Slashdot Mirror
Online Journalists are ISPs?
MFS! writes "Long-time C|Net reporter and Politech operator Declan McCullagh has been contacted by the FBI, according to his most recent article. The FBI requests that he retain all records regarding his talks with Adrian Lamo. The problem? The FBI's letter was sent under the auspices of a law which applies only to internet service providers. Says Declan, "Perhaps I'd be immune from the FBI's demands if I used an Underwood No. 5 typewriter instead." Does writing online now qualify one as an ISP?"
With Patriot Act 2 he would be a terrorist and lose his american nationality.
IIRC, some years ago, tourists with a camcorder in Washington DC accidentally captured some bad guys getting away from a crime while taping monuments, statues, etc. on their vacation. When they realized this, they gave the videocassette to a TV station in Washington, DC.
/end rant)
Police demanded not only the part of the tape that aired on the local news, but also any other footage that didn't air. Police surrounded the TV station and wouldn't let anybody leave. (Is that kidnapping or illegal detention? Doesn't matter, everybody knows the laws don't apply to police.
Eventually a court ruled the police demand was not allowed.
Anybody remember this incident? John Ashcroft seems to have amnesia.
Also, quoting the article: "An apology is too much to ask for." Not if we stick together and demand it! You bring the torches, I'll bring some pitchforks!
Here's a link from Declan's Politechbot archive.
For those too lazy to RTFL, the FBI is now dropping the threat of obstruction of justice charges and asking reporters to voluntarily hold on to any notes they may have, saying they hope to come to an agreement later on access to their notes.
If I were a journalist my reply would be, "Um, yeah, I may keep them, but you'll be in touch with my organization's First Amendment lawyer, and you'll see my notes over my thrown-in-jail-for-contempt-of-court body."
Someone you trust is one of us.
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.
-- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Text & Description
A strict definition is the government shall not pass any law that restricts the content or distribution of information via the press. Last time I checked, online journalists (who you might say provide press services on the internet) are not restricted what they are or are not allowed to publish. In this case, the government is exploring their legal rights to determine the source of the material that is being distributed.
6.41 per 1000
--
Power to the Peaceful
From what I remember reading (unfortunately, I don't have a link), well over half are imprisoned for nonviolent drug crimes (.e.g possession).
If all persons imprisoned for non-violent drug crimes were pardoned, the overcrowding in prison would immediatly cease and a huge bundle of money would be saved. Unfortunately, the prison guard union here in California is the second most powerful union (California Teacher's Association is first) and they would not wish a sudden mass pardoning. They just got a sweetheart union contract approved by our soon-to-be-ex governor that includes full retirement benefits at age 50. And people wonder why we tossed his sorry ass out.
Don't get me started on the teacher's union.
-- Will program for bandwidth