Senator Lindsey Graham: Bloggers Don’t Deserve Free Speech Rights

lindsey-graham-clown

The U.S. senate is working on a media shield law that would protect the media against government retaliation for exposing sensitive information.

I thought the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights made it quite clear that all speech was already protected:

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.

Since the government has been on the rampage to punish whistleblowers who exposed government crimes perhaps additional clarity is needed. However, it seems that the politicians are using the media shield law to decide who gets free speech protection and who doesn’t.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the leading GOP sponsor of the media shield law, made some disturbing statements that the law may not include bloggers. In doing so, he clearly shows his disdain for bloggers.

“You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don’t care. But when you start talking about classified programs, that’s when it gets to be important,” “So, if classified information is leaked out on a personal website or [by] some blogger, do they have the same First Amendments rights as somebody who gets paid [in] traditional journalism?” “Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” Graham told reporters Wednesday. “Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection?

As the government draws scorn for prosecuting Private Bradley Manning to the fullest extent of the law for alleged leaking of classified information and the DOJ spying on the Associated Press and other news organizations, this media shield law is gaining a groundswell of bipartisan support.

Yet if this legislation is used to determine who is permitted, licensed or authorized to talk about “classified” programs and who isn’t, it will likely do more harm to free speech than it protects.

Original Article Here

First Amendment Terrorist: Pentagon Says Protests Are Acts of “Low Level Terrorism

freedom-of-speech-gagged-300x210

First, the government responds to the September 11th attack by passing the Patriot Act, which is purportedly designed to protect us from foreign terrorists. Most of America cheers it on, never realizing that within the act is a broad definition for something categorized as domestic terrorism, or “activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

Second, they pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows them, under the definitions for domestic terrorism set forth by the Patriot Act, to detain someone without trial and forever if they appear to be subverting the newly established status quo.

Third, they declare all federal property, or property being used for political events where Secret Service protection is present, as “events of national significance” through the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act. Undesirable demonstrators operating counter to the official narrative in these areas are herded into court approved free speech zones.

Finally, once the new laws are in place, the government security apparatus begins the re-education of its minions by labeling as “terrorists” anyone who dares speak out or disagrees with their new policy initiatives.

This last step is and has been happening for some time.

Even the very act of assembling with other like minded people to influence policy by petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances can land you on the domestic terrorism list.

More At: Red ice Creations

1st Amendment Violated as Facebook Assists Police in Pre-Crime Investigations

On August 16th former US Marine Brandon Raub was arrested for posting his opinion about the US government on his Facebook page .

Raub is currently being held in a psychiatric ward.

In a statement by Raub, he explains : “I’m currently in John Randolph in the psychiatric ward being held against my will. They were concerned about me calling for the arrest of government officials.”

Raub’s lawyers say that he will be held for “up to 30 days’ further confinement in a VA psych ward” after “government officials again pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration.” While Raub was taken forcefully, put into handcuffs and taken by the FBI to be questioned, both the FBI and Secret Service deny that Raub was arrested or detained by them.

Facebook comments were recently cited as evidence in a court case concerning cyber bullying where comments on a personal page were ruled by a US Federal court as information that can be lawfully obtained by the police to be used against a defendant.

William Pauley, US District Court Judge, stated that because the defendant made violent threats in his posts which are deemed public information that they are allowable as evidence against him by prosecutors.

On April 24th, District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that by clicking a “like” button on Facebook, that this affiliation is public domain and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Jackson wrote : “Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient.

Full article here