Archive for Sunday, January 6, 2008
Warrant sparks free speech concerns
Journal-World objects to disclosing identity of online user
January 6, 2008
Advertisement
Online user search warrant
A local judge, the district attorney and the Kansas University police department are being roundly criticized by First Amendment advocates for a search warrant that sought access to online subscriber files of the Journal-World.
On Dec. 10, an investigator with KU’s Office of Public Safety delivered a search warrant to the Journal-World demanding access to the newspaper’s computer servers. The search warrant — applied for by the office of public safety, reviewed by the Douglas County district attorney’s office, and issued by Douglas County District Judge Stephen Six — was seeking information about the identity of an individual who had posted anonymous comments on ljworld.com, the newspaper’s Web site.
Investigators were seeking the identity of a poster with the screen name a2thek, who had posted comments related to articles about a Kansas University student who was found dead in an Oliver Hall dorm room. The poster had made comments indicating the death was heroin-related.
First Amendment advocates said the decision by local authorities to serve a search warrant on a media organization was troubling.
“Issuing a search warrant to a newspaper is completely inappropriate,” said Mike Kautsch, a KU law school professor and former dean of KU’s School of Journalism. “It is a way of chilling the process of gathering and reporting the news.”
Journal-World leaders also objected, and said they were concerned that future searches could paint the Journal-World as an investigative arm of local law enforcement.
“What we see is that more and more frequently, law enforcement is scrutinizing the postings on our Web site and is attempting to use what we consider fishing expeditions to come after the identity of individuals,” said Ralph Gage, director of Special Projects for The World Company, which publishes the Journal-World. “We do feel an obligation to the people who use that site to not be an automatic conduit for law enforcement.”
A spokesman with KU’s Office of Public Safety denied assertions that his organization had overstepped its bounds by seeking the identity of the anonymous poster, although he declined to provide specifics about why the information was needed. The spokesman said he could not comment because the matter was still part of an open investigation.
“Our job is to find out information, and if it is pertinent to the case we will attempt to get it in any legal manner that we can,” said Chris Keary, assistant chief of the KU department.
Judge Six also declined to comment for this article.
Legal jousting
The Journal-World ultimately was not made to supply information regarding the identity of the poster. When presented with the search warrant, the newspaper was given the opportunity to call its attorney, who contacted the district attorney’s office and the court to object to the search warrant. During that time period, the KU investigator left the Journal-World offices without executing the search warrant and did not return.
Bernard Rhodes — a Kansas City, Mo., attorney representing the Journal-World — said he believed the search warrant was issued contrary to a federal law that greatly restricts the ability of law enforcement to conduct searches of news-gathering organizations.
“Congress has determined that the First Amendment is emasculated by allowing armed law enforcement to come into a newsroom to gather whatever information they want,” Rhodes said. “That is the type of practice you used to see in the old Soviet Union.”
Rhodes said Congress in the 1980s passed a law — the Privacy Protection Act — that prohibits such searches of news-gathering operations.
But Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson said it can be argued the law allows for searches related to the identity of an online user. The 1980 law, he said, didn’t contemplate a world of online blogs and the role they could play in criminal investigations.
“The best thing I can say about the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is that it needs to be revised,” Branson said. “What it hasn’t been able to do is keep up with the times. In 1980, they had no clue what a blog is and how it would operate. They didn’t understand that people would basically be able to spray paint on it like a graffiti wall and move on.”
Specifically, Branson said he did not believe an electronic file containing information about the identify of an online poster could be considered the “work product” of the newspaper. The Privacy Protection Act generally restricts the ability of law enforcement to execute search warrants for work products — reporter’s notes, photographs, source documents and other similar files — but leaves open the possibility of search warrants for other types of documents or information a news organization may have.
“I think it is pretty uncharted ground right now,” said Branson, who said the courts have not yet made a landmark ruling on how the Privacy Protection Act deals with online issues. “I think it will have to be brought to a head at some point in time and get the definitions updated so everybody knows what the rules are.”
A prominent national media attorney, however, said the rules are clear enough now that local authorities should have known better than to pursue the warrant.
“I don’t think an online poster is any different than a letter to the editor, and certainly a letter to the editor is covered under the law,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “There is no question in my mind that the Privacy Protection Act applies here.”
