Florida Congressman John Mica, a Republican who now heads the House Transportation Committee, complains that the agency doesn’t make us safer. He points out that Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” was stopped by alert passengers, not by the TSA. The father of the “underwear bomber” warned the government about his son, but the TSA still allowed him to fly with a bomb in his underwear. Only passengers prevented him from detonating it.

After the Times Square Bomber’s attack failed in 2010, Rep. Mica points out, the man “ordered his ticket on the way to JFK, went through TSA, [and] got on the plane.”

There is a better way: Let private companies compete for the job.

When writing the law that created the TSA, Rep. Mica added a provision that allows airports to “opt out” of federalized security. San Francisco Airport took advantage of that and hired Covenant Aviation Security, a private screening company.     More

Proposal Would Gut Privacy Laws, Allow Unprecedented Data-Grab by Government

We’re for better network, computer, and device security.  Unfortunately, “cybersecurity” bills often go off track—case in point:  the “ Internet kill switch. “  The latest example comes courtesy of the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee.  Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) are introducing “The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011“(PDF).

The bill would allow a broad swath of ISPs and other private entities to “use cybersecurity systems” to collect and share masses of user data with the government, other businesses, or “any other entity” so long as it’s for a vaguely-defined “cybersecurity purpose.” It would trump existing privacy statutes that strictly limit the interception and disclosure of your private communications data, as well as any other state or federal law that might get in the way.  Indeed, the language may be broad enough to bless the covert use of spyware if done in “good faith” for a “cybersecurity purpose.”

This broad data-sharing between companies wouldn’t be subject to any oversight or transparency measures (users can’t restrict companies’ sharing), while the only oversight for sharing with the federal government, ironically, would be through the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board—which hasn’t existed since January 2008.                    More

by Candice Lanier

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a vaguely worded anti-stalking law poses a serious threat to freedom of speech online.  The EFF specifically cites a case involving the popular microblogging platform, Twitter:

EFF filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging a federal court to block the government’s use of the federal anti-stalking law to prosecute a man for posting criticism of a public figure to Twitter.

At issue is a federal law originally enacted to criminalize traveling across state lines for the purpose of stalking. In 2005, the law was modified to make the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” by the use of “any interactive computer service” a crime. In this case, the government has presented the novel and dangerous theory that the use of a public communication service like Twitter to criticize a well-known individual can result in criminal liability based on the personal sensibilities of the person being criticized.

“Wielding the threat of criminal sanctions to punish the pointed, online criticism of public figures is not only bad policy, it is unconstitutional,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “While true threats can and should be opposed, public speech about prominent people must be vigorously protected.”

For the full amicus brief in US v. Cassidy:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/us_v_cassidy/eff_amicus_cassidy.pdf

For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-cassidy

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/07/29

Anti-stalking legislation in California is similarly vague and can restrict any “annoying, embarrassing communications” leveled against an individual.   What’s more, across the country other legislation, such as this, is being drafted – at an alarmingly rapid rate.  Those laws which can be viewed broadly can severely restrict the rights of those who seek to express themselves online.

More on the California anti-stalking legislation

Related Cases from The First Amendment Center’s Website

New cyberstalking law challenged over ‘annoy’ language
By David L. Hudson Jr. Arizona anonymous e-mail company contends little-noticed provision criminalizes much protected speech. 02.24.06

Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment
Governor praises new cyberstalking law, a response to suicide of state teen who was teased online. 05.19.08

Mo. woman pleads not guilty to charges related to MySpace suicide
Experts say case could break new legal ground; statute used to indict Lori Drew usually applies to Internet hackers who illegally access accounts to get information. 06.17.08

Mo. governor signs anti-cyberbullying bill into law
Teen’s suicide prompts state to outlaw Internet harassment; girl’s mother says even more needs to be done to keep kids safe online. 07.01.08

E-mails sent to Va. Tech students were true threats
By David L. Hudson Jr. 4th Circuit panel says any ordinary, reasonable person would have understood Johnmarlo B. Napa’s messages as threats. 03.23.10

Anti-stalking legislation is not, by any means, the only threat to Internet free speech.   Successful social networking site, Facebook and its new competitor, Google+ both require that users use their real names.  Failure to comply can result in account deactivation.

Numerous reasons exist as to why some opt to use a pseudonym instead of a real name.  Some of those reasons are detailed at Liberty Voice:

They may be concerned about threats to their lives or livelihoods, or they may risk political or economic retribution. They may wish to prevent discrimination or they may use a name that’s easier to pronounce or spell in a given culture.

Longtime online inhabitants may have handles that have spanned over twenty years.

