“Free Flow of Information Act” Targets Independent Journalism

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.

Dianne Feinstein: First Amendment Is A Special Privilege

Youtube

Sociopaths are running the government. Let's define who qualifies for the special privilege of free speech in the new media shield law.


Subscribe to E. Pratt Witney's Channel

Cf. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

Shield Law Sponsor Not Sure Bloggers "Deserve" Free Speech Rights

"You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don't care," says Lindsey Graham (R-SC) but then asks if "they [bloggers] deserve First Amendment protection?" when it comes to classified information.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

J.P. Hicks

Who knew the speech of the media and bloggers wasn't already protected?

The U.S. senate is working on a media shield law that would protect the media against government retaliation for exposing sensitive information.

I thought the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights made it quite clear that all speech was already protected: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the government has been on the rampage to punish whistleblowers who have exposed government crimes, perhaps additional clarity is needed. However, it seems that the politicians are using the media shield law to decide who gets free speech protection and who doesn't.

Decentralized Internet Being Built to Thwart Censorship

J.P. Hicks

Bloggers represent one of the last bastions of independent journalism. Since the Internet presents a level playing field for information, it's possible for talented bloggers to reach millions of people which only used to be available to large media conglomerates.

But the free Internet appears to be under attack on multiple fronts. It seems that these conglomerates don't like losing their audience to lowly bloggers. And, apparently, they have the government on their side not just because they fund politicians to do their bidding, governments themselves also don't like it when pesky bloggers expose their dirty deeds.

The result of this corporate-government merger against the free Internet has resulted in endless calls for Internet legislation from Net Neutrality, blogging taxes, cyber security trolling, to various draconian laws to enforce copyrights like SOPA, PIPA, and international attempts like ACTA. 

Victory for Speech: Facebook To Allow Marijuana Reform Ads

Facebook Corrects Error and Affirms its Goal of Providing a Politically-Neutral Platform for Election Issues, Including Marijuana Reform

Rainey Reitman
EFF

Last week, news outlets reported that Facebook was rejecting ads by advocacy groups working on marijuana policy reform. The ads in question showed marijuana leaves, sometimes with photos of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and urged viewers to join campaigns to make marijuana reform an election issue. Several versions of similar Facebook ads were submitted by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Just Say Now, but both groups were initially rejected. After EFF and the ACLU of Northern California reached out to Facebook about the issue, Facebook did the right thing and restored the ads.

Facebook has publicly established guidelines that state that a Facebook advertisement "may not promote tobacco or tobacco-related products, including cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, tobacco pipes, hookahs, hookah lounges, rolling papers, vaporized tobacco delivery devices and electronic cigarettes." But the language from the banned ads said simply things like: "Registered to vote? Make your voice heard on historic marijuana ballot measures this November" Another read "Marijuana Reform in 2012 | Obama and Romney are mum on marijuana reform. Learn how to make them start talking." Rather than advocate for marijuana usage, the banned ads urged users to get involved with fighting for reform. 

 

Cyber War, Civil Liberties and Internet Freedom in the US

“It is truly a shame that what is viewed abroad as heroic is considered as suspect at home.”

AFP File Image

Monica Davis
Before It's News

Ah, the Internet. So much attention is being paid to the glory of this military invention. We base revolutions on access to the Internet. We base civil rights progress on the ability of the Internet to foster communication across vast distances, enabling freedom fighters to connect, interact and tear down the walls of oppression. While we view any threat to the Internet as a threat to global freedom of speech and liberty, some mistakenly ignore repression at home. 

Florida's governor just signed a law that basically says if the cops shoot and kill someone, the records of that incident are exempt from Open Records Laws. In other words, police killiings are none of the public's business.

ACTION ALERT: Reject the PROTECT IP Act

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is a threatening sequel to last year's COICA Internet censorship bill that would—like its predecessor—invite Internet security risks, threaten online speech, and hamper Internet innovation. Urge your members of Congress to reject this dangerous bill!