Question of trust
The legal debate is producing high stakes for all involved, journalism and law enforcement leaders said.
Dalglish said it would be highly detrimental if search warrants are more frequently served on newsrooms.
“The media’s job is to ensure that the public gets access to truthful information,” Dalglish said. “If the media are viewed as an arm of government that just turns information over to the police, people will stop talking to the media. They’ll think you’ll just get them in trouble. It has that classic chilling effect.”
But Branson, the district attorney, said prohibiting law enforcement from seeking the identity of online posters can hamper criminal investigations. Branson said he would never argue that law enforcement should have unfettered access to the information in media files, but said he wants a reasonable test to be created that would allow future searches when needed.
“We solve a lot of our cases because the person who committed the crime just had to tell somebody about it,” Branson said. “They shouldn’t get an ‘olly olly oxen free’ pass just because the person they told was an anonymous blogger.”
Journal-World leaders, however, contend there are other ways for law enforcement to obtain the information. For example, the newspaper has twice been subpoenaed to provide the identity of online posters.
Once was during the arson/homicide trial related to the Boardwalk Apartment fire. During the trial, the Journal-World was subpoenaed to provide the identity of a poster who had previously had a conversation with the defendant about arson. The Journal-World found the request reasonable, Gage said, and did not object to the subpoena.
The other subpoena was related to a Web site user who had posted on an article regarding a federal investigation of the Yellow House, a Lawrence thrift store. The Journal-World ultimately complied with that subpoena after determining that it had no firm ground to oppose it.
But Gage said the subpoena process — unlike a search warrant — gives the newspaper a chance to go before a judge and object to providing the information. A search warrant gives law enforcement the right to immediately enter the premises and begin its own search.
Branson said he generally agrees that a subpoena would be a preferable method for getting information from a news organization. He said he’s not sure why his office didn’t do more to encourage KU investigators to use a subpoena rather than a search warrant. Keary, the assistant chief at KU, declined to comment on the issue.
Law enforcement, like all ljworld.com users, also has the ability to e-mail an anonymous user through the newspaper’s Web site. In this case, the anonymous user — when reached by the Journal-World through the e-mail method — said police had not attempted to reach him in that manner.
First Amendment advocates said law enforcement should be made to exhaust such means before compelling news organizations — either through search warrants or subpoenas — to reveal the identities of sources or posters.
Scott Bosley, executive director of the American Society for Newspaper Editors, said he urges his members to be diligent in protecting the independence of the press.
“We feel like we have grounds to resist these searches, and we believe we should resist them as vigorously as possible,” Bosley said. “If we don’t, the ramifications will be that we lose the public’s trust. Readers and visitors to our Web sites just would refuse to trust us, and we don’t have much going for us other than the public’s trust.”
6 January 2008 at 6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…
It is not quite so simple. I assume that what the KU cops wanted was to see the server logs? And the log-in and registration e-mail address? Those things can be concealed even from the paper easily.
But I am glad to see the cops being a bit more pro-active in their investigations. So often all they do is read the paper to find out what happened, and then go try to make a case.
I am going to file a subpoena so I can find out who I truly am. That has got to be cheaper then a shrink.
6 January 2008 at 6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
If you want to remain truly anonymous, you must use a blind email address and a very good proxy.
The above article tells you very clearly why.
6 January 2008 at 6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…
Aren't a reporters sources a protected thing? Havnt there been cases where cops have tried and failed to get a reporter to reveal their sources? Valarie Plame comes to mind.
6 January 2008 at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
freeordie (Anonymous) says…
I find it sad there are so few comments here and so many on something so irrelevant as same sex unions. No wonder are freedoms are gone.
6 January 2008 at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Reporter's sources are supposed to be a protected thing…but many a reporter has spent time in jail for refusing to reveal their sources…
As for the forums here…oh, please…do the police really think anyone on here truly knows what happened to that student? Chances are the poster
was just repeating a rumor someone else had started…and we all know how easily rumors can get started…
6 January 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
I don't think people commenting on an anonymous blog can legally be considered a reporter's source as some of you seem to be contending.
This could ultimately cause problems for all the people that boast about their illegal drug use on these boards. Or any other illegal activity no matter how trivial it may seem.
Cops are pretty lazy nowadays. Why not kick back reading blogs and pick them off one by one as people admit to their crimes?
