New York attacks First Amendment

(Examiner)The Washington Examiner reports that a town in New York has forced the removal of the historic Gadsden Flag, which has been a symbol of American determination to fight for liberty ever since the American revolution.
According to Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit, a group of U.S. veterans is fighting the local city council in New Rochelle, N.Y. for the right to display the flag at the local armory. The Navy and the Marine Corps have been flying the flag since 1775. The Gadsden Flag has long been considered a patriotic symbol.
But the New Rochelle City Council says that the Gadsden Flag is a symbol of the Tea Party and has right wing connotations.
No one in the veteran's group, however, is a member of the Tea Party.
Some of the members of the council itself appear to be carrying their own unjustified bias concerning the flag. One council member likened the Gadsden flag to a flag used by homosexuals on gay pride day. Another stated that the patriotic flag is like the Nazi flag, or graffiti, or a Mickey Mouse flag.
The display of symbols traditionally has been viewed as an aspect of free speech and is thus protected by the First Amendment. But apparently in New York State, not only is the private ownership of guns considered tantamount to an act of violence but free speech is viewed with disdain.(MORE)

Islam: Political or Religious?

creeping
Like Muslims pushing for sharia law in the U.S., the courts seem to want to have it both ways when it suits them, via Islam: Political or Religious? | Blog – American Freedom Law Center.

Yesterday, AFLC filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (TTAB) affirmance of the denial of the “Stop Islamisation of America” or “SIOA” trademark application, which was sought by anti-sharia advocates Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI). In a nutshell, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application, ruling that the trademark disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (You can read the whole story here.)

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is a highly-specialized federal court in Washington, D.C., that was established to hear, among others, patent/trademark appeals. At this point, it is difficult to determine how the Federal Circuit will treat this case. Generally, the TTAB, which is the last administrative appeal at the USPTO, rubber stamps the director, but in our case, the briefs and oral argument were so one-sided in our favor that there was hope for a favorable ruling. However, that did not happen, but it was no surprise: most judges are quite hostile when these types of cases are argued. Moreover, and perhaps surprisingly, the most hostile judges are typically Republican appointees. For example, in AFLC’s victories in the lower federal courts in New York and Detroit, the judges were liberal appointees, and they ruled on the side of granting First Amendment protection to our clients’ speech. In this case, given the law at work, it should be an easy victory for our clients. But, we shall wait and see.

To explain further, in one case where AFLC had won in the trial court after a full evidentiary hearing at which the transit authority admitted during cross examination that our clients’ advertisement did not convey an impermissible “political” message, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit comprised of 2/3 George W. Bush appointees reversed, holding that the advertisement, “Fatwa on your head? Leaving Islam? Contact www.refugefromislam.com,” was not a permissible “religious” ad but, instead, was impermissibly “political” (the rules were meant to preclude political campaign ads from Detroit/Dearborn buses — not what we call in the law “political speech,” which of course is the most protected of all speech under the First Amendment) because “Fatwa” and sharia are political not religious matters. It was a remarkable and somewhat startling admission.

So, in the Sixth Circuit, sharia is now political, and to the USPTO, it is religious. In sum, the federal courts are a laboratory of the studied application of incoherence where words carry no meaning but are used arbitrarily to protect the politically correct mantra that Muslims and Islam constitute a special class that stands above criticism that is otherwise protected speech under the First Amendment.  In short, blasphemy laws are alive and well—we just don’t want to admit it.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

#Censored Again: #Facebook removes #PalestinianMediaWatch expose of girl calling Jews 'descendants of pigs'

The long time official faceboook policy has long been to attack the victims who want to talk about the hate they deal with. This is nothing new. facebook also threw the Jewish Internet Defense Force's permanent facebook account off the network, so it is almost impossible to organize against the hate. This is the long term policy of a network run by liberal feminist Jews and this is the general attitude that liberal feminist Jews have towards other Jews.

Palestinian Media Watch posted the following video. Facebook removed it.
Let's go to the videotape.

Following Palestinian Media Watch’s bulletin exposing the PA TV broadcast of a girl reciting a poem referring to (Carl)Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of pigs,” Facebook, like YouTube, decided to remove PMW’s post.

Facebook: “We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.”

Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities stipulates that "you will not post content that is hate speech" or "incites violence."
While Facebook is preventing PMW’s exposure of the PA’s hate speech, Facebook’s policy has not been applied to the explicit terror promotion and terror glorification by Fatah on Facebook, which PMW has documented, all of which were posted by Fatah’s Facebook page administrator:

Yes, there are a bunch of them. Read the whole thing.

Wharton caves to Muslim bigotry, Cancels Chief Minister Narendra Modi's keynote

(Atlas) It's hard to watch. American stalwart institutions giving up our most basic freedom to Islamic supremacists, goons and thugs.
I just got the news that Gujrat's Chief Minister, Sri Narendra Bhai Modi's speech has been cancelled in the  USA, and some other Indian leader may speak in his place. This is likely due to the leftist Obama adminstration working in tandem with the pro-Islamic supremacist corrupt Congress government that is ruling India. Atlas reader Seema sent this to me. The loss of our most basic freedoms without firing a shot is stunning.
This mirrors Harvard's firing of Subramanian Swamy. Voices of freedom snuffed out by sharia enforcers.

