Time to call our Senators and Congresspeople again. How come the only thing members of Congress can come together on is controlling the web habits and information sharing of everyday citizens? What are they afraid of?
We beat them before. Now we have to do it again. And probably again after this.
Here’s a list of important contacts.
The Battle for Power on the Internet: Bruce Schneier at TEDxCambridge 2013
Published by TEDxTalks
Bruce Schneier gives us a glimpse of the future of the internet, and shares some of the context we should keep in mind, and the insights we need to understand, as we prepare for it. Learn more about Bruce Schneier at https://www.schneier.com and TEDxCambridge at http://www.tedxcambridge.com.
Google Silencing Washington Times?
From a recent security scan and alert I received while performing the scan, Google has placed the Washington Times web site (www.washingtontimes.com) on the list of offenders added to Google’s Safe Browsing List.
[Updated to include security scan screen capture below, 1 example of 22 such results.]
The results seemed mixed as the mobile site loads without a problem or warning screen but the screen capture below is what loaded when viewing in my machine browser.
When scanning posts on ChrisInMaryville.net I had 22 posts that contained a link to information posted on Washingtimes.com’s web site, dating back to at least June of 2011 at quick glance. When going to Google’s diagnostic page regarding their Safe Browsing list here is the information displayed…
Funny, Google has been monitoring the site and has seen 20 issues in the last 90 days but late this afternoon the site is now listed on the evil roster of sites that could cause potential harm to all that visit, calling the site an “Attack Page”. Did all those issues manifest late this afternoon?
Is the Google notice based on fact or fiction, presented for safety or censorship? You be the judge, just passing along the information. Feel free to enter your thoughts in the comments below and let us see what the general consensus is.
Battle Royale on Piers Morgan: Glenn Greenwald, James Risen and Jeffrey Toobin
That’s the thing I don’t understand about the climate in Washington these days. People want to have debates on television and elsewhere, but then you want to throw the people that start the debates in jail.
- James Risen, New York Times Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist (he now faces jail time)
The above quote occurred during an excellent discussion between Glenn Greenwald, James Risen and Jeffrey Toobin on Piers Morgan’s show. While pretty much everyone on planet earth knows who Glenn Greenwald is at this point, most people do not know who James Risen is. This is a situation that must change. Mr. Risen is at the center of another very important case that threatens the future of freedom of the press in these United States.
In his book State of War, James Risen published information leaked to him by former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who is currently being charged under the Espionage Act by President Transparency, Barrack Obama. While a lower court had previously ruled Mr. Risen should be afforded reporter privilege to not testify against Mr. Sterling, a federal appeals court last month saw it differently in a 2-1 decision.
James Risen has vowed to go to jail rather than testify against his sources, which makes his debate with CNN’s “senior legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin all the more amusing. Toobin is a surveillance state lapdog apologist who regularly appears on television condemning people as criminals for informing the public about the government’s criminality.
This is an excellent watch and I also suggest my readers research more into Risen’s case. If you are pressed for time, fast forward to around minute 4.
Follow Mike’s new posts here.
Editor of Tennessee Paper Fired for Headline Critical of Obama
Does running this headline seem like a fireable offense to you?
“Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough.”
Apparently, the powers that be at the Chattanooga Times Free Press thought so. They may want to drop the “free press” part of the paper’s name going forward. The editor, who’s name is Drew Johnson, was accused of going against policy by changing the headline at the last minute, but he claims: “we change headlines all the time at the last minute. I had a filler headline in that stunk and thought of that Johnny Paycheck song.”
Even if he did break procedure, how is that headline so offensive that an editor needed to be removed for it? After all, it was in the editorial section of the paper, where headlines like that are supposed to be. It appears that someone has very, very thin skin. From The Hill:
“Free Press editor Drew Johnson has been terminated after placing a headline on an editorial outside of normal editing procedures,” the paper said in a statement. “Johnson’s headline, ‘Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough,’ appeared on the Free Press page Tuesday, the day President Barack Obama visited the city.”