How about employers demanding records to see who in their employ goofs off on the internet all day?
Many possible ramifications.
6 January 2008 at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ronwell_dobbs (Anonymous) says…
I don't think I would consider an anonymous poster to be a reporter's “source”. However, I am glad to see LJW fighting this one.
A priori I acknowledge that there will be some on this forum that immediately besmirch my patriotism, but I think that law enforcement in this country enough, if not too much, power and access already. We sit back and pretend that our country is immune from becoming a police state, yet day by day law enforcement at all levels constantly ask for more and more power to fight the bogeyman of the day. Terrorist bogeymen have sufficed as the qualifier for the last 6.5 years. Urban gangs were before that. Probably next it will be Chinese cyberthieves.
6 January 2008 at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, but this is important stuff. What if this person knows something about someone who is already dead? We might be able to save that person by putting this lousy “knower” in jail until their disgusting self is released for not admitting to have committed some heinous crime!~) Everyone is a criminal, you know!
6 January 2008 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
This is a rerun. They did this a while back during the Boardwalk trials, remember?
6 January 2008 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
marion, how many of your identities have been outed on various sites?
6 January 2008 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
For all the Sigfruedens and Passionannexs,
You said it was all a figment of paranoia. This article drives home the point that your ostrich approach to the shredding of the constitution is folly.
Your accusations and smears equating those of us concerned about the erosion of constitutional rights in this country with those paranoid about “black helicopters,” shows how out of touch your smug see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil cult is.
Whether you wake up over this, or continue to slumber in your sty, the truth of the matter is all Americans now need to understand that government power is out of control and the arrogant policies of the Bush administration have filtered down to the local level.
As far as the Journal World is concerned - you asked for this, with your unending embrace of Senator Robert's secret government, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and embrace of warrantless wiretapping. Now you put up a fight when it comes to your front door. You should use this episode to get on the right side of the issue. Many of us hope you do. Compairing this to the tactics of the Soviet Union is clearly a step in the right direction.
6 January 2008 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
And I'll bet logrithmic was the first in line to vote for Branson.
6 January 2008 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coneflower (Anonymous) says…
logrithmic:
Kudos for a great post.
6 January 2008 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
They were searching for something else.
Otherwise they would've brought a subpoena which they were pretty sure the LJ-W would've honored but only given them the identity of the one individual. With a search warrant they'd have unlimited access to everybody……
So for whom among us are they looking?
6 January 2008 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Monkeysquawk,
Please provide proof for your assertion that “And I'll bet logrithmic was the first in line to vote for Branson.”
I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing so, since you make your assertion with such confidence.
It's a sad day when fools can make ignorant statements without any support.
If you don't answer this request or fail to provide support, well then we all will know, monkeyhawk speaks monkeysquawk.
6 January 2008 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…
Trying to twist the Constitution in perverse manners.
6 January 2008 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
temperance (Anonymous) says…
Branson: “In 1980, they had no clue what a blog is and how it would operate. They didn’t understand that people would basically be able to spray paint on it like a graffiti wall and move on.”
I love being compared to a vandal. It makes me feel so streetwise.
@ its_getting_warmer: Exactly!
6 January 2008 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
maxcrabb (Anonymous) says…
Or you could just post with your actual name…
keeps you from saying things you don't mean or didn't think through all the way.
Anyway, have a great day!
6 January 2008 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
doc1 (Anonymous) says…
They only have a problem with stuff like this until it's one of their kids who mysteriously dies. Then they would claim the cops don't do anything because of stupid whining like this. They did the search warrant by the book and no rights have been violated. If there is probable cause to believe someone has information about a death then it by gosh they BETTER be investigating that.
6 January 2008 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
no comment by A2THEK? I guess he's under the thumbscrews and being waterboarded? or else, he's fled? sure took them long enough to put forth this subpoena.
6 January 2008 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
If somebody has info on the young man's death, they should come forth. This “stop the snitching” stuff is for the birds.