It is appalling that some professors and students of Communist and Muslim background are protesting against Wharton's students' body decision to invite Shri Narendra Modi. Four times elected Chief Minister Narendra Modi is hailed to be the next Prime Minister of India and has been praised as a Powerful Global Leader by the heads of many countries including Japan, China, European Union, etal. He has been invited to deliver a keynote speech at Wharton India Economic Forum about his amazing all round inclusive development work and peaceful minimum government maximum governance, which he has been delivering in his Indian State of Gujarat for the past 12 years.
The bad news is that Wharton School is disregarding the sacred US First Amendment, which guarantees absolute Free Speech to every individual, by getting influenced by few Islamic bigots on campus and is planning to cancel invitation given to Shri Narendra Modi. This has been reported in an article on NDTV, which is an extremely Leftist pro-Muslim leaning Indian news channel, at http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/after-outrage-will-wharton-rethink-inviting-narendra-modi-as-speaker-337471
Please note that, contrary to the lies peddled by Muslims and Leftist lobbyists in the US, a special investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court of India has found no evidence of commission or omission against Shri Narendra Modi, and has exonerated him of all allegations in 2002 Gujarat riots case. 2002 Gujarat riots happened after a Muslim terrorist mob roasted alive 59 Hindu devotees including women and children, who were returning from the Hindu holy city of Ayodhya, by locking them in a train compartment and lighting it on fire using gallons of petrol. It is bizarre that there is even a protest against Shri Modi because there is not even a single police report or complaint filed against this innocent man in any Police Station or Court in India.
If you remember a few years back Columbia University had invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and he delivered an anti-semitic and anti-gay speech on its campus. As expected no Muslims or Communists protested at that time. It seems as per these Universities, Free Speech Rights are for genocidal Islamic dictators only (who themselves deny the same Right to others) and not for four times democratically and fairly elected honorable public representative Shri Narendra Modi. Please note that Shri Modi's government has come back to power again recently with a thumping majority, especially in most Muslim dominated constituencies. Sometime ago Harvard University gave into the pressures of Muslim and Leftist bigots and canceled Shri Subramanian Swamy's Economics class because he wrote an article about Islamic terror in his personal capacity.
This is a very dangerous and intolerant trend against Free Speech in the US. Please take a moment to write to the Chair and other organizers of Wharton India Economic Forum extending your support for their decision to invite Shri Narendra Modi and ask them not to give into the pressures of Muslim bullies, who want to suppress Free Speech of a innocent Global leader.

Organizers' contact information is available at http://www.whartonindia.com/about.php and is given below:
Chairs:
chairs@whartonindia.com
akshayb@wharton.upenn.edu
tmishra@wharton.upenn.edu
teghbedi@wharton.upenn.edu
salgupta@wharton.upenn.edu
PR Head:
apant@wharton.upenn.edu
Marketing & Sponsorship:
aditir@wharton.upenn.edu
sidp@wharton.upenn.edu
ashitat@wharton.upenn.edu
Please also email or call the Dean of Wharton School, etal asking them to respect the US First Amendment, to not step on the toes of Indian Justice System by disregarding latter's verdict, and to not give into illegal demands of Islamic bigots. Following is the contact information:
Thomas Robertson
Dean, The Wharton School
Email: robertson@wharton.upenn.edu
215.898.4715 (phone)
Phyllis Stevenson
Media Relations Coordinator, Wharton Communications
215.898.8036 (phone)
phsteven@wharton.upenn.edu
Peter Winicov
Senior Associate Director, Wharton Communications
215.746.6471 (phone)
winicov@wharton.upenn.edu
Malini Doddamani
Director, Wharton Communications
215.746.6334 (phone)
malinid@wharton.upenn.edu

That Troublesome First Amendment, Michigan Edition

David Post • ((volokh.com)[Thanks to Paul Levy for the pointer]) March 2, 2013 4:02 pm

On January 18, 2013, the Circuit Court in Wayne County preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action charging that  McDonald’s had sold non-”halal” Chicken Mcnuggets that had been advertised as “halal.”  A local activist named Majed Moughni was unhappy with the settlement terms (which required McDonalds to pay some money to two local Dearborn charities, along with a hefty fee to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, but nothing for the other class members), so he began a Facebook campaign (“Dearborn Area Community Members”) where he criticized the settlement terms and tried to  organize opposition to it.
So far, so good.  But the plaintiffs’  lawyers filed an action seeking an injunction against Moughni’s Facebook page, asking  that Moughni be required to take everything he had said about the case down, and to post on his Facebook page instead what they said (and what the Court had said).
Unbelievably enough, the court granted the motion and entered a preliminary injunction; finding that  Moughni had made “materially false, deceptive and misleading statements concerning the settlement . . . and concerning the rights of the members of the Settlement Class,” and that Moughni “thereby engaged in deliberate and abusive conduct which has created a likelihood of confusion of class members, adversely has effected the administration of justice and has undermined this Court’s responsibility and authority to protect Class members from such abuses,” the Court
(a) ordered Moughni to remove all statements about the case from his Facebook page and to replace them with the Court’s own expression, and the parties’ own expression, about the proposed settlement, in the form of the preliminary approval order and class notice;
(b)  enjoined him from making any other statements about the case in any other forum—whether in person or electronically, or to the press;
(c)  ordered him to identify to the Court and the parties those class members who had associated themselves with Moughni’s point of view by using the Facebook “like” and comment functions; and
(d) forbade him from  “dissemination, circulation or publication” or any form for opting out or objecting to the settlement.
I don’t know why episodes like this get me so riled up, but they do.  It’s the worst kind of judicial over-reaching – protecting the court’s own turf from dissension and criticixm by exploiting its power over defendants.  Fortunately, Public Citizen has stepped in to move to vacate the injunction (aided, I’m told, by the ACLU of Michigan).  Good luck to them 

I'm more worried about the judge issuing an injunction against someone "not affiliated with this litigation" without any mention of how it justifies an injunction against a non-party to the suit.
She's accepted a settlement of a class action suit, and issued an injunction requiring a member of the class to accept it? Seriously? And is he now prohibited from speaking out about the injunction, since that would in turn bring attention to his views on the settlement? Apparently the people allowed to decide these matters have clarified their contempt for the constitution as getting in the way of their court.

