Slashdot Mirror

In many cases, [police]

turned a valuable crime-fighting tool into a personal search engine for home addresses, for driving records and for criminal files of love interests, colleagues, bosses or rivals.
. . . .
Part-time Memphis police officer Scott Woods.... [used the database] to find out personal information about a woman he met on the Internet....
. . . .
Woods later told the woman he had followed her home the night before, according to police records. He called her by her middle name, which she had not told him. He described her height and weight. And he went on to call her at home and work up to three times a day, according to police and sheriff's records.

But there are laws in place to prevent these abuses.

[Orange County, Florida, Sheriff Kevin] Beary was so upset by [a critical Letter to the Editor] that he had his staff look up [the letter writer's] address using driver's license records and fired off a letter to her.

"I never in any way sent that letter to you with the intent of intimidating you. Please know that I am confident I was within the purview of the Florida Public Records Law when I obtained your mailing address. I sincerely regret the fact that my letter upset you," Beary wrote.

Violators of the driver's privacy act can be sued in U.S. District Court for damages of at least $2,500, punitive damages, attorney's fees and all other relief the court determines to be appropriate.

But sheriff's officials said that it was legal to look up Gawronski's address on the driver's database. Sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said responding to a resident's concern is well within Beary's official duties.

Ok, so maybe those laws have loopholes. But all he did was send her an intimidating letter. Cops would never use databases to do worse.

Prosecutor's Office Uses Database to Smear Prosecutor's Political Opponent,
Police Lieutenant Charged With Abusing Database to Influence Elections
Cop Uses Database to Find Woman's Unlisted Phone Number -- Gives It to Woman's Ex

A few bad apples. The databases wouldn't be used to frame political opponents.

[A U.S. Federal Court jury]

concluded that the FBI and the Police had framed the two activists in an effort to stifle Earth First! and stop participation in 'Redwood Summer', a planned campaign of non-violent direct action against the destruction of old-growth forest.

But we all know that those Earth Firsters are, essentially, terrorists. Why should terrorists be protected by laws? The FBI doesn't frame peaceful protesters!

More ominously,

the FBI suggested that "legal" efforts to deal with [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] might not be enough. "It may be unrealistic," the memorandum went on, to limit ourselves as we have been doing to legalistic proofs or definitely conclusive evidence that would stand up in testimony in court or before Congressional Committees...
. . . .
[FBI officials] agreed to use "all available investigative techniques" to develop information for use "to discredit" King. Proposals discussed included using ministers, "disgruntled" acquaintances, "aggress

So much for belittling our kids for not knowing about the first ammendment. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagbur ning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to 1 year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

As general information for any reader that doesn't know, masks on other than holidays are generally prohibited by law in many jurisdictions.

How broad the ordinances are and whether there are exceptions (i.e. as for Muslim women) also varies.

They seem to be susceptible to 1st amendment challenges, though.
Klan's old Kentucky haunts ban hoods in public
With a 'Hi-Oh, Silver!' ACLU Challenges Michigan Anti-Mask Law on Behalf of "Lone Ranger" Protesters
Anti-mask laws are spreading

Then again, today's U.S. Judicial branch throws precedent, law, and the U.S. Constitution out the window, so maybe I should just shut up and pledge my loyalty to Big Brother and atone for my double plus ungood badthink.

I know it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you; I wonder if it's cynical if the belief in question is true. Producers of all sorts fight hard to water down the standards involved in labeling.

While reading Naomi Klein's "No Logo", I learned about the textile industry's attempt to subvert the 'Sweatshop Free' logo by allowing for a large percentage of the final garment to be manufactured in...drum roll please...sweatshops.

More recently, the United Egg Producers used the "Animal Care Certified" label to encourage the mistaken view that egg-laying hens are well-treated.

And don't get me started on Nike v. Kasky, where Nike attempted to assert its corporate personhood's First Amendment rights.

It's much cheaper to convince people that you're doing the right thing than it is to do the right thing. If we were ever to allow the corporations to police themselves more than they already do, we should at least maintain and enforce our 'truth in advertising' protections.

Both parody and satire count as protected speech. The distinction's more because parody and satire cases have different precident cases backing them up, so the exact level of protection is different.

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html/

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/958 2196.htm?1c/

One of the most significant Satire related cases:

http://www.sexuality.org/l/wh/whfalwel.html/

The problem for satire cases right now may be seen in one recent case:

"Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA
Penguin Books published a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson trial in a book titled, The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The 9th Circuit held that the book did not parody The Cat in the Hat, but simply retold the Simpson story. Therefore, there was no fair-use defense, and the book was deemed a copyright infringement."

For source of this, see:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/librari es/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire/

Note that case was originally a ruling on a Parody claim, but a lot of people seem to think the decision, as worded, has severe impact on Satire based claims. This whole issue will doubltless come up again in further cases, at least until the supremes issue a ruling as definitive as in Fallwell.

-you're on private property. When you entered said property, you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions set forth by the property owners

Just like there is no such right to freedom of speech on private property. Eh?

Nothing on NECN's website, which is affiliated with that Bastion of Truth, the Boston Globe, so it's not a surprise.

It's worth noting that the quoted statement is not protected by the first amendment, though the wording is such that it could probably be argued both ways. Findlaw has this to say about "clear and present danger. " In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the FBI is actually required to investigate any citizen who advocates violence against the president. Another useful link on the history and limitations of the first amendment is here.

When have we NOT held that public nudity and swearing in public are a bad thing?

No argument there.

Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?

Before 1978, when the Supreme Court found that the government had the right to regulate the obscene material in broadcasting.

The reporter currently under discussion is Declan McCullagh, a CNET correspondent.

The FBI apologized in the case of Bridis, but apparently has not said anything regarding McCullagh.

Maybe they're hoping if they pass enough of these out, someone will just cave without asking for legal advice?

peragrin is right. The FBI apologized for their mistake as stated in this article

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom ... of the press."

This discusses the issue in at least some cursory depth. And there is more information on a journalistic privledge here.

I love conspiracy theories as much as anyone, but that can be a dangerous route to go, as it is real easy for a situation to be called a "conspiracy theory" and thus trivialized.

It could even (possibly more likely) be more a matter of politics. Perhaps they are running a lot of m$ and whoever made the decision to run that software took the article personally?

Or maybe someone's afraid of scaring away sponsors, customers, etc?

The sad thing is that this sends a (often repeated) message that dissent in the bussiness community (indeed in other communities as well - higher ed [firstamendmentcenter.org], for example isn't as safe as it used to be).

In the immortal words of my main man Frankie H., "Fear is the mid killer".

-h

All of these lead many Christians to assume that the ACLU is for the protection and advancement of immorality, and well, you can immagine how all the televangelists and (even worse) the radio-evangelists consider this a bad thing, and make a big ruckus.

There is precedent for limitations on free speech. There are a few main reasons that the courts will permit as the reason to sensor. Among the most important is when the censor prevents someone from issuing "fighting words".
Half decent link
Half decent link
Half decent link

Or populate it your own original warbling renditions of Britney et al.

You might have to show up in court but the comedy would be priceless and, of course, you could counter-sue the RIAA for violating your civil rights.

Parody lives.