Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I wonder what MikeC and his fellow brother cops think about this one...

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

From the decision:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."...

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press....

With a couple caveats from Radley Balko:

Second, while I've only had time to quickly read the opinion online, I do find some possible cause for concern. From what I can tell, the opinion doesn't strike down the wiretapping law, or even its application in the context of recording cops, so much as find that Glik wasn't in violation of the law.  The opinion's discussion of Glik's Fourth Amendment rights, for example, spends a lot of time pointing out that Glik was clearly recording the cops openly, while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn't, I guess because it didn't need to...

...

Not to be a complete downer on what is really a pretty great decision, but the other thing to keep in mind is that the current Supreme Court lineup is awfully fond of qualified immunity. It's far from clear that they'd uphold this ruling. I do imagine that they will address the issue fairly soon. It will be interesting to see if that comes in the form of a challenge to an actual conviction, or in a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.

[Gilgamesh]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/29/3869964/obamas-uncle-arrested-on-drunken.html

President Obama's uncle has been charged with drunken driving in Massachusetts and is being held by immigration officials, the AP reports.

Police said that when asked if he wanted to make a phone call, Obama said: "I think I will call the White House."

[morpheus]

I wonder what MikeC and his fellow brother cops think about this one...

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

From the decision:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."...

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press....

With a couple caveats from Radley Balko:

Second, while I've only had time to quickly read the opinion online, I do find some possible cause for concern. From what I can tell, the opinion doesn't strike down the wiretapping law, or even its application in the context of recording cops, so much as find that Glik wasn't in violation of the law.  The opinion's discussion of Glik's Fourth Amendment rights, for example, spends a lot of time pointing out that Glik was clearly recording the cops openly, while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn't, I guess because it didn't need to...

...

Not to be a complete downer on what is really a pretty great decision, but the other thing to keep in mind is that the current Supreme Court lineup is awfully fond of qualified immunity. It's far from clear that they'd uphold this ruling. I do imagine that they will address the issue fairly soon. It will be interesting to see if that comes in the form of a challenge to an actual conviction, or in a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.

Talk about violation...

[Wheezer]

Time for the atheist registry.

[Brownie]

Time for the atheist registry.

I don't get this Wheezer link at all.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Time for the atheist registry.

I don't get this Wheezer link at all.

It was formerly a link to Google's cache of a year-old blog post by a Evangelical pastor from Florida suggesting that we use the I-Net to wage war on the national atheist menace the same way we fight sexual predators and terrorist cells:

Brothers and Sisters , I have been seriously considering forming a ( Christian ) grassroots type of organization to be named "The Christian National Registry of Atheists" or something similar . I mean , think about it . There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders , ex-convicts , terrorist cells , hate groups like the KKK , skinheads , radical Islamists , etc..

This type of "National Registry" would merely be for information purposes . To inform the public of KNOWN ( i.e., self-admitted) atheists . For example , let's say you live in Colorado Springs , Colorado , you could simply scroll down ( from the I-Net site /Blog ) I would have , to the State of Colorado , and then when you see "Colorado Springs" , you will see the names of all the self-admitted atheist(s) who live there ( e.g., if an atheist's name happened to be "Phil Small" ) . The individual's physical address , and other known personal information would NOT be disclosed ( though , perhaps a photo could be ) .

Now , many (especially the atheists ) , may ask "Why do this , what's the purpose ?" Duhhh , Mr. Atheist , for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net – to INFORM the public ! I mean , in the City of Miramar , Florida , where I live , the population is approx. 109,000 . My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists ! Perhaps we may actually know some . In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism . Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh's , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan .

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

[Bort]

Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?

How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

[Bort]

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

I, for one, would like to witness to them, or if their hearts are hardened, boycott their businesses.

[Brownie]

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

I, for one, would like to witness to them, or if their hearts are hardened, boycott their businesses.

But not those on the natiional registry of people who think the Cubs are good?

[thehawk]

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?

All people who think the Cubs are good are crazy, but not all crazy people think the Cubs are good.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?

All people who think the Cubs are good are crazy, but not all crazy people think the Cubs are good.

Maybe we could just get Maple Street Press to give us a list of subscribers to their magazine.  That would have the benefit of doubling as a sex offender list, as well.

[CBStew]

Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

I think that he has it backwards.  Those of us who are not atheists must identify ourselves and mark our houses so that the Angel of Death passes over our houses and spares our first born.

[CT III]

Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

I think that he has it backwards.  Those of us who are not atheists must identify ourselves and mark our houses so that the Angel of Death passes over our houses and spares our first born.

No, too Jewish.