Updated: if #AaronSwartz had gotten older he might of realized that his progressive buds @EFF and MIT were hypocrites

Cartoonist Carlos Latuff seems to doubt that Aaron Swartz committed suicide. Is he an Aaron Swartz truther? twitpic.com/bwy8ln
— Adam Holland (@adamhollandblog) January 20, 2013

Aaron Swartz and Jonathan Pollard. So much in common. Not 100% innocent Jews, but their fate was probably flavored with AntiSemitism.

(Hey Jillian C York... Why didn't you help me with my legal bills?)

(The father of information activist Aaron Swartz blames US prosecutors for his son’s death)Before his days with Apple, recalled Mr. Swartz, Jobs and his business partner Steve Wozniak “used to criminally defraud the phone company” by selling small “blue box” devices that allowed anyone in the country to conduct long-distance calls for free. Gates’ development of Microsoft’s BASIC, Swartz said, was “sketchy” at best. “These are people who are lionized,” he said, and “treated like idols in our culture.”

And so the conspiracies from Russia will be promoted like 911Truth. It is sad that no one offered to pay this guy's legal bills when he was alive... now everyone will profit off of his death. The same conspiracy theorists that took advantage of a man of logic when he was alive will continue to spin this to their advantage and blame this on a free nation. It is one thing for a grieving father to defend his child. It is another thing for a news outlet like RT to shamefully report this.

Opened new version of Skype, and @aaronsw was at the top of the contacts list with his cartoonified avatar. :(
— Jillian C. York (@jilliancyork) January 17, 2013

(Our Legal System Didn't Give Aaron Swartz a Chance) In his book Three Felonies a Day, veteran defense attorney Harvey Silverglate warns that "the trend of ambitious prosecutors exploiting vague federal laws and pursuing criminal charges instead of more appropriate civil actions" makes potential criminals of us all.  Redundant indictments for multiple offenses flowing from a single act -- and threats of lengthy, life-destroying sentences -- enable prosecutors to extort pleas from innocent or not-terribly-guilty defendants. It is often "nearly impossible for normal, rational, self-interested, calculating people to risk going to trial," Silverglate observes. Moreover, the minority of people willing to take that risk may be deprived of the means to do so by pretrial orders freezing any assets allegedly generated by their alleged offenses.

Noah: People ask me why I took a guilty plea of misdemeanors when I set out to free information. Here is why. I'm alive. Adam Swartz is dead. I get to write this: Adam trusted in the system and his elitist Boston @EFF pals who did nothing. My mother asked me why I never contacted the ACLU. For a good reason I didn't. These people are parasites. This Adam guy believed in justice and the system. I guess I'm a cynic... but I didn't have to kill myself......... if this #hacker #AaronSwartz had gotten older he might of realized that his progressive buds @EFF and MIT were hypocrites. He took the fall for other people's greed. If academia is funded by totalitarian governments and you are busy destroying the property in a free market then it doesn't matter how much insider code you have. All the scum on twitter's first year that were touting the open platform of twitter with RSS were the last people to bitch when the social networks turned into walled archetypes. The elite in these programs depend on the system that they rail against. Progressives are a lot like Muslims. They kill their own more than anyone else.

This weekend the internet mourned the loss of one of its folk heroes. Aaron Swartz, a co-creator of RSS and an early employee of popular link-sharing site Reddit, was found dead in his New York apartment on Friday. The post-Reddit era in Aaron's life was really his coming of age. His stunts were breathtaking. At one point, he singlehandedly liberated 20 percent of US law. PACER, the system that gives Americans access to their own (public domain) case-law, charged a fee for each such access. After activists built RECAP (which allowed its users to put any caselaw they paid for into a free/public repository), Aaron spent a small fortune fetching a titanic amount of data and putting it into the public domain. The feds hated this. They smeared him, the FBI investigated him, and for a while, it looked like he'd be on the pointy end of some bad legal stuff, but he escaped it all, and emerged triumphant.
He also founded a group called DemandProgress, which used his technological savvy, money and passion to leverage victories in huge public policy fights. DemandProgress's work was one of the decisive factors in last year's victory over SOPA/PIPA, and that was only the start of his ambition.

Do a google search for 'Noah David Simon' and you can see they did to me what they did to Aaron Swartz. The difference with me is I could see my opposition. This guy was too far on the inside to realize that he was in the lion's den. His crowd was with people who distributed a lot of Palestine propaganda... against free markets. Though Abbas leader of Fatah appears to claim to be Libertarian, Fatah started as a Socialist movement. You can realize that copyright is obsolete without railing against private property. Free markets recognize there are somethings you can not own. It doesn't mean the government owns it. I'm sure Aaron's friends feel they are closer to Libertarians, like Abu Mazen... but that just becomes sustaining an unsustainable system. It's a lie either way. Socialist or Libertarian... it's breaking the rules. Anarchy always defaults to tyranny.