The paper said the headline was “inappropriate for this newspaper” and that it “was not the original headline approved for publication.”
What a sad joke.
Follow me on Twitter!
New UK “Anti-Porn” Web Filter Will Block Controversial Content, Too
Prime Minister David Cameron insists that the measure is necessary in order to “protect children and their innocence.” However, the same filter – which will be implemented by ISPs that encompass 95 percent of British web users – will also block access to many other varieties of content, including “violent material,” “extremist and terrorist related content,” and websites dealing with eating disorders and suicide.
Open Rights Group, a free speech advocacy organization, points out that the filters will have a “default on” setting, which they say illustrates that the Cameron government “wants people to sleepwalk into censorship.”
Posted by Judy Morris
‘Ministry of Truth?’ DOJ creating News Media Review Committee
With nearly all eyes trained on the George Zimmerman trial in Sanford, Fla., late Friday afternoon, the Obama administration found a good opportunity to announce the results of Attorney General Eric Holder’s exhaustive investigation into … Eric Holder. President Obama had directed Holder to look into the Justice Department’s investigation of Fox News reporter James Rosen, which included the DOJ secretly gaining access to Rosen’s personal email account and tracking not only his phone records but those of his parents.
The DOJ was able to read Rosen’s emails by naming him a co-conspirator under the Espionage Act. Holder himself vetted and signed the warrant, so it was unlikely the report would hold Holder’s feet to the fire. Instead, the DOJ has decided to create a News Media Review Committee to handle future cases like Rosen’s and spread the responsibility around.
Read the rest at Twitchy Media, here.
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth
Ron Paul’s Pod Cast Nation #19 ~ Hypocrisy
Posted by RonPaulCC2012
Senator Dick Durbin: “It’s Time to Say Who’s a Real Reporter”
If you study the American criminal class long enough, it becomes quite easy to anticipate its next move in almost any serious situation. This is precisely what I did last week in my piece: It’s Acts of Journalism that Matter Not People Called “Journalists.” By watching the mainstream media’s reaction to Edward Snowden’s leaks, it became pretty obvious that what the power structure would attempt to do is pass a federal law that would ostensibly protect free speech and journalism, but in reality would allow the “authorities” to define who is and who isn’t a journalist. That way they can create distinct groups of people with distinct rights. One group would be permitted to share valuable information with the public, and the other would not. Of course, only compliant lapdogs to the state would be granted such privileges and we will end up rather quickly with no free press in America. Such a law should be resisted at all costs. Specific groups of people should not be carved out and granted specific rights, specific actions must be protected. Such as the act of journalism, not so called “journalists.”
Last week, the Senatorial spokesperson for the Ministry of Information, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, wrote the following fascist op-ed in the Chicago Sun Times. Some key excerpts:
Is each of Twitter’s 141 million users in the United States a journalist? How about the 164 million Facebook users? What about bloggers, people posting on Instagram, or users of online message boards like Reddit?
But who should be considered to be a journalist?
Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.
I’m confused. We’ve survived as a country without making such definitions just fine for the past 223 years under The Constitution. Seems to me you and your crony friends are just concerned you are losing your grip on power.
Image added to original post.
Victory: Declaring Ban ‘Repugnant’ to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court0
Posted by Judy Morris
Victory: Declaring Ban ‘Repugnant’ to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC — Declaring a federal ban on expressive activity on the U.S. Supreme Court plaza to be “repugnant” to the Constitution, a District of Columbia federal court has struck down a 60-year-old statute which broadly prohibits speech and expression in front of the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of Harold Hodge, a 46-year-old African-American man who was arrested in January 2011 while standing silently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building wearing a sign voicing his concerns about the government’s disparate treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics. In a ruling issued in Hodge v. Talkin, et al., District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”
“Judge Howell’s frank, no-holds-barred ruling affirming the Supreme Court plaza as a free speech zone throws a lifeline to the First Amendment at a time when government officials are doing their best to censor, silence and restrict free speech activities,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.
Read the rest at The Rutherford Institute, here.