Big media and its allies in Congress are billing the PROTECT IP Act as a new way to prevent online infringement. But innovation and free speech advocates know that PIPA is nothing more than a dangerous wish list that will compromise Internet security while doing little or nothing to encourage creative expression.

PROTECT IP = Private Rightsholders Opposed To Emerging Consumer Technologies, Innovation, and Progress

Bill Clinton Calls For Internet ‘Ministry of Truth’

Despite couching his idea in fluffy, friendly, democratic rhetoric, Clinton is advocating the creation of a Communist Chinese-style state run media outlet

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Mr Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton, a man who knowingly lied to the nation on live television at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has called for the creation of an Internet ‘ministry of truth’ style organization that would be run by the federal government or the UN to address “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet.”



Couching the idea in the kind of doublespeak rhetoric that would make George Orwell roll in his grave, Clinton said that the agency would have to be “independent” and “transparent,” but that it would be created and run by the federal government – a complete oxymoron.

US lawmakers to push for online piracy bill

"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.

Can The Law Treat A Blogger Differently Than A Print Journalist?

Screenshot of the Cutler Files

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The last few weeks have seen websites and blogs forced to fight back against copyright bullies, frivolous lawsuits and the United States Government.  Now, in Maine, a blogger has been forced to use the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to fight back against the State's attempt to use its election laws to penalize him for anonymous posts he made in criticism of a political candidate.

This case raises important issues surrounding whether the law can apply different standards to print and online journalists, as well as whether a blogger has the right to post political criticism anonymously.

The issues arose during last year's election cycle.  While working on the gubernatorial campaign of candidate Rosa Scarcelli, Dennis Bailey created a blog called the Cutler Files, which launched in August 2010.  With the help of Scarcelli and her husband, Bailey used the blog to anonymously launch political attacks on Eliot Cutler, the Independent candidate for governor.

Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’

Mike Zapler
Politico

AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.

"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”

Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

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.

Jury Says Blogger Has To Pay For His Words Even Though He Did Not Lie

Blogger Johnny Northside

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Friday, a Minnesota jury found that a blogger must pay $60,000 in damages because of statements he published in his blog about a public figure who was subsequently fired from his job.  Internet publishers and free speech advocates should pay close attention to this case if it is appealed because the blogger was found liable even though the jury did not find that the blogger's statements were false.

This decision is the latest example of the law's apparent struggle to apply basic constitutional protections to internet publishers.  If the Minnesota ruling holds up, it will mean that bloggers will have to worry they will be forced to pay for true statements that they publish that cause a person damages.


In June 2009, Jerry Moore was fired from the University of Minnesota after blogger John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside wrote a blog post criticizing the college for hiring Moore.  In the post, Hoff criticized Moore's previous work as Executive Director of a community organization and linked Moore to a real estate scandal.  In the post, Hoff stated, "Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave N."

Following his firing, Moore brought a lawsuit in Minnesota state court (copy of complaint), claiming Hoff was liable for defamation and intentional interference with his contract with the school.  The case went to trial last week and on Friday, the jury returned its verdict in favor of Hoff on the defamation claim but against him on the intentional interference with contract count.

The jury found Hoff was not liable for defamation because they were not convinced that the blogger's statements about Moore were false.  The jury returned the following interrogatory (answer in bold):

1.  Was the statement “Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.” false? No

Although it has been reported elsewhere that the jury found that Hoff's statement was true, that is not precisely correct.  The jury found that Moore did not prove that Hoff's statement was false, not that the statement was true.

Since the publishing of a false statement is a basic element of a defamation claim, that finding was enough to defeat the defamation count.  Although the judge had previously ruled that Moore was a limited public figure, which would have also required the jury to find actual malice in order to prove defamation, the jury stopped at the first question and did not make a finding on actual malice.

Moore's failure to prove a false statement seemingly should have been the end of the entire case against Hoff, but it was not.  Even without a false statement, the court allowed the jury to find against the blogger on the intentional interference with contract claim and awarded Moore $35,000 in damages for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress.