If he had been found guilty of the charges, Swartz faced up to 35 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines, although it has emerged that negotiations between his lawyers and prosecutors had included a potential plea bargain of six months in prison. Condemnation of prosecutors over the litigation against Swartz continued on Tuesday. A petition to the Obama administration to remove Ortiz from office reached 28,188 signatures, past the crucial 25,000 signatures needed for a White House response. In July 2011, Ortiz said in a statement about the case: "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away." Lawyers for Swartz said that, despite their best efforts, prosecutors had refused to negotiate a plea bargain which did not involve jail time. One also said that MIT refused to agree to a plea bargain in which Swartz did not serve time. Andy Good, Swartz's initial lawyer, told the Boston Globe that he had warned one prosecutor, Steve Heymann, that his client was a "suicide risk". Good said: "His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said: "Fine, we'll lock him up." I'm not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I'm saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless." Lawyers for Swartz said they had offered to accept a deferred prosecution or probation, so that if he did it again he would serve time. Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, told the paper he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. "There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron," but that support did not override institutional interests, Weinberg told the Globe. Another of Swartz's attorneys, Elliot Peters, said on Monday that MIT officials were "very cooperative with prosecutors" during the investigation. "MIT could have handled things differently, rather than inviting law enforcement and turning it into a federal criminal case," Peters said.

(Anonymous hacks MIT after Aaron Swartz's suicide | Internet & Media)

• We call for this tragedy to be a basis for reform of computer crime laws, and the overzealous prosecutors who use them.

the extreme measures of the prosecution merely reflect Anonymous and groups like EFF

• We call for this tragedy to be a basis for reform of copyright and intellectual property law, returning it to the proper principles of common good to the many, rather than private gain to the few.

...actually that's bullshit. Aaron came off looking like a good guy and guys like Noah David Simon (that is me) were libeled as stalkers of women. If anything Aaron realized that he had nothing to live for and it was probably because of this sicko culture he was a part of that encouraged him. He would not of been an insider unless he was mentally ill

• We call for this tragedy to be a basis for greater recognition of the oppression and injustices heaped daily by certain persons and institutions of authority upon anyone who dares to stand up and be counted for their beliefs, and for greater solidarity and mutual aid in response.

try attacking feminism for free expression and see how quickly Anonymous will abandon the martyr

• We call for this tragedy to be a basis for a renewed and unwavering commitment to a free and unfettered internet, spared from censorship with equality of access and franchise for all.

that includes violent threats... if not then they should support the Jewish Internet Defense Force

(M.I.T.’s president, L. Rafael Reif, said he had appointed a prominent professor, Hal Abelson, to “lead a thorough analysis of M.I.T.’s involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present.” He promised to disclose the report, adding, “It pains me to think that M.I.T. played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.” )The last post he wrote on that blog, in November, was a detailed analysis of the final installment of the “Batman” series.

The Joker is actually the hero

...only in the movie Aaron. The rules work only within the given system... He had no faith and was stuck within the constructs of logic. No faith, hence the suicide.

Having warned his readers that he was about to reveal the conclusion of the movies, he ended the post by writing:

Thus Master Wayne is left without solutions. Out of options, it’s no wonder the series ends with his staged suicide.”

But Aaron did not fake his suicide. He must of been disappointed by the third movie.

Just great. The UN wants to take over the Internet.

From Al Arabiya/AFP:

Telecom companies across the world may be given the opportunity to dig through data passed across the Internet more easily following a move to allow the United Nations new authority to regulate the Web.
At a conference in Dubai this week, Members of the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) agreed to work towards implementing a standard for the Internet that would allow for eavesdropping on a worldwide scale.
The ITU members decided to adopt the Y.2770 standard for deep packet inspection, a top-secret proposal by way of China that will allow telecom companies across the world to more easily dig through Web data, according to a report from Russia Today.
The gathering which opened this week in Dubai of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union has triggered fierce objections from Washington, and from Internet freedom activists who fear new rules that could end the freewheeling system of the Internet.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously on Wednesday to oppose any efforts to give the United Nations new authority to regulate the Internet.
The 397-0 vote, following a similar vote in the Senate, came as delegates were meeting in Dubai to revise a global telecom treaty, a gathering which some say could be used to impose new controls on the Internet.
Representative Greg Walden said ahead of the vote that lawmakers should “send a strong bipartisan, bicameral signal about America’s commitment to an unregulated Internet.”
He said Washington should not “stand idly by while countries like Russia and China seek to extort control over the Internet.”

The Internet controlled by the same countries that control the UN?
Even though it is unlikely to happen anytime soon, in a decade or two this could become a major problem.
Just imagine what Muslim countries could band together to do to the Internet.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Islamist Atrocities and Double Standards

Joseph Klein 

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,” President Obama said in response to the brutal murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff members.  Obama promised to “bring justice” to the killers and added:  “There is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”
Ambassador Stevens and embassy staff members were killed in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.  Ambassador Stevens’ body was dragged through the streets of Benghazi by angry Muslims — the very same city that the United States and its NATO allies saved from imminent massacre at the hands of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Ambassador Stevens had said last May when he returned to Libya to serve as the U.S. ambassador:

I had the honor to serve as the U.S. envoy to the Libyan opposition during the revolution, and I was thrilled to watch the Libyan people stand up and demand their rights. Now I’m excited to return to Libya to continue the great work we’ve started, building a solid relationship between the United States and Libya, to help you, the Libyan people, achieve your goals.

