Slashdot Mirror
Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
"i.e." stands for "id est" and means "that is [to say]".
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia" and means "for example".
The article summary should have used e.g. instead of i.e. I see this mistake all the time and it irritates me.
No, the bar against ex post facto laws is in Article I, Section 9. The 9th Amendment is the one that says that the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to mean that unenumerated rights don't exist.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I think it's someplace north of the border, or perhaps in europe someplace.
evil is as evil does
> So what is all this "Land of the free" I keep hearing about?
Not true anymore. If it ever was. See McCarthyism or other examples from the history of civil rights in the US.
I think that the verse continues as "Home of the Brave".
Not true either. See how squeamish the US people get when soldiers die in wars and occupations that their elected government chose to enter.
Here's a hit from the big clue stick:
If you don't like the government that you have then don't re-elect it!
And I'm not just talking about the president that you have over there.
I'm talking about all of the elected officials.
I must say things are not any better here in Finland.
Our former Prime Minister resigned because she leaked confidential information during her election campaign.
She was elected anyway to the European parliament after her resignation.
People should realise the power that they have and make responsible decisions when voting.
I read about a page of comments all basically saying the same thing "I hate this" "Bush's fault" "It won't get past the courts, move along" etc etc. Too bad there weren't any "why I hate this" comments backing up their opinions.
I wish the Washington Post had included a link to the original wording of this proposed bill. But they didn't so all we had was this:
Meaning, the law would make it illegal to disclose information that might harm ongoing legal investigations. How is that a bad thing? It would still be legal to report surveillance that is being preformed illegally. The key words are "conducted under a 1978 surveillance law". If this is the actual case the other quote they gave us:
is contradictory and incorrect. One of them is wrong. The important question is which? Likely this law wouldn't affect law abiding citizens at all. The media has brought this crap upon themselves though. By reporting anything whether accurate or not in the name of revenue and ratings.You not hearing about legal wiretapping will not affect your life. You not hearing about illegal wiretapping is a different story. In the haste of the Washington Post to produce a story, they have reported contradictory opinions without facts to show which is true.
And, googling further, it seems to have earned a +5 every time it's been used in a political discussion on /. ever since. I suppose it's too late now to ask about royalties... :-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for."
/. readers (ahem), they merely need to convince 51% of the masses of their lies/misconceptions. They can and do, end of story.
We (they?) are just very very good at breeding consent through means of public manipulation. A shitload has been learned over many decades on how to manipulate public thought. Now, I'm not talking about intellectuals, or even
And remember, Bush won by only a few percentage points. The "rest" of us were so completely stunned, that therapy and Canadian visa applications were headline stories. If you feel you must blame somone, blame the ill-informed and the reasons for their inability to become informed. Our media is a laughing stock. Our workforce has barely the time to watch American Idol, let alone watch meaningful discourse (no car crashes? forget it...). Half of our country merely doesn't realize that there is anything wrong. They are convinced that power equals safety, and that gaining as much power as possible at any cost is worth it. What they don't realize, is that this very thinking is what we as Americans used to despise. In fact, that train of thought was thought to be a precursor for war by those same ill-informed masses. What a change has been made... kudos to the greedy. They've won hook line and sinker, and it's coming to a country near you!
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Theres a whole bunch of numbers just waiting to be looked up that says a whole lot more innocent Americans get shot than in similar countries that have much tighter firearm laws. Start here http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GU NS/GUNSTAT.html
I meanwhile will continue enjoying the tight firearm legislation around here. /me kisses kama goodbye
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
No, parent was right. Domestic disputes - a term for 'fights within the home between relations', including spouses, signifigant others, parents/children, etc. - cause more gun violence than armed robbery does in the US.