6 January 2008 at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nekansan (Anonymous) says…
“As for the forums here…oh, please…do the police really think anyone on here truly knows what happened to that student? Chances are the poster
was just repeating a rumor someone else had started…and we all know how easily rumors can get started…”
Actually posting on these forums led to a mistrial in the Jason Rose trial in order to bring evidence forward that a poster referred to in the forums. I find it funny that the LJW is suddenly acting like this is a new thing. In reality their own user agreement makes allowance for providing information that is compelled through a court order. While a reporter may not be required to reveal sources, the posting here are not a traditional journalistic story. They are more akin to a public forum, that while allowing free speech also requires the speaker to take responsibility for their words. Seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want law enforcement questioning you about what you said, don't do the online equivalent of standing on a corner with a bull horn. I suspect that people who do post such information here want to pass information to the public and by proxy LE. The court here did not ask a reporter to reveal any confidential source, they asked a public message board to reveal the source of a post in accordance with that forum's user agreement.
6 January 2008 at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
well they also got warrants for the Yellow House posters.
This was not a murder trial. No children in danger, no shots fired no threats being made.
There were no charges even filed in the case at the time!
6 January 2008 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
log
Since you are protesting wildly in your usual nails on the chalkboard fashion, that is proof positive.
Besides, your endless rantings are indicative of which way you swing ………….
“Of course, in the mind of the rightwing commierservative - “Don't confuse me with the facts; I've got my pea-brained mind made up!”
'Something is terribly wrong with RepubLICKlans.'
“As someone who has supported Boog, financially as well as politically”
“Guiliani - a political crime boss
Romney - slick is too kind a word - weathervane is more like it
Thompson - lobbyist/actor
McCain - Angry person wrapped in stars and ribbons
Hunter - Abramoff protege
Tancredo - Scapegoating and detention centers
Huckabye - Friendly Taliban
Paul - Extreme libertarian”
“It is unfortunate that Schauner and Maynard Moody did not take their seats alongside of Boog Highberger.”
“Where are the rightwingers? 458casul, Marion (the narc), Dumbudzo, Conservative, Godot, Bilgegrim, Blowhunter99, Plumbersbuttcrack, Sigmund, Consumer1 (name says it all), Monkeyhawk, 4thgradeeducation, Cowboy, Offtotheright, and others to many to name?”
So to think that you would ever vote for a republican would be the same as thinking that you would never post again on this forum. You impeach yourself with your triviality.
“It's a sad day when fools can make ignorant statements without any support.” Unless, of course, it is you.
Thanks for playing!
6 January 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
punkrockmom (Anonymous) says…
But, DID they decide that was cause of death? If not, then why worry about someone saying it was. If so, I guess they want to find out who knew about the drugs. Either way, I don't see the point. Some people know people that USE drugs without knowing anything else.
6 January 2008 at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
The police already had all the YH records that were seized during the 5 search warrants.
They could see by the records the YH was not running a theft ring.
Someone making an erroneous annonomous statement they bought drugs or sold stolen property to the YH on a JW post is just slandering the YH.
Even with a freedom of speech, slander is illigal, however I doubt that looking out for the YH reputation was the reason the police were getting the identity of the poster!
6 January 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
“…the posting here are not a traditional journalistic story. They are more akin to a public forum, that while allowing free speech also requires the speaker to take responsibility for their words. Seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want law enforcement questioning you about what you said, don't do the online equivalent of standing on a corner with a bull horn. I suspect that people who do post such information here want to pass information to the public and by proxy LE.”
The arguments put forth in this post shows in a nutshell how people like Hitler can rise to power. This poster says were all standing on a corner with a bullhorn and therefore should be subject to law enforcement harassment.
This leap of illlogic requires one to accept many things:
1) We are all wanting to be interviewed by the police for stating our political beliefs.
2) It is perfectly fine for law enforcement to search the local paper for information on all of us simply because we post our political beliefs.
3) If we don't want to have law enforcement on our front doorstep asking us questions, don't post to this forum. This of course supports the “chilling effect” referred to by Professor Kautsch: “Issuing a search warrant to a newspaper is completely inappropriate. It is a way of chilling the process of gathering and reporting the news.”
In a society grounded on the first amendment and on the freedom of speech, the very notion that one should not exercise their speech because of a fear of police harassment is exactly why the Founding Father's placed the first amendment in the Constitution.
To now see someone post that we should refrain from posting because Big Brother is watching us should serve to warn all of us that “Good Germans” live among us and willingly support the government in its abuse of our civil liberties.
6 January 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
Seems to me if what the poster said was true and they can back it up, then what is the problem?