Tragically, the Islamists whose lives may have been saved by Obama’s intervention into the Libyan civil war are pursuing radically anti-American goals that cost Ambassador Stevens his life.
President Obama praised Stevens as “a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States” and said that his “legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice.” He has pledged to bring the attackers to justice and to provide more security for our embassies. That’s fine as far as it goes.  The problem is that both Obama and his State Department have denigrated the unique importance of free speech in the pantheon of American liberties in favor of protecting the sensibilities of Muslims who are offended by speech critical of their religion.
The Benghazi murders occurred during a rocket attack on the car being used to rush Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans from a consular building stormed by Islamists allegedly upset about a film made in the United States by U.S.-based Egyptian Coptic Christians insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammad. It was this same film that sparked an attack by Islamists on the American embassy in Cairo.
Obama had not directed any remarks specifically to the 9/11 Cairo attack, which took no lives but resulted in the destruction of the American flag and its replacement with an Islamic flag on American property. Instead, his State Department’s Cairo embassy chose only to condemn the offensive film:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions…We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Sensing a possible political embarrassment of appearing to defend the Egyptian Islamist attackers by condemning the object of their wrath, the White House at first tried to distance itself from the Cairo embassy statement.  But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in responding to the news of the attack on the Libyan embassy, both condemned that attack and the film that sparked it.  She said that the U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others but that there is never any justification for violent acts as occurred in Libya. Obama took up the same refrain when he said, as quoted at the outset of the article, that “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”
Here is the problem.  By including in both Obama’s and Clinton’s statements a condemnation of speech such as the offensive film that “denigrates” religious beliefs, the Obama administration is denigrating the First Amendment protection of free speech no matter how offensive it may be.  This is reinforced by the fact that Obama and Clinton evidently waited for confirmation of the loss of American diplomats’ lives before addressing the violence head-on, and they still refused to link Islamism with the violence. Apparently, destroying the American flag hanging at half mast on 9/11 and replacing it with an Islamist flag associated with jihad was not worthy alone of unequivocal condemnation by either the president or the secretary of state.
This is not an inadvertent lapse. It is part of the Obama administration’s relentless campaign to deny that we are at war with Islamist jihadists. At its highest levels, the Obama administration insists on using euphemisms and general references to terrorists and extremists rather than accurate language describing the Islamist ideology we are fighting. And it has sided with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in trying to marginalize those who dare criticize this ideology and its sources rather than defend the First Amendment.
Clinton met with OIC officials in Istanbul in July of 2011, at a conference she co-hosted, to embark on what has become known as the “Istanbul Process.” The ostensible purpose of the Istanbul Process is to work with Muslim-majority countries, the OIC and other interested nations on exploring specific steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping, discrimination and violence on the basis of religion or belief.  This was followed up by a three-day closed door meeting hosted by the State Department last December in Washington, D.C.
In other words, behind closed doors, the Obama administration has been working with the OIC to find acceptable ways to stifle speech offensive to Muslims without going so far as outright censorship of Americans’ speech — at least not yet.  Indeed, Clinton assured her OIC partners that she was perfectly on board with using “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” Hillary is right in line with Barack Obama’s vow to the Muslim world in his June 2009 Cairo speech: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.”
Hence, the Obama administration’s responses to the attacks in Egypt and Libya that de-couple the violence from Islam and include condemnations of speech considered offensive to Muslims. As a result, our First Amendment right of free expression – starting with expression that the Obama administration and the Islamists “abhor” – are in jeopardy of being whittled away.  The Obama administration’s willingness to use government mechanisms to apply “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” is already in full swing.  But it may be just the beginning. We must remain vigilant against efforts by the Obama administration to pursue legal mechanisms such as hate speech laws and vigorous enforcement of very broadly interpreted anti-discrimination laws, supplementing its “shaming” campaign, to curb any speech the administration and its OIC partners think may “denigrate” Islam.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/atrocity-in-libya/

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Landmark Case: Government argues that Islam is political

Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center and Pamela Geller

What began as a clear first amendment issue has exploded into a landmark case regarding the the status of Islam as a political entity. Today the Detroit Transit Authority (SMART), a government entity, argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that our "Leaving Islam" ad was political because Islam is political.  At least two of the three judges seemed to go along.
If the Court rules against us, it will be ruling that Islam is political and that Sharia is a political program -- something that other government agencies have strenuously denied. If that happens, will Islam and Sharia deserve the protection of a religion?

