Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source. Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them, protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing wrongdoing that is in the public interest. This is not the same thing. The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing. Now, sending her to jail certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon. On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > You're just trolling, right? > > "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." > > Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like > its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The > issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on > something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell > might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less > likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between > protecting the source and jail. > > "On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to > testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie > Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is > reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. > According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official > ? later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of > Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson > published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for > "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity > was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)" > > That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE > NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication. > > Major Variola (ret.) wrote: > > So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists > > should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class > > journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. > > > > > > LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her > > decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism > > conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that > > others won't face the same sanctions. > > > > http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1104064 > > > > > > - -- > Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFDVnALyAc5jM0nFbgRAhiIAKCCDAizX/32F3U8BEAEZo1jmbufjACeOATk > UAp601vKKywgkklcAWd0iaI= > =73ed > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > >
FEC requesting comments on Internet use
http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/05-06521.htm Public comments due June 3rd. >From the Summary: "The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed changes to its rules that would include paid advertisements on the Internet in the definition of ``public communication.'' These changes to the Commission's rules would implement the recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Shays v. Federal Election Commission, which held that the current definition of ``public communication'' impermissibly excludes all Internet communications. Comment is also sought on the related definition of ``generic campaign activity'' and on proposed changes to the disclaimer regulations. Additionally, comment is sought on proposed new exceptions to the definitions of ``contribution'' and ``expenditure'' for certain Internet activities and communications that would qualify as individual volunteer activity or that would qualify for the ``press exemption.'' These proposals are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections. The Commission has made no final decision on the issues raised in this rulemaking. Further information appears in the supplementary information that follows."
Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, December 15, 2002
While I disagree with the phrase "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" and I certainly don't agree with everything ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phrase "why the state can NOT be just"... Please tell me why... or better yet, how do you define "just"? perhaps, I am living in a dream world, but, if you live in the United States, then we DO still have control over what the State does... bring on the naysayers, and the people who cry about corruption and conspiracy... but the fact still remains, that what the people want, the people can have... if they want it bad enough... the problem is that the people don't want it bad enough anymore.. the apathy is sickening... who's fault is that? I am so tired of hearing people cry about government corruption and what is wrong with this country and society when only 50% or less of the people actually vote... People say that they don't vote because they don't like the options presented to them... well, then change them... as for the State having "NO motivation to be fair"... please support this... our system is, by no means, perfect... but, it is a system where if you want to make things different, then make them different... instead of getting on your soapbox to bitch and moan about how unfair things are, why not start makings things fair... shawn On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 04:12, Marcel Popescu wrote: > Are you for real??? > > I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases > like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the > State has more motivation to be fair" sound like right out of 1984. What > happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd laugh if you > wouldn't have so much influence on so many people. I got over your idea that > arming pilots and people on planes is bad, while armed marshals are good > (because they get 3 balls while on duty, presumably), I got over your > ignorance of the solution to the public good dilemma - which is NOT state > control, but private property and enforcement of property rights - but this > is nuts. > > Do I have to explain to you why the state can NOT be just? Why it has NO > motivation to be fair, if it can get away with it? Why the incentives are > all wrong - and why, even if we found saints and put them to govern, their > *signals* would be all wrong, because they wouldn't put *their* lives and > properties on the line? Do you even read the articles whose URLs you present > to support your ideas - because the first one, > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64688,00.html , is definitely not > friendly to the state's "justice"? > > I would have thought that someone whose name is well known among cypherpunks > has at least some familiarity with these ideas. At the very least, it would > have required you to explain why you believe the state is good for justice - > something which is definitely alien for most of us! > > Mark -- email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org cell: mobile-pakkit at codepiranha dot org web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Lockdown for anarchist prison resistor,Rob los Ricos.
While I certainly support the right of anyone to resist DNA testing I have a few problems with how this was written... specifically one sentence... > The cop was not injured and is a known racist. Not injured? Does it matter? You can go to jail for attempted murder and not hurt anyone but does that make the sentence unjust? Also, a known racist? Based on what? If this guy is from "out of town", how does he know if the guy is a known racist? not to mention all the riot gear the cop must have been wearing.. even so... the laws in this country do not change simply because someone may be a jerk, a racist, or just a plain asshole... and thank god... I know I am probably classified into one or more of those categories by people though I don't feel that I am any of them... I would be more than happy to jump up for a cause if someone is unjustly punished or if the cause is just... but that cause needs to be based on verifiable fact... I read the article and maybe this guy WAS unjustly punished... but, in the article, there are quotes from this "racist" police officer and other supposed "facts" with no evidence... I would agree that sometimes there are excesses of force when people who try to offer an alternative to the status quo get together in large groups, and I am not excusing that behavior one bit... but if you are going to rally behind someone please offer more concrete evidence and facts... Thanks, Shawn -- email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org pgp key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E 98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
