Posted on 06/11/2009 7:28:24 PM PDT by Gomez
Michael Scott points us to the fact that US Attorneys have requested data on anonymous commenters who commented on an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. From the description, it sounds like the feds are fishing for a lot more than they should be allowed to get. The subpoena requested:
"full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers ... the IP address," of everyone who commentedSeem a bit excessive? It's not entirely clear what the feds are fishing for, but one indicator? Some of the comments were quite critical of (you guessed it) a federal prosecutor. As Thomas Mitchell, the editor of the Review-Journal notes:
These comment posters are not reporters; they have no shield law protection, especially since Congress has yet to pass the pending federal shield law. A grand jury can subpoena just about anyone for any reason.We've been seeing a lot of similar stories lately -- with gov't officials getting upset at what's being said about them online, and pushing the (or crossing) the boundaries of the law in order to try to find out who is behind those comments.
But what time, effort and tax-funded expenses are being expended by the U.S. attorney's office to track down a bunch of posturing blowhards squandering their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
....
What the prosecutors don't appear to understand is that we don't have most of what they are seeking. We don't require registration. A person could use a fictitious name and e-mail address, and most do. We have no addresses or phone numbers.
To add prior restraint to the chilling effect of the sweeping subpoena, we were warned: "You have no obligation of secrecy concerning this subpoena; however, any such disclosure could obstruct and impede an ongoing criminal investigation. ..."
My name is Barrack Obama and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
I’m Spartacus
And furthermore they don't appear to understand that people lie on the internet. Or do they really think I have my own ICBMs?
I’m Kirk Douglas.
I am the Walrus.
How’s your sister Spartaca?
Obama to Cantor, “We won.”
The government we knew, maybe not as well as we should have, no longer exists. We are not protected either by the courts or by our elected officials. The Constitution has been replaced by unelected czars whom no one is challenging, and I doubt the court will side with We the People anymore, any time soon.
Apparently that was before Republicans rolled over and said "take me, Karl!"
That's not exactly how I see it. IMO it grants the government specific limited authority on a provisional basis. That may be nit picking but governmental authority is by our consent, under our control and can be revoked. Theoretically.
Yes, Yes, and again Yes ... good points all. This is called 'checks and balances' in the journalistic world as well as the political world. Albeit, this is what keeps the human ego's lust for power in check ... our Founders understood this, and is why we have the First Amendment.
However, I take issue with your assertion that if a source doesn't want to talk, then somehow "the media’s ability to gather news is crippled". Huh? Is the "media" now a victim here, the media are 'crippled' because a source won't say anything? Maybe, just maybe, the so-called 'source' just doesn't have anything to say, maybe the 'source' is a hermit and doesn't generally talk to people openly, and just maybe the 'media' is infringing on the privacy of this 'source' .. maybe the 'source' isn't even really a 'source' at all. Who are all those "unnamed sources" that the New York Times and its ilk banties around whenever they got some blockbuster story that makes someone look bad (usually Republicans)?
We're not talking Court orders or Subpeona's here, were talking media (ie: Reporters) .. who have no more special rights than anyone else in regards to the First Amendment. Period.
And we've seen over the years how an out of control media have gone and wrecked the lives of normal decent people with their self-serving ego driven agenda. Nuff Said.
Cheers,
MM
“We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would likely to use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands can not yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished” and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United States. If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war, with an enemy at your doors? No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have directed the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it.”
Andrew Jackson, 1837 farewell address
Why don't you tell us? The comments are attached to the article. (Of course, then your IP will be in the Review-Journal's subpoenable logs (LOL). Maybe they should stop keeping httpd logs.)
I think the pig is just annoyed at the paper's coverage and is abusing his power in order to lean on them. BTW, it's Bush's fault — this AUSA's boss is a Bush appointee.
Dumb Post.
The crux of the matter is left to the OUIJA board.
Just exactly what was the subject of the article which induced all the comments?
That is the point, isn't it? The enemy has passed through our doors and now sits in the seat of power. Are we ready for what is surely coming?
I think the greater point he was making was that American fundamentals and principles would have gradually been usurped by a federal reserve paper money system had America not been victorious in their struggle against the national bank. The point I was making is that this is exactly what has happened.
isom35,
Federal prosecutors have been used as political tools by the administration since the clintons turned the i.r.s. in to their personal harassment tool.
Corrupt ass clowns? you bet.
That is true, but the problem we have today is far more complex. I don't think Adams or any of our wise men could have foreseen that the pirates and slavers of their day would become the rulers and masters of this country today.
We are being attacked on every level of our existence.
Our roots and our heritage are literally being torn out and erased as if they never were. Our property is no longer sacrosanct. The federal government was not supposed to own land, but they stole it out from under our feet. You can tax gold just as easily as you can anything else.
This is not really about money. It is about corrupt, raw, and ruthless power. The banks are only one route.
Control of people through government control of our educational system has turned our childrens' minds to mush.
Unreasonable and restrictive interstate commerce laws have usurped states' rights. The government does not allow for barter and trade anymore.
Unbridled police powers and corrupt courts make it impossible to do justice.
Government tells us where to live and how.
Religious freedom is under attack in ways we have never seen before. Elimination of our Creator makes the government our god.
And on and on.
“Confidential sources are imperative to news-gathering.” And criminal enterprise.
“The primary argument for a reporter’s right to keep confidential sources...”
This is a right I’m not aware of. Who is eligible to exercise that right, and how do I identify such people? What rules are these people working to and who wrote them?
In other words, if I come across someone using the right to keep silent while in full knowledge of a felony, what test do I apply to see if the person is authorized to use the right to keep confidential sources? And who authorizes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.