The case was argued today before 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Kethledge, John Marshall Rogers and Algenon L. Marbley. Chris Hildebrand, the lawyer for Detroit SMART, began by referring to and based his whole argument on our recent victory over the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority in another First Amendment case about a completely different ad (a pro-Israel ad). Hildebrand argued that the Judge in that case, Paul Engelmayer, had said that that ad was political, and thus that the MTA had to accept it in accord with their guidelines. Hildebrand asserted that our "Leaving Islam?" bus ad, which Detroit SMART rejected, was also political, and thus was rightly rejected by SMART, which (in contrast to the MTA) does not take political ads. His client, said Hildebrand, does not reject ads because they're provocative (as he claimed that ours was), or controversial, but because they're political, and SMART does not and will not take political positions.
Judge Rogers then told him that he had gotten SMART into a "blurry area" to be making a distinction between the political and religious. Hildebrand countered that while the ad may be anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and anti-Sharia (actually it was designed wholly and solely to offer help to people whose lives were threatened), it was also political. Judge Marbley then pointed out that an imam, who would issue a fatwa (referring to the part of our ad that asked, "Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?") was not an elected official.
Hildebrand then dropped the bomb that has extraordinary implications for the debate about anti-Sharia laws and the status of Islam in the United States: he said that yes, imams have a religious function, but they also "control Sharia law," and Sharia is political. Marbley said that that might be so in Iran, but not in Detroit, where they had a purely religious function. Hildebrand then dug in even deeper, saying that imams in Dearborn deal with Sharia on both a religious and political basis. When Marbley then asked him how our ad was different from one that SMART accepted from an atheist group, calling on people to become atheists, Hildebrand said that it differed because Islam is not only religious, but also a "political series of laws." Marbley then pointed out that the same thing could be said about the Catholic Church, since the Vatican was a political entity, and that could be used to rule out advertising from Catholic groups. Hildebrand then argued that our ad was both religious and political, and that the reference to a fatwa made it primarily political and not religious -- which would only be true if Sharia itself is primarily political and not religious.
Judge Kethledge seemed to go along with this argument, telling our own lawyer, Robert Muise (who ably argued for our side), that Sharia is "arguably" political as well as religious. Judge Rogers then outrageously compared our ad to an ad repeating a vile and disgusting blood libel against the Jews as part of Jewish law (which it most certainly is not, but the death penalty for apostasy most certainly is part of the sharia) -- showing the truth of his and Marbley's admission that they knew next to nothing about Islam (or Jewish law). Clearly they were unaware of Islam's death penalty for apostasy. If they did, they would never have said that our public service ad constituted "scorn and ridicule."
Kethledge clearly had his mind made up already, getting testy with Muise and helping Hildebrand with his case, inviting him when he returned to the stand to explain why our ad -- designed to save lives -- constituted "scorn and ridicule" of Muslims and thus was also disallowed on those grounds according to SMART's guidelines. This entangled SMART in a self-contradiction: Hildebrand said that they didn't disallow our ad because it was "controversial" but also that our ad constituted "scorn and ridicule" -- but none of the judges seemed to notice and certainly no one challenged Hildebrand on this. Hildebrand did not, and could not, explain why our ad constituted scorn and ridicule, and instead simply kept asserting that it did. He did not argue his case persuasively, but with Kethledge and also Rogers so clearly on his side, he had a clear advantage.
If SMART wins, however, the implications for the status of Islam and Sharia as political will be enormous. Incalculable. SMART may end up winning the battle for Sharia in the U.S., but losing the war.

Brain trust: Robert Muise, David Yerushalmi and Robert Spencer confer after the hearing

via atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

ok... thought about this some more. Peanuts can be a substitute Protein which would offend the meat industry. Thus Peanuts are political and can be banned by "SMART". Peanuts are political, therefor we can ban Jimmy Carter who grows Peanuts. Islam is political, but then why was Islam posting on SMART? But being against Islam is Political... double standard. Peanuts could be a religion too? Give me five minutes and I could find away to yarn that one. The court needs to admit it's bias and push this to a higher court if they are thinking about this.

Senator Chuck Schumer calls for restrictions on the First Amendment

Chuck Schumer: There Should Be Limits to the First Amendment
Katie Pavlich - While debating the DISCLOSE Act last night on the Senate floor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for restrictions on the First Amendment, citing other laws and regulations already in place in the United States that do so.

I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution. And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.      More

via frontlines2011.blogspot.com

Bloggers’ Free Speech Rights Under Attack

(aclj.org)...a number of conservative bloggers have been targeted with a dangerous and illegal tactic that's become known as SWAT-ing - (making false 911 calls sending police to the homes of bloggers, claiming a crime has occurred.) The tactic has been used in retaliation for posts that conservative bloggers have written.
SWAT-ing and other intimidation tactics to silence conservative viewpoints are quickly becoming a favorite tool of the radical left.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has recognized this growing problem and is calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the SWAT-ting cases to see if federal laws have been violated. In a letter to the Attorney General, Sen. Chambliss wrote:

Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels. . . . Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. (more)

If they don't like your message, and your message is truth... you are subject to all information taken out of context because everything is subjective for those you offend

Flashing Headlights to Warn Oncoming Drivers of a Speed Trap = Constitutionally Protected Speech

So held a Florida trial court judge, and he wasn’t the first — I think I’ve seen this in a few cases, but the one for which I have a citation is State v. Walker, No. I-9507-03625 (Williamson Cty. (Tenn.) Cir. Ct. Nov. 13, 2003)
Whether this is the right answer is not clear. It’s a special case of warnings to hide one’s illegal conduct because the police are coming — though here done by a stranger rather than by a lookout who’s in league with the criminals — and that in turn is a special case of what I call Crime-Facilitating Speech (see 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1095 (2005)), which is to say speech that conveys information that makes it easier for people to commit crimes or to get away with crimes. The Supreme Court has never squarely confronted this question.
When I’ve blogged about this in the past, some people have argued that flashing headlights should be protected because it’s encouraging legal behavior (slowing down) rather than illegal behavior, but I don’t think that can dispose of the issue: Many lookouts do the same, e.g., when a lookout warns would-be robbers to abandon their plans because a police car is driving by.
For an interesting similar question though one that doesn’t involve encouraging people to temporarily act legally), this story:

An advocate for immigrant and civil rights has started using text messages to warn residents about crime sweeps by a high-profile Arizona sheriff.
Lydia Guzman, director of the nonprofit immigrant advocacy group Respect/Respeto, is the trunk of a sophisticated texting tree designed to alert thousands of people within minutes to the details of the sweeps, which critics contend are an excuse to round up illegal immigrants.
Guzman said the messages are part of an effort to protect Latinos and others from becoming victims of racial profiling by sheriff’s deputies….

