Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category
Yesterday morning, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:
CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.
RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
It’s reported that after this interview he went fishing on an Oman Sultan’s yacht.
Please take the time to watch these videos – it’s what’s necessary for all of this to change.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.
Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.
Among them are Samuel Zell, the Chicago investor who is seeking to complete a buyout of the Tribune Company, and Rupert Murdoch, who has lobbied against the rule for years so that he can continue controlling both The New York Post and a Fox television station in New York.
The proposal appears to have the support of a majority of the five commission members, agency officials said, although it is not clear that Mr. Martin would proceed with a sweeping deregulatory approach on a vote of 3 to 2 — something his predecessor tried without success. In interviews on Wednesday, the agency’s two Democratic members raised questions about Mr. Martin’s approach.
Read the rest at NYTimes.com
NEW YORK The Associated Press said today that it is suing online news distributor “Moreover” and its parent company VeriSign. The news cooperative is seeking to stop the companies from accessing and publishing AP material and infringing on copyrights and trademarks.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today. AP sent the companies a cease-and-desist letter on September 11.
“The Associated Press spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year gathering and reporting the news, providing original coverage of vital breaking news that cannot be obtained anywhere else,” Tom Curley, president and CEO of the AP, said in a statement. “When someone uses our content without our permission, they are free riding on our newsgathering and our reporting of news from around the world.”
A spokesperson for VeriSign said the company could not comment on pending litigation.
AP is seeking unspecified damages and a permanent injunction against the companies.
“Moreover” claims that AP is a source for its major news coverage, according to AP. “This suit is about two companies that are willfully misappropriating and infringing upon AP’s proprietary news reports on a continuous basis, and are falsely associating themselves with AP, to operate and promote their fee-based and ad-supported services, which they promise will deliver real-time news in as fast as two minutes of publication,” Srinandan Kasi, AP vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
VeriSign, based in Mountain View, Calif., offers services that enable and protect billions of interactions every day across voice, video and data networks.
This has the potential to seriously affect the way you get your news. AP is obviously not in the business of disseminating the news, but rather in the business of business.
There is a portion of the lawsuit that indicates they will are not just upset about the posting of entire stories or snips but also sites that post links.
We will continue to post as we always have until the judgment is handed down. If the ruling is in favor of AP, we will have to rethink how we post articles from them.
Interesting times, eh?
We will not be posting Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007. We are participating in the STRIKE FOR PEACE.
If you’ve had enough, you need to say “When.” Say-when.org
by Timothy V. Gatto
Odd, maybe a little paranoid, or just come right out and tell me that I’ve been reading into what this administration has done to the Constitution and our civil liberties and then tell me I’m right on the money. I watched Bill Clinton on Larry King last night. He had a lot to say, but none of what needed to be said. He talked about the war, he talked about the other candidates and of course, he talked about his new book and Hillary. I still like Bill Clinton, I wish he had talked about the very thing that most Americans fear: the loss of our rights under the Constitution.
The War, Larry Craig, and everything else in-between is fodder for discussion in this nation. What’s not however, is the way that the Constitution has been usurped by the Patriot Act. The basic liberties that Americans have always expected and enjoyed have been replaced by a document that gives the Federal Government far more power than the framers of our constitution had envisioned. The people, consistently frightened by a plethora of “terrorist attacks” that have never come, have given this administration far more power than any preceding it.
Nobody is talking about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that gives the green light to “interrogations” to the point of organ failure, and the Insurrection Act (revamped) that gives the Federal Government control of the States National Guards for “police duties” in violation of Posse Comitatus. Nobody is talking about the new FISA Act that lets the Government tap our phones and read our e-mails.
Some people are reporting that the government has set up “free speech zones”: walled areas away from Bush and Cheney and no MSM coverage, far away from where they might be speaking. I don’t know about you, but I find this behavior by the government against the 1st Amendment. Why are all the Presidential Candidates not talking about this?
Where is John Edwards on the new powers of the Federal Government? Is he another that can’t wait to occupy “The Unitary Presidency” or does he want to scrap all of the underpinnings of a de-facto dictatorship, which, in reality is where we are headed unless we can turn these laws around. Remember that the citizens of this country are not the ones that must be muzzled and watched. Yet, every time the Federal Government enacts another law to fight this “war on terror” our basic liberties and freedoms are eroded. We have to have passports to go to Mexico and Canada. They want us to carry “Real-ID” that has all our information and is tied into a central database and quite possibly contain an RFID chip so they can tell where you are at all times. Is this something out of a science fiction book or what?
So where are all of our “Defenders of the Constitution”? The only one I hear raising hell is Ron Paul. How about you John Edwards, why is the government watching the people instead of watching for “the bad guys”? Are you and Biden and Obama and the rest comfortable with the status quo? You can bet Mike Gravel isn’t happy about it, but the MSM won’t give him a chance to express it. Dennis Kucinich should start making some noise about our civil liberties being expunged if he want’s to make a dent in the polls.
People are scared. They are scared and also becoming angrier by the day. People can only be afraid for so long. It’s the old “flight or fight” response. After the fear comes anger. You can feel it in conversations with ordinary Americans you talk to on the street. One of the biggest comments I hear is “Why are they doing this to us? I’m not al Qeada!” Why indeed is the operative question of the day, why indeed?
This is the way I see it.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
“In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.”
“In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.”
“During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.”
This is truly amazing – please read the entire story. Here’s the really disturbing part – this isn’t about politics – it’s about a product that has the potential to harm your body and the bodies of your children.
It’s all about the money.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.
Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.