
“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”
Whether you support or abhor the actions of Pastor Jones, his right to burn a book in public can hardly be compared to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, which is an action clearly intended to cause mayhem and unrest, whereas Jones’ stated reason for burning the Koran is a form of protest against the ground zero mosque controversy.
Jones’ actions are clearly protected under the First Amendment because they represent a form of political protest.
As we have documented, the ground zero mosque controversy is clearly being contrived in an effort to goad extremists on both sides of the religious divide into committing acts of violence which then give authorities the pretext to crush everyone’s free speech.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a globalist stooge, being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and also having direct ties to a myriad of elitist organizations.
There is also a direct relationship between the group behind the mosque and CIA front companies, as well as the U.S. military.
This is about getting everybody at each other’s throats and provocateuring situations that demand the strong arm of the state to respond to the consequences of these artificially manufactured tensions. It is also about stoking resentment against Arabs to grease the skids for an expansion of war in the middle east.
Constitutionally speaking, the mosque should be allowed to be built and Pastor Jones should be free to burn the Koran, but this story goes far deeper than those surface issues because people on both sides of the debate are being deliberately manipulated into advocating positions that will only harm the liberty and livelihood of both Muslims and Christians in the long run.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.



Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"! Print this page

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Facing prison for filming US police

Comment:  The audio is disabled until the end of the video which captures the police abuse.  We have included an "Update" video, as well.


Chris Arsenault
Al Jazeera
August 27, 2010
When police arrested Anthony Graber for speeding on his motorbike, the 25-year-old probably did not see himself as an advocate for police accountability in the age of new media.
But Graber, a sergeant with the Maryland Air National Guard, is now facing 16 years in prison, not for dangerous driving, but for a Youtube video he posted after receiving a speeding ticket.The video, filmed with a camera mounted on Graber’s motorcycle helmet designed to record biking stunts rather than police abuse, shows a plain clothes officer jumping out of an unmarked car and pointing a pistol at the motorcyclist.
It does not portray the policeman in a positive light.
After he posted the video on Youtube, police raided Graber’s home, seized computers and put him in jail.
“The case is critical to the protection of democracy because I don’t think you can have a free country in which public officials are able to criminally prosecute people who film what they are doing,” David Rocah, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Maryland who is representing Graber, said.
Read full article

UPDATE VIDEO:
Jasper Roberts Consulting - Widget