They exercised their freedom of speech to speak out, now they will be held accountable for what they said!
Especially if the statement was slanderous or damaging to another persons reputation.
If the statement is not true, then its slander and again it is illegal and should not have been posted…anonomous or not.
6 January 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
What about virtual stalkers? Should law enforcement have access to those suspected identities? if owner/moderators refuse to to take steps?
Blanket access without a very specific and substantial reason should be met with some apprehension. As this article points out law enforcement is not without tools to obtain information. LJW appears to have worked with law enforcement on occasion.
So KU law enforcement did not use the proper tool and many have asking for too much information?
6 January 2008 at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
ha ha ha. Monkeysquawk, that's the best you can do?
To the careful reader, one can see there is no mention of Branson anywhere to be found.
Poor Monkeysquawk.
One should take note of this comment: “Besides, your endless rantings are indicative of which way you swing ………….”
The only thing you've done Monkey, is indicate which way you swing. And the one question I have for you - are you a “wide stance” RepubLICKlan?
6 January 2008 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
As far as constitutional rights, they are not automatic.
YH had a constitutional right to Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Yet 3 years later our property is still being held by LPD.
They had a Constitutional right to privacy, yet our home has been searched multiple times by LPD without using a search warrant!
THe constitution is worthless if people in power do not respect it!
6 January 2008 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Law enforcement has a duty to investigate criminal activity and to do so legally. DA's are charged to seek justice by presenting evidence to a judge or jury proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys challenge the reliability and validity of that evidence and the legality of the methods used to obtain it. Not a perfect justice system but a pretty good one, at least if you want society to catch and punished criminals while protecting individual rights.
Whether or not anonymous posters have an absolute right to keep their real identities from law enforcement who properly follow the law is well settled, they don't. The Boardwalk Apartment case is a good example. A properly issued subpoena that is not objected to and any specific information that the World Company has on you will be turned over, including all business records that Sunflower Broadband, Cablevision, LJW, and LJW Online have. Business records are not “reporters notes” nor “protected sources” and the LJW knows it.
This case is different than Boardwalk. A search warrant was issued and served allowing Law Enforcement to do their own search, not a request to turn over specific information. It appears the LJW objected to the method of obtaining the information and not to turning over the information itself. Whether or not the LJW would have turned over the information if served with a subpoena and not a search warrant remains unclear. What is clear is that the World Companies major concern here was in not being perceived as merely an arm of Law Enforcement.
But at the end of the day and once again this was a slippery slope that was not slid down and a night where black helicopters didn't silently hover. I doubt that will comfort logrithmic nor keep him from his dire predictions that the gulags are just around the corner. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you and in the world of the paranoid and hysterical the fact an abuse did not happen is equal with evidence of abuses that did.
6 January 2008 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
BTW, Monkeysquawk,
In another indication of your “wide stance,” you make me the issue of this forum, something many of the poster here should find ingratiating at best and absurd at worst.
This forum is about the constitutionality of searching a news room to find out about its bloggers, not about me.
It's sad that when rightwingers are devoid of thought, they make things personal….
6 January 2008 at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
Why did the Journal world not list the name of the person named on the Yellow House subpoena?
Shouldn't that be public record?
6 January 2008 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
texburgh (Anonymous) says…
Welcome to the brave new world of the Bush years. Warrantless searches, phone tapping, federal government access to our email, secret overseas prisons, denial of due process, fake news conferences, reporters on the government payroll, and on and on. Karl Rove's new American fascism is taking hold and too few people are complaining. Our slide into totalitarianism has gone so far that even Democrats have begun to accept it - take a look at our Douglas County DA's comments in the above article. Be afraid…be very afraid.
6 January 2008 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
texburgh, what “secret overseas prisons” do you know about that are secret from the rest of us????
6 January 2008 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone think this could also be eyed by the mayor? She should love to know who the people are that are calling for her resignation and offering more compete details on the Diptheria (sic) scandal. Since Branson is her buddy, along with the Chambers and Bonnie Lowe, the information on who the posters are could be useful in their attempt to control the public. Just wondering…
6 January 2008 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
texburgh (Anonymous) says…
I apologize - the administration was outed on the secret prisons some time ago; they are no longer secret, just accepted.
6 January 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
The journal world has allowed themselves to be manipulated by Law enforcement.