What’s the First-Amendment-relevant difference, if there is one, between this and a lookout who alerts criminals when the police are coming? (Assume that the lookout isn’t getting a share of the loot, but is just helping his friends avoid getting locked up.) Should it matter, as one expert who’s mentioned in the article suggests, whether Ms. Guzman’s real goal is preventing lawful arrest of illegal immigrants (as opposed to preventing racial profiling, assuming such profiling is unlawful)? I think there may indeed be a difference between such revelation of facts to the public and individualized communications to a small group of criminals, and I don’t think it should turn on jury inferences about the speaker’s true purpose; my article discusses the question at length. But in any event it’s helpful to think about what the difference might be.

via volokh.com

More stupidity from the courts concerning #CyberStalking

As (Volokh) noted last year, a federal prosecutor indicted a man for his campaign of insulting Twitter messages about a Buddhist religious leader, and a federal judge then dismissed the indictment on First Amendment grounds.
Some of the Twitter posts might have been seen as threatening, but the government’s theory wasn’t that they were threatening, but that they where posted “with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to” the religious leader, and actual caused such distress, in violation of the federal antistalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The district court correctly held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied, and left open the possibility that it might be unconstitutional on its face as well. The government appealed, but earlier this month decided to drop the appeal.
Now the Senate, rather than tightening the law to prevent its being applied to constitutionally protected speech, is considering expanding it. Section 107 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (which (Volokh) blogged about below, as to a different constitutionally troublesome provision) would take the existing statute and have it cover not just speech that causes substantial emotional distress, but also speech that “attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress,” so long as the speaker is intending to (among other things) “harass” the target. Anyone who

with the intent to … harass … uses the … any interactive computer service … to engage in a course of conduct that … causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to [the person or the person's family member]

would now be committing a federal crime. If the statute were just limited to conduct and speech intended to threaten someone — which the rest of the statute does cover — there would be no constitutional problem. But trying to outlaw speech that is made “with the intent to … harass” and “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress” often violates the First Amendment, as the federal judge rightly held in the Twitter case. It seems to me that Congress should be fixing this constitutional problem rather than expanding it.

This is fascism. plain and simple. proving a person has intent to upset another person is no reason to take their free expression away. I have experience with this kind of legal abuse. I'm not allowed to tell you about it apparently... or rather I'd rather not find out how stupid the legal system is again.

CA Judge Deems Ramming Jewish Woman with Shopping Cart ‘Free Speech’

(Simply Jews)

The story is peculiar to start with:

Back in June of 2010 a leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at University of Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The counter-protest was dubbed “Israel Wants Peace Week.”

Now, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg has deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in protected political speech.

But the story doesn't end with the shopping cart attack:

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

And more:

The suit also alleged this attack was part of a pattern of behavior during Apartheid Week, during which Jewish students were spit on and Israel’s government was equated to that of Nazi Germany.

I guess that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, vile as the act is, could be conceivably squeezed under the "protected political speech" clause of free speech rights.
But hitting somebody with a shopping cart, demanding to know whether the person is Jewish or spitting on Jewish students as examples of free speech?
Yeah, your honor, you are reaching...

U.S., E.U. Spearhead Islamic Bid To Criminalize Free Speech

(stonegateinstitute.org /image: save free speech org) The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.
The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.
Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.
The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.
Following the Obama Administration's lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.
Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU's offer to host the meeting represents a "qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia," according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC's official news/propaganda organ.
According to the IINA, "The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter 'defamation of religions' in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The IINA report continues: "Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union's offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July and the second in Washington, DC in December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The 'Istanbul Process' will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam."
The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.
According to the IINA, "Ihsanoglu said that the growing role of the extreme right in politics in several European countries has become stronger than the capacity of the Organization [OIC], explaining that the extreme right, who [sic] hates Muslims, became leverage in the hands of politicians. He added that the rise of the extreme right through elections has become an issue that cannot be countered, considering the democratic way in which these extremists reach their positions. He pointed out to the referendum held in Switzerland, as an example, which resulted in suspending the construction of minarets there following a vote by the Swiss people."
In other words, the OIC is now seeking the support of non-elected bureaucrats at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to enact pan-European hate speech legislation to limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens – including democratically elected politicians – can and cannot say about Islam.
To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.
In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the "crime" of saying that "in today's system" the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a "child molester," referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of "incitement" for saying that Austria faces an "Islamic immigration tsunami." Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of "hate speech" for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.
Hedegaard's comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark's infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.
Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.
Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.
In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of "incitement against an ethnic group" and "breach of the sanctity of religion" for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court's dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.
In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam "the stupidest religion" and for saying the Koran is "badly written." In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for "inciting racial hatred" after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.
Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means "shot in the neck," a method used, according to the cartoonist, by "fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents") was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.
Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that "attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people," and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper's website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.
In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam "brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom." In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.
But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that "some of the things she said in her book 'The Force of Reason' are offensive to Islam." An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of "defaming Islam." Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Is It a Crime to Publish Parody Videos That Use “Lewd … Language” Meant to “Embarrass and Emotionally Torment” Police Officers?

