Slashdot Mirror

How can "federal" wiretapping laws vary from state to state? Either the laws he broke are federal laws and the so the charges are federal or they were state laws and the article should read "California wiretapping charges."

Wiretapping laws vary state to state.

There are also federal wiretapping laws covering much the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive. It just happens that some states extend federal law.

This guy was investigated by a federal grand jury, hence federal law applies to him.

But so does state law, and he could be charged under that too. Like Linda Tripp was for recording Monica Lewinsky's calls.

Libel and Slander are civil torts in most cases. Criminal libel exists in less than half of the states, and is extremely rarely used: Reference . Just remember libel or slander cases and you'll always see "million dollar suits", but never "3 to 5 years".
Yelling in a crowded theater: That is not an actual law, but a Supreme Court decision. Read it, and you'll see that the Justices were extremely reluctant to apply any limits to freedom of speech. The only reason that one stands is because it can cause actual physical damage to someone (that also stands behind the "hate speech" exception).
I don't see how "gross" speech can physically harm someone. And you will agree that this can be the beginning of a slippery slope (remember the "bonsai kittens" thing. There are lots of people who will try and silence all kinds of speeck "for the children").

You can't tape them saying that stuff (since it breaks wiretapping laws, I believe)

I am pretty sure the regs are still on the books. Or at least they were as recently as 2000. That was when the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) filed a complaint with the FCC alleging the broadcast networks were in violation because they accepted Public Service Announcement (PSA) credits from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in return for airing anti-drug content in its regular programming. NORML maintained that because the networks did not disclose the compensation they violated the sponsorship disclosure requirements.

The FCC rejected NORML's complaint, but instructed the networks to identify the ONDCP as a sponsor in the future.

The thing about regulation is that someone has to enforce it.

"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.

He wasn't picked up for being a criminal. He was picked up as a material witness against the others he was involved with.

He was held in custody because the court considered him a flight risk. Perhaps you disagree with the material witness laws (as many do) but the FBI did not act illegally.

you can definitely tape-record a conversation as long as ONE of the parties involved gives their consent

In the USA this varies from state to state. This page offers a state by state summary of wiretap laws.

otherwise, answering machines would be illegal

Answering machines are legal in all states because the person being recorded knows that they are being recorded. You can legally record a phone call with someone in any state as long as you tell them that it is being recorded, but if you record it without their knowledge then the legality depends on which state you are in.

duh!

If you're going to say that, at least know what you're talking about first.

People who rolled over:
Chris Van Ness (after only several hours!!)
Bruce Anderson (13 days)

People who got lucky (usually because the case was over):
Roxana Kopetman (6 hours)
Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain (8 hours)

People who got off because the source came forward:
Richard Hargraves (1 weekend)
Brian Karem (after 13 days, of course we are talking about a jailhouse interview. See squealing on gang members below.)

Doesn't count:
Brad Stone (wouldn't reveal gang members in cop killing case. duh. jail is better than getting wacked by a gang.)
Tim Roche (18+ days for criminal contempt, not like he had a choice at that point.)
Felix Sanchez and James Campbell (locked in the judges chambers! Oh the horrors.)
Lisa Abraham (20+ days, again ratting on a convict is rather unhealthy.)
David Kidwell (14 days, again with the jailhouse interviews.)
Timothy Crews (5 days, wouldn't rat on a dirty cop. duh.)

Well if this is the best proof anyone has then sorry my point is proven. Two of the reporters revealed their info, the majority had sources who would probably kill them if they were revealed. And this is over the last 18 years! There must be hundreds of cases where people rolled without jailtime.

And Wordsmith, I believe you feel that way, but you have never actually been in that situation, you have yet to prove yourself. Saying the phrase "I would die for you." and living up to (or dieing in this case) are two entirely different matters.

Many?

How about these? Here is the current advice on the subject of whether a reporter should offer confidentiality to a source. The US Supremes ruled in 1999 that there is no 1st Amendment guarantee to reporters offering confidentiality and tossed it to each state to decide on their own. A reporter should consult with her local publisher for their policy before guaranteeing confidentiality.

Many?

How about these? Here is the current advice on the subject of whether a reporter should offer confidentiality to a source. The US Supremes ruled in 1999 that there is no 1st Amendment guarantee to reporters offering confidentiality and tossed it to each state to decide on their own. A reporter should consult with her local publisher for their policy before guaranteeing confidentiality.

If you've ever wondered about the legalities of recording calls without one side knowing about it:
Can We Tape? (Summary: In most states, it's legal.)
Though I don't have a link, I am fairly certain this practice is legal in all Canadian provinces also.

Something to think about, if you've ever considered threatening or cursing at a telemarketer (very likely), or if you find they do it to you (less likely).

This really depends on the journalist... Vanessa Leggett being a good example of a journalist who had high enough journalistic standards that she went to prison for keeping her mouth shut.
Would sir like to try a smaller tar brush?

Yeah, the Ninth Circuit is the "most overturned court" or something.