Generally, intentional interference with contract occurs when someone knows about a contractual relationship and intentionally induces one of the parties to breach the contract.  If the other party to the contract suffers damages, he can sometimes sue to recover his losses.

In the absence of First Amendment protections, this case might be a reasonable example of an intentional interference with contract.  Hoff's blog posts give the impression that he knew about Moore's contract with the college and that his posts were at least partially intended to convince the college to fire Moore, which they did.  However, Constitutional free speech protections should not permit a plaintiff such as Moore to fail to make a defamation case against a publisher, but still be able to backdoor his damages through another claim.

The Minnesota case reminds me of the famous 1988 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell case, in which a jury found that Hustler publisher Larry Flynt was not liable for defamation, but found him liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Reverend Falwell.  Unlike the Minnesota case, the Falwell case specifically focused on a publisher's right to publish satire of a public figure rather than the right to publish direct factual claims, but in both cases, a jury found against a publisher even though they found the publisher was not liable for defamation.

Hustler Falwell Parody

Flynt appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, who overturned the jury finding in favor of Falwell because the First Amendment demands that the proper action against a public figure is a defamation suit, not a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court reasoned that criticism of public figures, such as Falwell or Moore, is sometimes going to cause unfortunate damages, but this important form of speech must be protected by "a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability."

This does not mean that a publisher is free to say anything about a public figure, whether true or false, without repercussions.  The Court explained that the First Amendment does not allow unfettered speech without any limits and culpability because of the particularly insidious nature of false statements.  The Court stated that a defamation claim, which requires a showing of a false statement, is the appropriate action to bring against a publisher because:

False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truthseeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective.

The same analysis should be applied to the Minnesota case.  Even if Hoff's statements damaged Moore, who was deemed a public figure, if those statements were not false and did not reach the level of defamation, the First Amendment should protect Hoff from having to pay damages.  Allowing Moore to recover for intentional interference with contract is not very different from allowing Jerry Falwell to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In both cases, a jury has ruled that the publisher's speech was not defamatory, yet the plaintiff is awarded the damages caused by that speech.

Legal commentator Eugene Volokh believes that the ruling against Hoff will be ruled unconstitutional if the case is appealed.  He also astutely adds that most states have a rule of intentional interference with contract that states that “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.”

Hoff's attorneys have stated they plan to appeal the decision and they should.  If a decision like this is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on bloggers' ability to do the important work of making true factual accusations against politicians and other public figures.

Bloggers and other publishers must be free to expose these true facts, even if those facts bring a public figure down without fear that they will have to compensate the public figure for the fall.  Otherwise, would we find ourselves in a country where Woodward and Bernstein would have to had to pay Richard Nixon for the losses caused by his impeachment and loss of job as President even if they were telling the truth about Watergate?

David Makarewicz is an attorney practicing internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit Dave at Sites and Blogs to keep up with breaking Internet news.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Spy bloggers not ‘friending’ U.S. targets, Centcom says

AFP image

Jeff Stein
Washington Post

The U.S. Central Command says its new “Persona” social media "infiltration" software is designed to cozy up to extremist bloggers overseas, not law-abiding Americans chatting on Facebook or similar sites.

Earlier this month, the Web buzzedwith a report that the software was designed to “manage ‘fake people’ on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues,” implying that the Defense Department was targeting critics of the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts.

Further compounding a sinister view of the software was the discovery of e-mails from the head of a company implicated in “dirty tricks” against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a pro-labor organization, which discussed how such technology could be used.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War

Myce image

Eric Blair
Activist Post

The establishment has been desperately trying to implement legal control over the Internet. They're attacking freedom of speech and the open Internet from all angles; through government tools, corporate methods, and even the courts. All three of these methods are converging in the WikiLeaks case, but that's not the only battle being waged in the so-called "all-out cyber war."

The government, through the DHS, has already shut down over 80 websites for copyright infringement without due process, in addition to floating the idea to tax information websites. Corporations like Google, Verizon, and others are making deals to tip the Internet in favor of major players.  Finally, in the courts, ambulance-chasing copyright infringement lawyers are bullying blogs to pay settlements despite Fair Use rights -- while their ultimate goal is to set a golden precedent with which to attack all news aggregating websites.