They have been used as a crutch in the Yellow House store case to help police spark public backlash against the business.
Then when signs of Police corruption and misconduct in the case surfaced, and it became obvious the Yellow House had their rights violated, and the information that police were providing to the media was false…..
The Journal world stopped reporting stories about the case!
The Lawsuits, formal complaints, and ongoing internal investigations into official misconduct, associated with this case have not been made public by the Journal World
6 January 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Sigfreuden:
You wrote: “Law enforcement has a duty to investigate criminal activity and to do so legally.”
To read this, I guess you’re against warrantless wiretapping because it's against the law? And I guess you’re against torture of suspects because it's against the law? And I guess you're against the indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to habeus corpus or legal counsel because it's against the law? Please state unequivocally your answers to these three questions. A simple yes or no will do.
You wrote: “…Not a perfect justice system but a pretty good one, at least if you want society to catch and punished criminals while protecting individual rights.”
How many innocent people have been convicted and murdered by the state under this form of justice? Perhaps you could let us know how many people were removed off death row in the State of Illinois after DNA evidence proved they were not guilty?
You wrote: “What is clear is that the World Companies major concern here was in not being perceived as merely an arm of Law Enforcement.”
Then perhaps you’d explain this statement by Bernard Rhodes — a Kansas City, Mo., attorney representing the Journal-World: Congress has determined that the First Amendment is emasculated by allowing armed law enforcement to come into a newsroom to gather whatever information they want…. That is the type of practice you used to see in the old Soviet Union.”
You wrote: “I doubt that will comfort logrithmic nor keep him from his dire predictions that the gulags are just around the corner.”
Please support your statement that I believe “gulags are just around the corner.”
Thanks! rotflmao!
6 January 2008 at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…
I find it interesting how the majority of posters here elect to remain anonymous. Why is that?? Is it because it is easier to be nasty online to people when you're hiding your identity? I think it would be really interesting to see how this place would change when people had a name behind the handle…..
6 January 2008 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The President has the “inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes” at least if you believe President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick. But that didn't happen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless…
If you would quit your hysterical hyperventilating you might have notice that none the abuses you listed happened or are even are alleged to have happened here. In fact, Law Enforcement had the right to immediately execute the search warrant, but did not. Pretty wimpy Jackboot Thugs(tm) if you ask me.
How many people of been innocently convicted and executed under our system? Too many, but far fewer than under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or any other system I am aware of. No system is perfect but I doubt they had a Innocence Project. But once again, that didn't happen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_p…
So what did happen here? “Journal-World leaders also objected, and said they were concerned that future searches could paint the Journal-World as an ***investigative arm of local law enforcement.***” Did they object because they opposed turning over the information? “Journal-World leaders, however, contend there are other ways for law enforcement to obtain the information. For example, the newspaper has twice been subpoenaed to provide the identity of online posters.”
In previous cases The World Company complied with the subpoenas. “The Journal-World found the request reasonable, Gage said, and did not object,” and they complied again “after determining that it had no firm ground to oppose it.” My guess is they will comply in the future if the request is reasonable or if they have no grounds to oppose it.
As for gulags or what you do or don't believe, I don't really care. As far as I can tell you are a angst filled nut job who believes insults and hysterical rants are persuasive and that people take you seriously. I don't and I doubt very few do.
6 January 2008 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dinglesmith (Anonymous) says…
This is a case of the system working exactly as it should. The police and prosecutors have issued a subpoena that the LJW can challenge in court. No one is going in with guns or making threats. If the LJW chooses to fight the subpoena, it is absolutely their right to do so and no one is claiming otherwise. This is not the case in an unfortunately large part of the rest of the world.
Having said that, I think it will be very difficult to establish that the LJW's blog (which is what they themselves call it) is any different than any other blog simply because it is run by a newspaper. By posting this, I am certainly not becoming a source for a reporter.
6 January 2008 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowhouse (Anonymous) says…
Can someone Please explain to me why Judge Six, a District Court Judge, has been the only Judge dispensing all the subpeona's and search warrants in the Yellow House federal Investigation, when this is supposed to be a federal Case?????
W.T.F??
Shouldn't oversignt of a federal case be done By federal Judges???
Something smells like a rat here!!