As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens put forth in deciding McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

And, the costs to individuals who use their real names can be vast, including:

-harassment, both online and offline

-discrimination in employment, provision of services, etc.

-actual physical danger of bullying, hate crime, etc.

-arrest, imprisonment, or execution in some jurisdictions

-economic harm such as job loss, loss of professional reputation, reduction of job opportunity, etc.

-social costs of not being able to interact with friends and colleagues

-possible (temporary) loss of access to their data if their account is suspended or terminated

Another addition to the menacing forces against free speech is the new legislation in Tennessee which bans images that may cause “emotional distress.”   Indeed,  according to  The Washington Independent, “Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a bill into law that criminalizes ‘transmitting or displaying’ any image that under a ‘reasonable expectation’ might ‘frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress’ to anyone who sees it. This is not limited only to images posted on the internet, but also includes TV and any other “electronic communications service” currently in existence.

In a nutshell, the law allows anyone to go after anyone – journalists, bloggers, users of social media – who will potentially face jail for up to a year or a fine of up to $2,500,  just for sharing a picture or other image.

Apparently, some people really can’t handle the truth…

Legal scholar, Eugene Volokh regards the law as “clearly unconstitutional.”  He states:

So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people’s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting “without legitimate purpose,” (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

-If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”

-Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”

-The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”

-And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

In other censorship news, a blogger on Twitter found out first-hand what the erosion of free speech feels like.    According to Jonathan Sangster, who goes by the name @TORARADICAL on Twitter, his account was suspended for several days without explanation.   It was finally explained to him, by Twitter, that a government agency had requested they suspend his account so that it could be investigated for suspicious activity.

More on the Jonathan Sangster incident

Update on incident

I have read content on Sangster’s blog – none of which would arouse suspicion from a clear thinking, lucid individual.   Sangster was merely exercising a constitutional right.   These incidents represent an obvious threat to one of our most precious civil liberties.

This year though it seemed that this emotion was more than usual. The tears of pride that usually were momentary during certain patriotic happenings were nearly always just below the surface throughout the weekend as everything left me chocked up. It was not until I visited with my son who has just become a father and I held my new grand daughter that I realized why I was more chocked up that usual.

I realized that the freedom and liberty that our Founders so bravely and selflessly fought for to create this Nation are not only being threatened in ways never before known in America but if we who understand that threat do not stand as our Founders did 234 years ago, my son and especially my precious little grand daughter will not know the freedom that even I have experienced in my life time.

Abraham Lincoln once stated that, ” if destruction be our lot, ” as a Nation then it would not come from some foreign power but from within. We are seeing that destruction taking place at the hands of a Presidential administration who has no regard for the people, our Constitution and the principles that were set forth by our Founders when we declared Independence in July of 1776.

As I read once again the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence I realized that many of the grievances that our Founders had with King George we face again today with Barack Obama and the alliance he has with the Congress that passes everything he puts forth without regard to consequence or Constitutional muster.

Obama’s agenda and many of the moves he makes which do not require Congress threaten our liberties as the abuses of King George threatened those who gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1776. We face legislative initiatives which tax us and enslave us to government without regard to the will of the people and whose sole purpose is to control some aspect of our life denying us the freedom to make choices that reflect our conscience or ability to provide for our families.

We face threats to our freedom to speak as we see constant accusation to any of us who raise our voice in opposition to the administration as patriots are threatened with law suites, and called everything from Nazi to anti-American simply for dissenting against the current regime and its alliance of socialism which threatens our liberties and our Republic.

We see the ability of the press being hampered in reporting the greatest environmental threat and government failure in our history as fines and imprisonment are given if reporters come within 65 feet of anything concerning the Gulf oil spill. Not a safety precaution but a deliberate suspension of the First Amendment to prevent the country from seeing just how badly this administration has failed in handling the massive problem.

Even as Americans are making it known that we will not stand for this threat to our Nation and come November by our vote we will remove this liberty stealing Congress from power and tie the hands of their equally thieving President, Democrats have talked of using the lame duck session in December as a means of forcing through more unconstitutional measures such as card check and cap and trade since those who lose in November will no longer need concern themselves with the response from voters.

King George would have been proud of the Obama administration. Our Founders would see this President in the same light as they did George and his Tory Governors who enforced the abusive measures that consistently came to the Colonies robbing the people of their rights as Obama robs us of ours. The difference is that Obama is much more subtle in his thievery than George was as he pretends to force this agenda claiming it is in the best interest of the country using every crisis available as the excuse to take away our liberties.

Shortly before leaving Boston as a delegate to the First Continental Congress, John Adams spoke at a gathering of Patriots who were meeting to express their grievances with the Crown. Adams spoke of the God given right of all men to have the freedom to choose how they live and he ended this masterful speech with these words, ” Liberty will reign in America!”