Don't you see what's happening here as the media continues to hype this cyber war?  Because of the fierce resistance to all proposed changes to the Internet, they need an Internet "Pearl Harbor" to usher in these draconian laws. As the hacktivist army of WikiLeaks defenders are now reportedly turning their focus on UK government websites, we can expect that after the first major Web interruption, governments will convene urgent meetings to demand better enforcement and more control over the Internet. 


Therefore this cyber war would seem to be playing right into their hands -- as already, mainstream polling on the sheeple ranch called the United States shows that 70% believe Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is doing harm and should be prosecuted.  It won't be difficult to convince the masses to shut down dissent if essential infrastructure is "attacked" in this all-out war.  Especially if that infrastructure is the Web itself.

Indeed, even the aware among us would suffer greatly if the Internet was down for multiple days.  It is our heroin, our entertainment, our news, our communication medium,  our livelihood . . . in essence, our freedom.  I think most of us would beg for at least limited access after less than a week of being blacked out.  We'd be on our hands and knees saying, "We don't need all of it; just give us enough access to get our fix.  Please, I'll even register for an Internet tracking ID number."

Incidentally, it would seem the elite know the power they have over this technical opiate of the masses simply by shutting it down when the offensive anarchy gets too chaotic.  They will simply switch the Fortune 1000 over to Internet 2 and let us vermin swim in the virus-ridden battle-torn Internet 1.  Don't worry, though, they'll let us buy controlled access to their network where they will openly track, trace, and database our every keystroke and mouse click.

However, this war is not about technology, it is about the freedom of information and ability to view it in privacy.  Anyone who is fundamentally against WikiLeaks is the enemy of free speech, because WikiLeaks has become the poster child for the people's right to information.  The stronger a critic expresses their disdain for WikiLeaks, the more tyrannical we can expect the response to be.  In other words, the more dangerous they can make WikiLeaks out to be, calling them "high-tech terrorist" and the like, the further the compromise bar is pushed in the establishment's direction.

Because the establishment is already in control of the technical gears of the Internet, they can and will win a technical cyber war -- even if they have to go nuclear and pull the plug to do it.  The hacktivists fighting for Internet free speech have truth and principle on their side, yet they may be falling into the King's trap quite effectively.  Just as the establishment needs violent street protests to justify their armored police state, they also need offensive protests by these hacktivists to justify policing the Internet.

Victor Hugo famously said, "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."  The ideas of liberty, justice, peace, and the right to open-source knowledge has come of age; it is clear that the globalist machine is opposed to these ideals -- thus they're losing the information war.  Therefore, they must attack the battlefield of the infowar under the pretext of protecting cyberspace from those pesky freedom-of-speech bandits.

This so-called cyber war will likely fester into a Pearl Harbor-type event.  When it occurs, the mainstream media will incite fear in one hand and sell the solution out of the other.  We must be aware of their tactics and keep fighting for Internet freedom with heavy doses of the truth.

RECENTLY by Eric Blair:
Copyright Extortionist Sues Drudge, Backed by Globalists
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

Internet was never free or open and never will be, media studies prof. says

Nathan Diebenow
Raw Story Exclusive

Author: If Americans want a truly free network, 'we've got to build it from scratch'

Secrets outlet WikiLeaks' continuing struggle to remain online in the face of corporate and government censorship is a striking example of something few truly realize: that the Internet is not and never has been democratically controlled, a media studies professor commented to Raw Story.

"[T]he stuff that goes on on the Internet does not go on because the authorties can't stop it," Douglas Rushkoff, author of Program or be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age and Life, Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How to Take it Back", said. "It goes on because the authorities are choosing what to stop and what not to stop."

Rushkoff told Raw Story that the authorities have the ability to quash cyber dissent due to the Internet's original design, as a top-down, authoritarian device with a centralized indexing system.

Essentially, all one needs to halt a rogue site is to delete its address from the domain name system registry.

Read Full Article

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