6 January 2008 at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
“As for gulags or what you do or don't believe, I don't really care. As far as I can tell you are a angst filled nut job who believes insults and hysterical rants are persuasive and that people take you seriously. I don't and I doubt very few do.”
Then you admit you're a liar.
You've refused to answer my questions as well. Which shows you're unable to deal with your own irrational doublethink.
I asked for simple yes and nos to some very basic questions.
Here they are again for all to see:
Are you against warrantless wiretapping because it's against the law?
Are you against torture of suspects because it's against the law?
Are you against the indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to habeus corpus or legal counsel because it's against the law?
A simple yes or no will do.
Your “Romney” shuffle won't cut it on this forum. People can see that when it comes down to it, you either are unable to come to any rational conclusion or simply slinging mud (hyperventilating indeed! ha ha ha ha).
It is a sad truth that Reichwingers are truly pathetic when it comes to using reason and standing on principle. However they are experts at using innuendo, scapegoating, generalizations, and ad hominen to make their points.
6 January 2008 at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Better be careful, sig. You might push that log off the deep end. Then they will want your private info…
6 January 2008 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I believe that none of your questions are relevant to the subject matter of the of the article or my comments on it, that you are seriously mentally disturbed, that if you are on medication it should be adjusted, and that if you are “self medicating” you should stop.
I believe that you harass and bully those who have different views than you, that your ravings make the LJW online forums nearly intolerable, that you violate this sites use policies, and that any other Website your account would have been banned ages ago.
http://www2.ljworld.com/site/rules/
As for your “three question” I believe that none of these issues were raised by this story. Be assured that if and when I post on stories that raise those issues I'll be most happy to discuss and support my positions at that time. But for now I simply refuse to be dragged into that important discussion while the rest of us are discussing something completely different.
6 January 2008 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
Good job, LJW. I'm happy to see someone standing up against the stupidity of some legal “professionals.”
This was improper, and everyone knows it. In the past subpoenas worked fine, and everyone was on the same page with them; there were no surprises. The combination of an incompetent ADA and an incompetent judge created a potentially explosive situation. What if the warrant had been executed? What information would be retrieved? How could the newspaper (or the public for that matter) be assured that strictly the information sought in the warrant was obtained? Instead of permitting the newspaper to supply the demanded information, why send an investigator to take it? This could have set a very negative precedent.
If the LJW wants to really fight back against this, they will file disciplinary complaints against Branson's idiot lackey and Six. I can't in good conscience place blame on KUPS because I really don't think they have much experience in the area of evidence retrieval and computers. However, a judge and an assistant district attorney should have known better.
6 January 2008 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nekansan (Anonymous) says…
“The arguments put forth in this post shows in a nutshell how people like Hitler can rise to power. This poster says were all standing on a corner with a bullhorn and therefore should be subject to law enforcement harassment.
1) We are all wanting to be interviewed by the police for stating our political beliefs.
In a society grounded on the first amendment and on the freedom of speech, the very notion that one should not exercise their speech because of a fear of police harassment is exactly why the Founding Father's placed the first amendment in the Constitution.
To now see someone post that we should refrain from posting because Big Brother is watching us should serve to warn all of us that “Good Germans” live among us and willingly support the government in its abuse of our civil liberties.”
Log..
This is no where near the same. Law enforcement had an obligation to investigate a statement of fact that may have a significance in any investigation. In this case, it is a death case and if the poster had relevant information it could cause the case to swing from accidental death, to manslaughter or worse. From the publicly available information that seems to not be the case, but LE cannon make that determination without investigation. This is not a situation of someone being prosecuted for expressing their political beliefs. If I say the President is a poor leader and has unnecessarily put the lives of Americans at risk through his foreign policy then I an expressing a political belief and fully believe that there will not be G-Men showing up at my door to question me. If however one were to make a threat against his well being, then I think there should be follow up and an investigation and should not be surprised to see the Secret Service show up to ask a few questions. Likening the KU police's investigation of a poster who made a public statement that they had material information regarding a undetermined death, to Hitler is just as irresponsible and simply borderline fear mongering. I get the whole slippery slope argument, but very very few of us live at the top or bottom of a hill, we're all on the slope somewhere. I don't think for a minute we should curtail our speech, simply that we must expect that when we do speak we should expect to have people hear it. If no one hears the speech which we are free to express, what is the point of making it in the first place? In this instance, speech was made, LE heard, and followed checks and balances by getting a court order to fully investigate the posters claims. It's exactly the way the founding fathers and the constitution meant for our government to work.