To Barack Obama and his socialist alliance with Congress, I say as Adams did so many years ago, “Liberty will reign in America.” We the people will not stand for the taking of our freedoms. We will not stand for the robbing of our unalienable rights of, “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

We will stand as our Founders did against the tyranny of King George to the tyranny of Barack Obama and prevent this destruction of our Republic at the hands of a government whose sole purpose in to gain control of our lives by sucking the life of liberty from our people. As our Declaration states we have the right to abolish any government which seeks this end and we will use the just authority we have as Americans through our Constitution to abolish Obama’s government as we take our Nation back from he and his socialist alliance with our vote and our stance for the liberties of all Americans.

Ken Taylor

Never in my lifetime has a President created chaos as Barack Obama has in his short time in office. An oil spill with NO direction for clean up, constant legislation that confuses and mystifies even the pundits, seeking blanket amnesty for illegals, financial markets bouncing all over the board never knowing how to react to Obama’s latest financial meddling, rules of engagement on the battle field that cause a seasoned General to throw his hands in the air in disgust ending a brilliant career when a reporter wrote of that disgust.

On the foreign front, allies fear the confusion they see in The White House, enemies are testing the weakness that is all to evident, battle field foes praise the policy and strategy of the Commander in Chief since it gives them a distinct advantage, world leaders have no confidence in the occupant of the Oval Office.

As chaos reigns from The White House most wonder if Barack Obama really knows what he is doing and whether the responsibility of the Presidency is too much for the community organizer. While this is be true, I also believe that in the midst of his chaos we are seeing a plan that is being implemented which follows the ideology of tyranny for rebuilding America.

Every move that Obama has made whether in financial, “reform,” health care, the possibility of blanket amnesty for illegals, the idiotic rules of engagement on the battle field, even the failure that we see in the Gulf oil spill clean up, has a single minded direction which spells disaster for America. Obama’s chaos has a directed course which centralizes authority to the federal government and in many instances specifically the Executive Branch which allows greater control through government of every aspect of America life.

Even the total failure of the Gulf oil spill is being controlled specifically by the Obama White House which is why the disaster is a never ending cycle of chaos. Every attempt to handle the situation from even a state level is stopped due to some sort of federal problem that halts state operations. The berms in Louisiana were halted because of federal environmental regulation, barges extracting oil from the water were halted for inspection of life vests and fire extinguishers. This entire oil debacle is a government, (Obama), orchestrated failure showing the true tyrannical control that Obama has over this Nation at every turn.

All financial measures he has created through legislation centralizes control of financial markets and business to the federal government. Health care centralizes control of the industry to the federal government. The stimulus centralizes control through money allocated to the states of state and local programs. Even when federal money dries up the control of programs still rests with the federal government, paid for then by state funds.

The illegal immigration problem is being controlled by the Obama agenda. Arizona passed strong legislation which takes affect at the end of July, yet border security which is essential to make Arizona’s law work completely is controlled and stalled by Obama who is now considering an Executive Order granting blanket amnesty to illegal aliens.

So while chaos reigns at the Obama White House, his tyrannical control of America and the rebuilding process of our country in his image which he promised in his campaign continues uninterrupted through the chaos. One has to wonder if the chaos is intentional in order to create confusion which allows his plan of government tyranny to be completed while everyone focuses on the chaos.

When the chaos is at its height some new piece of legislation slips through Congress almost unnoticed by the public. The most recent case is the financial, “reform,” bill which passed committee but was lost in the chaos of the Gulf oil spill and the replacing of General McChrystal. Obama has become masterful at centralizing his power and that of the federal government in the midst of chaos that he has created.

Many see this chaos as a weakness of a poor leader. While this to a certain extent is true, could this chaotic governing by Obama be part of the plan in order to create the tyrannical and socialist America that he has wanted all along ? A plan that through chaos slides our Nation into tyranny and socialism right under the nose of even we who are in total opposition of everything he is doing.

Tyrants throughout history have used chaos to change the course of their countries. Chaos creates confusion, confusion creates misdirection and misdirection creates tyrants. Tyrants have historically used trouble whether manufactured or real as the catalyst to create the chaos necessary to force their control and centralize their power and authority.

This is the direction which we are moving under the chaotic control of Barack Obama. Power and authority is being centralized to the government and the Presidency. Chaos and confusion are his tools to shift control and create the tyrannical control that he sees as the reshaping of American life and society. There truly is tyranny in the midst of Obama’s chaos and our Nation is suffering from it and our future is in jeopardy because of it.

Ken Taylor