(Volokh.com) Yes, the Renton (Wash.) city prosecutor’s office concludes, applying the Washington “cyberstalking” statute — an excellent example of the dangers of the broad “cyberbullying” and “harassment” statutes that I have often condemned. KIRO-TV reports:

The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.
The “South-Park”-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications.... [Last week, the prosecutor filed] a search warrant accusing an anonymous cartoon creator, going by the name of Mr. Fiddlesticks, of cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260). The Renton Police Department and the local prosecutor got a judge to sign off as a way to uncover the name of whoever is behind the parodies....
The series of web-based short cartoons feature a mustachioed street cop and a short-haired female bureaucrat. The dry, at times, witty banter between the two touches on some embarrassing insider secrets, some of which seem to match up with internal affairs investigations on file within Renton PD.
Cartoon Character of Officer: “Is there any reason why an anonymous video, with no identifying information that ties it to the department or city is being taken more seriously than officers having sex on duty, arguing with outside agencies while in a drunken stupor off duty, sleeping while on duty, throwing someone off a bridge, and having inappropriate relationships with coworkers and committing adultery?”
Cartoon Character of Bureaucrat: “The reason is that internal dirt is internal. The department will crucify certain people and take care of others.”
A criminal court document, uncovered by Team 7 Investigators, not only shows how badly the city of Renton wants to “out” the cartoonist (who goes by the name MrFiddlesticks), but states some of the fake character’s lines discuss real life incidents....

Here’s the potentially relevant text from Rev. Code Wash. 9.61.260:

A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication [defined as transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means ... includ[ing] ... internet-based communications] to such other person or a third party: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act ....

Under the prosecutor’s view, any statement — including on a blog, in a YouTube video, in a newspaper article, on television, or whatever else — is a crime if it is made “with intent to harass, ... torment, or embarrass” the subject of the person “[u]sing any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language.” A comedian’s joke that “lewd[ly]” or “lascivious[ly]” described President Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, or for that matter Congressman Weiner’s behavior, would be a crime if it was made “with intent to ... embarrass” the President or the Congressman. The Hustler parody attacking Jerry Falwell, which the Supreme Court held to be protected against civil liability under the “intentional infliction of emotional distress tort,” would be a crime. Indeed, in this very case, the theory is that the videos are criminal because they described alleged police sexual misconduct using “lewd” or “indecent” words with the intent to torment or embarrass particular officers. (The theory expressed in the document — a search warrant application — is that the videos sufficiently identify the particular police officers who were involved in the incidents to which the video alludes.)
If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass. (It may lose such protection when it’s intended to be perceived as a true threat of criminal attack, but that’s not the issue here.) Nor does lose its constitutional protection because it uses “lewd” or “indecent” terms. And while one-to-one speech said to an unwilling listener may in some circumstances be restricted — which is the reason traditional telephone harassment laws, if properly crafted, may be constitutional — this rationale can’t be used to suppress speech said to the public, even if the people discussed in the speech are tormented or embarrassed by it.
Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge is James Cayce.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video.
Thanks to Cory Andrews for the pointer. UPDATE: I originally said I didn’t know which judge signed this warrant, but that was a mistake on my part — Judge Cayce’s signature is right there on the last page.

yes... that sounds like Washington State... but it would be illegal for the same reasons for me to explain why I know this. Censorship is alive and well in the state of facebook. They will extradite people from outside their state to uphold their backward views on free expression. It happened to me too. The most amusing finding from out there is that a FOIA document can be published, but it is illegal to comment on it. I find it outrageous that people are not reacting to any of this... not just in Washington State, but in the rest of the country where the state seems to think they can cherry pick people out of their homes who offend the judicial in the social networking state.

Truth in Advertising

(gatesofvienna.blogspot.com) As reported in the live-blog earlier today, the high-court judge in Vienna actually quoted an authoritative hadith in the courtroom: “Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.” He then acknowledged that the passage was already public knowledge, and thus repeating it could not be punishable under the law.
He upheld Elisabeth’s conviction, however, based on a somewhat peculiar interpretation of Austrian law: to say “Mohammed had a thing for little girls” is an “excess of opinion” that cannot be tolerated. It constitutes ridicule, and is not justifiable.
An interesting and useful corollary can be derived from today’s ruling: it is now completely legal to quote in public the authoritative hadith about Mohammed’s sex acts with a nine-year-old girl. A precedent was established today — at least in Austria.
The judge’s decision gave one of our Austrian contacts a brilliant idea: rent space on a billboard and blazon that (legally acceptable) statement in four-foot-high letters where everyone in Vienna can read it!
With that notion in mind, I took the liberty of placing the relevant virtual text on an existing billboard in the city of Vienna:


“Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.”— Higher Court of Vienna, decision Dec 20, 2011
An image with the same text in German is below the jump:

„Mohammeds Frau Aischa wurde mit 6 Jahren verheiratet. Die Ehe wurde vollzogen, als sie 9 Jahre alt war.“ — Laut OLG Wien, Urteil vom 20.12.2011
Once again, bear this fact in mind: displaying these words is now completely legal in Austria.
The high court has ruled. It’s on the record. An Austrian can publicly utter, write, chant, print, sing, or declaim those sentences without fear of legal retribution.
This means that Austrians who have enough money and initiative can recover at least a small measure of their freedom of speech, and at the same time educate their fellow citizens about the authoritative teachings of Islam.
It’s truth in advertising.

I've had a similar issue dealing with the first Amendment in America. I got the right to post the truth on the web, but commenting was libel. This had nothing to do with a world ideology, but a person... but this is the way the present generation of judges are ruling. It's quite threatening to those who believe in free expression... sadly people are just not alarmed. This really has little to do with Mohammad and Islam and has more to do with liberal culture.