6 January 2008 at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
The J-W is recognized nationwide for cutting-edge online newspaper technology, so they “got it” about the impropriety of this little misadventure. But would a paper that is much smaller or which has much less experience with online publishing have understood the difference between things like a warrant and a subpoena? Would they have been as protective of the users as the J-W? I really, really doubt it.
6 January 2008 at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
freeordie (Anonymous) says…
I find it sad there are so few comments here and so many on something so irrelevant as same sex unions. No wonder are freedoms are gone.
Dears, our constitution and all of it's amendments are important. Our freedoms are going away because we let them in the form of things like the blinkin' “patriot act”. Our freedoms are as of yet not even realized due to discriminatory laws banning marriage equality which in and of themselvs are unconstitional.
6 January 2008 at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Sigfreuden,
Seems like you can't take exposure.
Now you want to take your ball and go home. Waaaahhh!
roflmao!
I hope all here have seen how unwilling you are to debate in an open and honest fashion.
Please feel free to report me to the Journal World. They have monitored and deleted my posts before. Of the 1,342 posts I've made to this blog, I have had my posts removed a paltry three times. I hardly think that qualifies me as violating the Journal World policy. The fact that none of my posts have been deleted today suggests again that you are lying.
I feel sorry for you….
6 January 2008 at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Nekansas,
I owe you a reply and will do so in a couple of hours. On the move…
6 January 2008 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nekansan (Anonymous) says…
“The J-W is recognized nationwide for cutting-edge online newspaper technology, so they “got it” about the impropriety of this little misadventure. But would a paper that is much smaller or which has much less experience with online publishing have understood the difference between things like a warrant and a subpoena? Would they have been as protective of the users as the J-W? I really, really doubt it.”
What did the JW really do? File an injunction? Sue the DA's office? Anything at all to actually permanently stop the release of this information? No, they screamed and whined real loud, and the DA backed down for now. Big effort! Try asking them more substantive questions like how many other times have they turned over similar information without so much as a peep? The blending of media make the law here fuzzy. Yes the Journal World is a newspaper, but not all of the content on their web site is newspaper related. It's like arguing that My Space should be protected from disclosure of their postings sources because they are also owned by a major media company. The nature of the comments/story postings is not simply that of journalism. They are not edited and are not the view/responsibility of the newspaper. If they are, then the JW likley no longer has the protection from liability Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides. The JW seems to what to have it both ways here.
Have a read here… http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.ph…
6 January 2008 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
nice job sigmund,
once again, Logie tried to engage in a quiditty and you stayed with the topic of the thread. you did address his first question directly but he didn't like the answer which had to do with “battlefield communications” in the prosecution of war. that's been supported by four of the supremes so is not a flakey concept. you addressed his other two questions by indicating they were irrelevant which is true. to the average reader, you are right, logie will appear a lunatic fringe member ranting about meaningless things on a thread that does not address itself to those topics! there were warrantless wiretaps under carter too, as well as Clintonia. logie demonstrates vapid hypocrisy with his rantings in this area.
keep up the good work Sigmund.
***
yes it seems that the records were protected this time without much legal muscle-flexing. it is a tidy little question and one perhaps the ljworld should cover in an article, whether we posters are the equivalent of reporters' sources, or whether we are the equivalent of a man on the corner with a sign/bullhorn.
still no comment on this thread from A2THEK? suppose they exported him to Gitmo? I understand smoking is still legal there for staff and guests. it is amazing how much “the sky is falling” gets cried on here about civil rights when the system worked as it should and it shows how narrowly focused are the thoughts and scanning of the lunatic left fringies.
6 January 2008 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
andjusticeforall (Anonymous) says…
Seems like Judge Six is wiling to sign any warrant put in front of him these days. You would think the son of a Supreme Court Justice would be a little more concerned about the administration of justice in Lawrence!!!! Clearly he's more concerned with keeping his buddies in the LPD happy than upholding a little piece of paper known as the Constitution. Hopefully Sebelius will be more thoughtful on her next appointment to the bench in Douglas County.
6 January 2008 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink