Freedom of the Press under threat in UK

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Leveson Report released just at the end of November 2012 is, more or less, calling for government regulation and thus a form of censorship of the British press (and media), although it is not being directly marketed as such.

Lord Leveson is trying, as a judge, to make the law as to the regulation of the press (government censorship more like) in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, by his “recommendation”, but the making of laws is not down to judges but to the lawmakers in parliament.

It would appear, however, that, with the exception of Prime Minister Cameron a fair number of MPs want to have the press regulated by law (so that they can tell the press what and what they cannot do, write, etc.) and this is more likely a result of having found out by the press to be unethical in their expenses claims and such like.

Had it not been for the media uncovering that scandal they would still be abusing their positions and claiming expenses for something they are not entitled to claim.

When an ordinary person does that it is called fraud but when members of both houses do it it would appear that they think that that is find. One law for us and another entirely different one for them, it seems.

Thus, in order for them to be able to carry on as is, and it has nothing to do with the illegal activities that some journalists and editors engaged in (phone hacking and other such snooping is illegal, period, and needs no additional laws), they do their damnedest to stop us finding out. The illegal activities of those few journalists and editors are only being used as an excuse to muzzle the press and to curtail its activities in finding out wrongdoings by those that are supposed to be our servants.

Lord Justice Leveson also must remember that he cannot expect, as, apparently, he is to have said, that a new body be created to oversee the press backed by legislation. He is not, as I said before, a lawmaker; he is but a senior judge and no more. He is of the Judicial branch of government and it is his job to deal with and, to some degree, interpret the laws that are made by the Legislative branch of government. Judges may not make laws and neither insist that their recommendations become law.

However, it would appear that we have an issue here in the UK in the late autumn of 2012 where exactly this is being attempted and this is an attempt to usurp the powers invested in the Judicial branch of government. The legislative branch, the executive and We, the People, must not allow that to happen.

© 2012

Homeland Security monitors domestic and foreign journalists

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Russia Today has reported that the US Homeland Security monitors journalists, and not just, it would appear and of that we can be certain also, American journalists.

Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental right of the US Constitution and it might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November 2011, Washington has now the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”

Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding Blogger, can now be victimized by the agency, without any cause.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publicly-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.

The development out of the DHS comes at the same time that U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady denied pleas from supporters of WikiLeaks who had tried to prevent account information pertaining to their Twitter accounts from being provided to federal prosecutors. Jacob Applebaum and others advocates of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site were fighting to keep the government from subpoenaing information on their personal accounts that were collected from Twitter.

In fact an appeal against this judgment was quashed, yet again, and the government intends to pursue Twitter further for the details of WikiLeaks supporters to be handed over. And those details could be more, apparently, than of those people mentioned in the court judgment.

At the end of 2011 the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk Massachusetts District Attorney subpoenaed Twitter over details pertaining to recent tweets involving the Occupy Boston protests.

The website Fast Company reports that the intelligence collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being widely shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

Somewhere along the line they do not seem to have read the First Amendment to the Constitution which clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Which part of “Congress shall make NO LAW” do they not understand?

The biggest problem in all this is that the great majority of Americans, as per usual, only concerned as to whether they can watch TV and go to the Pizza or Burger joint, are totally unaware of the fact that their liberties, for which hundreds of thousands died in many conflicts, at home and abroad, are being eroded one by one.

The land of the free – no longer – and the home of the brave (that also went out of the window, methinks).

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

© 2012