I will have a lot more coming on this.
For now, here’s the EFF’s Deep Links page on this, and the YouTube video below will paint the scene a bit.
Category Archives: First Amendment Under Attack
Former Spam King Jerry Reynolds (of Fargo, ND) Files Slapp Suits Trying to Squash The Free Speech of People Exposing His Spammy Ways
In the “No way, this can’t be happening in America” department, we have good citizens David Ritz and Ed Falk being sued for saying the truth about Jerry Reynolds being a spammer on a usenet group over 6 years ago.
You can download a zip of all the legal docs here.
Here’s how Mary Hodder explains it:
He’s apparently filed (complaint here) SLAPP suits against two people, David Ritz and Ed Falk, who found that in the late 1990’s, he was the largest spammer online (email wasn’t so big then, but he had the largest porn spam operation on UUnet, with Sexzilla and Netzilla which were registered to Jerry Reynolds). And now he’s using C&D’s and these lawsuits to get whatever traces of the information that documents his spam and porn operation off of Google including search results and groups. He denies owning the site, btw, even though he was listed as administrative contact.
Reynolds has even gone so far as to subpoena Ritz’ and Falk’s computers and put a gag order on one, but the other one is out of jurisdiction (the suit is in North Dakota, though Falk lives and does business in CA).
Tomorrow, Ed Falk has to give a copy of all his computer harddrives to lawyers, who are still fighting over the jurisdiction issue. I think though that if this case went before a judge in CA, it would immediately be dismissed. All the evidence shows Reynolds was the SpamKing in 1999. Unfortunately, though, the case won’t be resolved before Reynolds costs these guys thousands of dollars, and not before he has stopped at least Ritz from speaking out about the case.
The most recent lawsuits and C&D’s have been filed by John Doe’s or by Reynold’s company, Sierra Corporate Designs.
The thing that is so despicable about this is not that he was once the biggest spammer and has moved on to other sorts of (legitimate?) business, but rather, that he would use the courts to have a few pieces of information about his old spam work removed, as if he were trying to rewrite history and squash people’s rights to free speech. He was tracked as a spammer early in the 90’s, but hit a peak in 1997 with porn spam, at least as far as UUNet / Usenet was concerned. He actually helped kill that community by turning it into a garbage heap for spam. And now he wants to evade responsibility for it. And in the process, cost Ritz and Falk a lot of money and time, defending the truth. Disgusting!
Read more about the lawsuit here.
Help Free The Berkeley 3!
1 Reply
Time constraints prohibit me from elaborating on this. Read for yourselves 🙂
(Thanks, Kevin.)
Help Free The Berkeley 3!
11-17-03- Drop All Charges Against The Berkeley 3!
Free speech at Berkeley is under attack. Anti-war student organizers need your immediate help.
Call, email or write to: Asst. Chancellor John Cummins Office of the Chancellor 200 California Hall #1500 Berkeley, CA 94720-1500 jcummins@uclink4.berkeley.edu 510-642-7464
**Please CC your emails to the administration to: DefendBerkeley3@aol.com
Dean of Students Karen Kenney turned the clock back decades by approving sanctions against three Berkeley students for their part in a peaceful on campus sit-in on March 20 (for more details go to www.antiwarnetwork.org). The protest was organized by the Berkeley Stop the War coalition and involved 4,000 students at a rally with 400 participating in the sit-in. Rachel Odes and Snehal Shingavi face 20 hours of community service and a letter of reprimand permanently placed on their academic record. Michael Smith faces 30 hours of community service, plus a stayed suspension for one semester. Outrageously, Smith will be forced to submit to “anger management” at the university’s infirmary. If he completes that “successfully,” his suspension might be commuted to a letter of reprimand. This use of psychological treatment as punishment for a political activity recalls the classification of dissent as a “psychiatric disorder” in Stalinist Russia. Dean Kenney’s actions mock Berkeley’s reputation as a haven for freedom of speech and progressive political action.
Besides the obvious chilling effect on student’s exercising their civil liberties on campus, the university continued its disregard for due process procedure in sentencing the students. For example:
*Chair of the Disciplinary Hearing Board Prof. Robert Jacobsen arbitrarily ruled that only 25 members of the Berkeley campus community could attend the hearing, despite repeated requests on the students’ part that the hearing be open. At least 15 university police and private security guards barricaded the entrance to the hearing site to enforce this decision.
*Jacobsen missed the university-mandated deadline for issuing the disciplinary report.
*The university provides only unpaid undergraduates “advocates” to help with the defense. When the three students obtained legal representation on their own initiative, Jacobsen announced that he would allow the lawyer to participate only marginally in the hearings at his discretion as chair.
Following the hearing, the university announced that it would eliminate students’ right to legal counsel so as to make the process more “educational.” The Berkeley Daily Cal student newspaper editorial board correctly noted that: “To suggest students have something to learn from defending themselves already assumes their guilt.” (http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=13525)
Perhaps the most shocking component of the administration’s prosecution stemmed from its conception of “progressive discipline.” Under this theory, students who take part in more than one political protest face harsher and harsher punishments. So, for instance, the university based its argument to prosecute Shingavi, at least in part, on the fact that he was the “point person” for a previous protest conducted by the Students for Justice in Palestine. Although he was not arrested or charged in connection with that protest, his association with that organization and protest helped single him out for “progressive discipline.” This legal theory of “guilt by association” led the Daily Cal to editorialize that “by picking out only three, the message sent from the university seems to be that free speech includes the right to participate in a protest, but not the right to organize one.” (http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=13176)
As the Bush administration carries out unprecedented attacks on hard won civil liberties, the Berkeley administration is shamefully jumping on the band wagon. Now that Dean Kenney has rubber-stamped Jacobsen’s verdict, the last appeal goes to Asst. Chancellor John Cummins. He will issue his final decision within 15 days.
Ironically, on November 20, Amy Goodman from Pacifa Radio’s “Democracy Now!” will receive the Mario Savio prize for free speech at a mass meeting on campus. The Berkeley Stop the War coalition plans to work with her to make sure that Asst. Chancellor Cummins hears the support for the Berkeley 3 loud and clear. We urge everyone who cares about free speech, the right to protest and academic freedom to take immediate action, by calling, emailing or writing to Cummins this week to demand that he drop all charges against the Berkeley 3. Especially, the frightening and irresponsible use of psychological “treatment” as a punishment for political activity.
We thank you in advance for you solidarity,
Todd Chretien Committee to Defend Student Civil Liberties
PS Many of you generously sent contributions towards the printing of a full page ad in the Daily Cal defending the Berkeley 3. That ad ran on October 27 and we believe it played an important part in forcing the university to back down from even harsher punishments for the students. (It can be viewed at www.antiwarnetwork.org) Some of you may have had your checks returned to you. That is because after the university found out that the Berkeley Stop the War coalition was soliciting defense donations, they took the unprecedented action of freezing all mail to that on-campus address. We are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused you. If you’d like to re-send your contributions (or send one for the first time), you can send them to: BSTW PO Box 4001 Berkeley, CA 94704-0001
Bill Moyers: Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed
I just started reading this myself, but I’m about to go to dinner and I didn’t want to risk forgetting to get this up tonight. So here it is.
Update 10/14/03 – recordings of this speech are now available. I’ve also re-archived them here.
(Thanks, Mark!)
Bill Moyers’ Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform
that the very concept of media is insulting to some of us within the press who find ourselves lumped in with so many disparate elements, as if everyone with a pen, a microphone, a camera, or just a loud voice were all one and the same.
Man On Trial For Holding Sign Outside Shrub Speech
Looks like there will be a whole lot of political statements being misinterpreted as death threats if all you gotta do is hold up a “No War For Oil” sign to qualify.
I’m not sure if I’m going to be there tomorrow myself yet, when the Shrubbery himself pulls into Burlingame for an instant tomorrow afternoon (morning?), but I think I can speak for a lot of other people when I say:
‘See you tomorrow, Mr. “President.” No death threats. No violence. Just a whole lotta love for each other and our country. Something you probably wouldn’t understand…’
S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President
Jon Stewart: The Flag Is The Only Thing You Can’t Burn In The U.S.A.
Here’s a thoughtful piece by Jon Stewart that he wrote up when he realized that if you combine the Shrub’s new policy of continuing to relax the last 30 years of EPA regulations with last week’s (undoubtedly unconstitutional) Amendment that was passed in one of the Houses banning burning the flag as a form of political speech, it would appear that the flag is the only thing you aren’t allowed to burn in the U.S.
Flag burning: A Jon Stewart Perspective (Small – 7 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Bruce Springsteen Defends The Dixie Chicks
Bruce Springsteen has spoken out in support of the Dixie Chicks!
And he did it using his blog (of sorts):
Bruce On The Dixie Chicks
The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they’re terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.
The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about – namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home.
I don’t know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support.