Seems to me that all Nuremberg Files needs to do is move their server to a different jurisdiction. Then the Ninth Circuit rules wouldn't apply.

Conversely: maybe the way to shut down Nuremberg files is with a law like the one that shut down JusticeFiles.org, which makes it illegal to post cops' home addresses and phone numbers and so on. (some legal analysis here.)

My bet is that if the supreme court ever hears this case, the ninth circuit will be overruled. I'm basing that on a ruling a few years back as to what actually constitues a "real threat" (or whatever the legal term is) and it's a pretty high threshhold.

Anyone know of a good way to browse summaries of Supreme Court decisions? The few sites I've looked at (FindLaw and Cornell Law) have search but I can't seem to peg the right search terms to find the case I'm looking for. It involved (as I recall) a white-owned business that was being boycotted by blacks, and some white people were threatening the blacks. The court decided the threats were protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides a reasonable introduction to the laws covering this.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides a reasonable introduction to the laws covering this.

Introduction

At first, the question of whether or not to tape record a phone call seems like a matter of personal preference. Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don't like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject's consent, others do it routinely. However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. There are both federal and state statutes governing the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution.

It continues here.

psxndc

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

http://www.rcfp.org/taping

Also has links to the relevant state codes concerning this.

It's important to note that even in states with 'shield laws' judges have been known to flaunt the law and have reporters stew in jail.

dbthomas

1. As others have pointed out, coke has multiple meanings that no one owns a trademark on (and, of course, can't).
   A trademark on 'Coke' (as in the soft drink) is only valid in the context of soft drinks. If a farmer's market that sold all sorts of fruits (perhaps they're in Washington state and specialize in apples) and veggies had beat the software company to the apple.com domain, the computer company would have had to do something drastic like (gasp!) register applecomputers.com, instead.
   If coke.ch was being legitimately used for a purpose (i.e. the owner is not a cybersquatter), it's Coke's problem for (A) not registering the domain a long time ago or (B) not putting their efforts in the right place -- like lobbying for more-specific top-level domains.
2. That said, I am curious if the owner can present any evidence of intent to use coke.ch as part of a campaign to help cocaine addicts. This was the key issue in a (U.S. District Court) case last year in which a local reporter was busted for trading kiddie porn, which he claimed he was using in a freelance undercover story. Based on stories at the time, the judge hinted that he would have taken that defense seriously had the reporter given evidence that editors were aware of the story, the author had a contract, etc. A number of organizations (1) (2) contested the ruling on other grounds, but I can see the same logic being applied in potential cases of cybersquatting: "Can you give me evidence that you really planned -- to any degree -- to use the microsoft.net domain as a hyperlinked glossary to terms used in William Gibson's books?"
   I'm not saying it'll always happen like this, but it would seem like you'd at least share your great idea w/ someone in a manner more permanant than a verbal chat. I think that would go a long way in helping your argument.

Got your attention? Good.

I see a lot of /.ers spouting that spam is commercial speech, so it isn't protected by the first amendement. This is dead WRONG. Granted, it does not get the same degree of protection as politcal speech. Think about this: If commercial speech had no first amendment protection, then the selling of books could be regulated or banned.

From this page

Advertising and other communications proposing commercial transactions between the speaker and listener are not fully protected by the First Amendment. Generally, the Supreme Court has said that commercial speech may be restrained if it is false, misleading or concerns unlawful activity. Any governmental restraint must advance a substantial public interest and must not be more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.

Need more info? Search Google!

Now although the content of the spam is sometimes going to be protected (there's a lot promoting all sorts of bogus crap, which would not be protected), the methodology for sending spam is not always legal. If you are relaying off someone server without permission, you are committing theft of service. IANAL, and theft of service may or may not be a criminal offense, but would at least by actionable in a civil case. Sending spam without using a relay is almost certainly going to be a violation of contract with the ISP (terms of service almost always prohibit spamming), and this is enforcable by the courts. Some of these spammers get throwaway accounts using stolen credit cards. Guess what, that's also already a crime in and of itself.

And as someone else has pointed out, the law doesn't prohibit spamming at all. You can still spam using a throwaway ISP account, start up a HotMail account to direct bounces or send remove requests to (it's a real place to receive e-mail that you control, so it probably is within the law), and spam until you get cancelled without much worry about being arrested.

What's more, the spammers who do this for a living aren't going to be hurt by this. They'll have lawyers and if they're careful in how they spam, they'll get away with it.

Basically, this is about as bad as the anti-spam bill that (fortunately) died in congress last year in that both essentially legitimize the practice of spamming. I sure which I had a dollar for every spam I received that claimed they were an "ethical bulk e-mailer" (oxymoron) in compliance with S.1618, the Murkokowski bill. Barf. I'm already seeing the same spiel for California and Washington.

Regulating spammers will help spammers, and will probably hurt everyone else in the long run. Spammers should be stopped, but through Terms of Service agreements and theft-of-service prosecution.