Bruce Springsteen
DARPA Silences, Cuts Off Funding Of Free, Secure OS After Programmer Says He Was “Uncomfortable” About His Funding Source
I’m still not sure if this is a lesson in Free Speech or HR/Public Relations…
I mean, sure, this isn’t “right,” in terms of it not being “fair” that things happen this way. But it does seem like it could be expected when you criticize or say anything that could be construed as remotely negative about your principal funder in the press.
Don’t sweat it Theo. You didn’t want any of their dirty money anyway 🙂
(It’s not like anything useful ever comes out of that DARPA place anyway…except for the Internet itself, I suppose…)
It does mean, of course, that now we’ll have to find some alternative funding so that the secure, free operating system that Theo was going to build for DARPA can still be built. Any ideas people?
Peace Talk Halts Defense OS Job
By the Associated Press, as reprinted in Wired News.
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency halted the contract less than two weeks after The Globe and Mail of Toronto published a story in which programmer Theo de Raadt was quoted as saying he was “uncomfortable” about the funding source.
“I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn’t get built,” de Raadt told the newspaper.
Within a few days, de Raadt said he received an e-mail from Jonathan Smith, a computer science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the grant’s lead researcher, expressing discomfort over the statements.
On Thursday, Smith notified de Raadt of the cancellation.
“A tenured professor was telling me not to exercise my freedom of speech,” de Raadt said.
Smith declined to comment on the matter, and DARPA did not return telephone messages Friday. De Raadt’s suspicions about the cancellation could not be confirmed.
The $2.3 million grant had funded security improvements to the OpenBSD operating system since 2001 as well as related projects.
Anti-Activist Laws In The Making: Make Them Pay Extra For Civil Disobedience
This is going on in Minnesota right now, courtesy of Governer Tim Pawlenty (R).
Hey, I get it. This is great. If legislation like this becomes the norm, only rich people will be able to afford to assemble in public places and/or perform acts of civil disobedience.
Pawlenty wants antiwar protesters to pay arrest costs
By Patricia Lopez and Sarah T. Williams for the Star Tribune.
With protests against the war continuing and arrests of demonstrators mounting, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Thursday that he wants those arrested to pay the law-enforcement costs they incur or face prosecution.
Press secretary Leslie Kupchella said that “effective immediately,” Pawlenty wants judges to begin ordering restitution for the costs of arrest. While he does not have the authority to require judges to do so, he is considering proposing legislation that would require such restitution.
Kupchella said Pawlenty recognizes that charges against protesters typically are dismissed. “He would like that dismissal contingent on restitution,” she said. “And he would like to see it happen effective immediately.”
Kupchella said the administration has not determined the extent to which protesters should be charged — whether, for instance, fees would cover the officer’s time and the cost of booking and possible prosecution. However, she said, Pawlenty would like to keep the costs “nominal,” perhaps $200.
“He thinks that is perfectly reasonable,” Kupchella said. “The governor recognizes the rights of people to protest lawfully and have their own opinions. But when they go beyond that and break the law, they should pay the cost.”
Kupchella said Pawlenty has found the diversion of law enforcers to protests “very frustrating.”
Some members of the legal community expressed skepticism about the proposal’s constitutionality, and one recent protester called it an infringement on free speech.
Karen Redleaf, a St. Paul war protester who was arrested twice this week at antiwar demonstrations, called Pawlenty’s proposal “really shocking and distressing.”
Redleaf, 39, a former stock analyst, said such a move would limit constitutionally protected free speech to those who could afford the price of arrest and prosecution.
“We do this to get news coverage for our views,” she said. “They’re not charging rapists for the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. We’re not hurting anyone. We’re just trying to make statements that need to be made.”
Retired Hennepin County District Judge J. Bruce Hartigan was dubious about the idea.
“Lots of luck,” he said. “It’s never going to stand the test of appeal. . . . You’re talking about the delicate balance between the First Amendment and governmental power. Chances are [such a fine] would be looked at as an improper infringement on the right to free speech and the right to assemble.”
Hartigan, who retired last year after 14 years on the bench and who said he has represented and sentenced dozens of protesters, said the plan also could backfire.
“Let’s say I’m a protester. I get together with a bunch of protesters and we go out and get arrested. We get in front of a judge. The judge orders restitution. We say no. We don’t pay it. We’ll all just go to jail and spend more of the governor’s money.”
Charles Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, also had constitutional concerns.
The Truth About The Dixie Chicks Ban
1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.
Channels of Influence
By Paul Krugman for the NY Times.
Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective “Aha!” when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company’s top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel’s chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university’s endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but a good guess is that we’re now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration “government and business have melded into one big `us.’ ” On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: “Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked.” We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn’t we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians