PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor Says Court May Rule to Limit First Amendment in Response to Wikileaks




Anti Federalist
08-29-2010, 02:22 PM
Sotomayor Says Court May Rule to Limit First Amendment in Response to Wikileaks

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 28, 2010

http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-says-court-may-rule-to-limit-first-amendment-in-response-to-wikileaks/

On Thursday, talking to students at the University of Denver, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Wikileaks case will result in the Court likely weighing the First Amendment against national security. She made the comment in response to a question posed by a student.

“That was not the beginning of that question, but an issue that keeps arising from generation to generation, of how far we will permit government restriction on freedom of speech in favor of protection of the country,” Sotomayor said. “There’s no black-and-white line.” According to Sotomayor, the balance between national security and free speech is “a constant struggle in this society, between our security needs and our first amendment rights, and one that has existed throughout our history.”

(Umm, yes, there is a black and white line: Congress shall make no law. - AF)

Following the release of over 90,000 documents by Wikileaks in July, the Pentagon found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field. The Pentagon review team consists of military intelligence analysts, lawyers and others working for the Joint Chiefs of Staffs and other elements of the Defense Department.

The Obama administration and certain members of Congress, however, have portrayed the release as a dire threat to national security. Obama asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to consider criminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the organization is guilty of “moral culpability” in the murder of U.S. soldiers. The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, said the release of documents violates espionage laws and amounts to treason. The FBI is investigating and the Justice Department said it was looking into pursuing criminal charges in the case. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, has demanded the death penalty for SPC Bradley Manning, the man arrested and charged with providing the documents to Wikileaks.

Julian Assange had contacted the White House prior to releasing the documents and the New York Times acted as an intermediary. Wikileaks wanted to give the government a chance to make sure innocent people were identified, but the White House did not respond to the offer. The Times, Britain’s The Guardian, and the German weekly Der Spiegel published selected Wikileaks documents without consulting the government.

Sotomayor’s comment is a warning that the Supreme Court may soon use the Wikileaks case to restrict the First Amendment. In the United States, the corporate media did not report on her comments, with the notable exception of the Associated Press.

Prior to her comments, Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the Free Flow of Information Act may need to be modified in response to Wikileaks.

The senators want to change the language to specify that Wikileaks and organizations like it will not be able to use the act to protect the identities of confidential sources. Kurt Wimmer, an attorney representing the Newspaper Association of America, agreed with this exclusion. “There’s a distinction (between) how Wikileaks works and how news media organizations work,” he said and described Wikileaks as more of “a drop box for leaked documents” than a legitimate news source.

As the government prepares to roll back the First Amendment under the rubric of national security, we should consider the words of Hugo Black, considered one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century, who said the following in the Pentagon Papers case:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. (Emphasis added.)

Todd
08-29-2010, 02:35 PM
This is the gift progressives have given to humanity.

That there are no black and white lines.

ItsTime
08-29-2010, 02:38 PM
I have not kept up on the whole Wikileaks thing. Did Wikileaks obtain the documents legally or were they stolen then given to them?

Anti Federalist
08-29-2010, 03:03 PM
I have not kept up on the whole Wikileaks thing. Did Wikileaks obtain the documents legally or were they stolen then given to them?

Classified documents, one would have to assume, were "stolen" or perhaps "misappropriated".

NewFederalist
08-29-2010, 03:17 PM
Good for Justice Sotomayor! We have way to much freedom anyway! It's about time some of it was taken away. You go girl! (*pukes*)

Brian4Liberty
08-29-2010, 03:56 PM
Kurt Wimmer, an attorney representing the Newspaper Association of America, agreed with this exclusion. “There’s a distinction (between) how Wikileaks works and how news media organizations work,” ...

Lol! The understatement of the year.

Don't worry, the latest Feminist-Marxist additions to the Supreme Court will ensure that future "free" speech will conform to their specifications.

puppetmaster
08-29-2010, 04:11 PM
yep she is part of the problem......they all hang the same......

pcosmar
08-29-2010, 04:23 PM
I have not kept up on the whole Wikileaks thing. Did Wikileaks obtain the documents legally or were they stolen then given to them?
Legally.
They were given to Wikileaks.

How they were obtained is another question entirely.
;)

QueenB4Liberty
08-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Good for Justice Sotomayor! We have way to much freedom anyway! It's about time some of it was taken away. You go girl! (*pukes*)

hahaha!

This is sad. :(

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 04:33 PM
http://theemptiness.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Latina_Sotomayor.jpg

People in black robes opinions on the constitution are worth more than yours, in the de-facto sense of course. ;)

FSP-Rebel
08-29-2010, 05:33 PM
http://theemptiness.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Latina_Sotomayor.jpg

People in black robes opinions on the constitution are worth more than yours, in the de-facto sense of course. ;)
Nice costume.

Imaginos
08-29-2010, 05:42 PM
why am i not surprised?
:rolleyes:

amy31416
08-29-2010, 05:47 PM
Oh good god, between her and Kagan, this is just going to be fantastic. I'd take Souter over these assholes anyday.

Cowlesy
08-29-2010, 05:51 PM
Founding Fathers would be proud, Sonia. Real proud...

eOs
08-29-2010, 05:54 PM
Nice costume.

;)

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 05:56 PM
Nice costume.

With great costumes comes great authority. :p

ItsTime
08-29-2010, 05:57 PM
Classified documents, one would have to assume, were "stolen" or perhaps "misappropriated".


Legally.
They were given to Wikileaks.

How they were obtained is another question entirely.
;)

So what gives Wikileaks the legal right to distribute stolen property, when they reasonably knew the items were stolen?

amy31416
08-29-2010, 06:03 PM
So what gives Wikileaks the legal right to distribute stolen property, when they reasonably knew the items were stolen?

I don't know about the legal issue, but the ethics of releasing it--pretty solid.

ItsTime
08-29-2010, 06:04 PM
I don't know about the legal issue, but the ethics of releasing it--pretty solid.

So the ends justify the means?

MRK
08-29-2010, 06:14 PM
So what gives Wikileaks the legal right to distribute stolen property, when they reasonably knew the items were stolen?

To be fair, none of the property is tangible. But of course, it falls under the category of what some call intellectual property.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 06:16 PM
So the ends justify the means?

Nope. We should have known all along what was being done in our name. The gov't doesn't have the right to steal from us and conceal what atrocities they're committing.

VBRonPaulFan
08-29-2010, 06:44 PM
Nope. We should have known all along what was being done in our name. The gov't doesn't have the right to steal from us and conceal what atrocities they're committing.

Yup, Wikileaks is just doing what our government should've been doing all along. NOT hiding the truth.

Romulus
08-29-2010, 07:30 PM
The more truth that comes out, the further they tighten the clamps.

I wonder if this is a case of problem - reaction - solution?

eOs
08-29-2010, 07:35 PM
The more truth that comes out, the further they tighten the clamps.

I wonder if this is a case of problem - reaction - solution?

I thought that was the case for everything?

Anti Federalist
08-29-2010, 07:50 PM
So what gives Wikileaks the legal right to distribute stolen property, when they reasonably knew the items were stolen?

Because I see nothing in the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law, except if the speech is based on documents obtained through illegal means"

Besides, you can't possibly be making the argument that government is the aggrieved party here, are you?

When government stops violating our rights, wholesale, then maybe I'll be in the mood to listen.

Not right now I'm not...

Besides, government will get it's vengence. There is talk of executing the kid who leaked some of these documents.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 07:54 PM
Besides, government will get it's vengence. There is talk of executing the kid who leaked some of these documents.

If anyone was still waiting for that line in the sand....

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 08:03 PM
The gov't doesn't have the right to steal from us and conceal what atrocities they're committing.

Technically the constitution does give them the right to steal from you, if you consider taxation theft. Guns were supposed to be off limits, but organizations financed by theft tend to ignore rules.

forsmant
08-29-2010, 08:05 PM
to hell with the supreme court. just a bunch of douches in robes.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 08:13 PM
Technically the constitution does give them the right to steal from you, if you consider taxation theft. Guns were supposed to be off limits, but organizations financed by theft tend to ignore rules.

That's why I part from the Constitution from time to time...there's no way that I'll ever believe that a (goddamned!) piece of paper gives people the right to act immorally against other people. It's almost irrelevant--both sides of the aisle dust it off when it's convenient, then tuck it away again when it contradicts their agenda.

The Constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents ever written, which just goes to show that a document doesn't matter when the people in power are sociopaths and the population that they supposedly serve is ignorant, scared, docile or benefiting from the corruption.

There probably isn't a single part of the Constitution that hasn't been thoroughly violated time and time again.

Danke
08-29-2010, 08:31 PM
If anyone was still waiting for that line in the sand....

It would make some here happy.


Good the guy [Assange] should be hanged.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 08:38 PM
It would make some here happy.

WTF can I even say to that? Jesus Christ.

At the very least, don't the people who are sent into war deserve to know what the fuck they're supporting and possibly getting mutilated or dying for? Fuck 'em, right? Keep the bastards ignorant, thinking that they killed and risked their lives for a righteous cause.

&*%^!

Anti Federalist
08-29-2010, 08:38 PM
It would make some here happy.

The hell, It's Time?

Not trying to pile on, but, WTF?

You write this:



Originally Posted by ItsTime
Good the guy should be hanged.

Then you have this in your sig line:


There comes a time when a moral man can't obey a law which his conscience tells him is unjust. – Martin Luther King, Jr..

So, which is it?

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 08:41 PM
That's why I part from the Constitution from time to time...there's no way that I'll ever believe that a (goddamned!) piece of paper gives people the right to act immorally against other people. It's almost irrelevant--both sides of the aisle dust it off when it's convenient, then tuck it away again when it contradicts their agenda.

The Constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents ever written, which just goes to show that a document doesn't matter when the people in power are sociopaths and the population that they supposedly serve is ignorant, scared, docile or benefiting from the corruption.

Yea. It's a tough thing to accept really, the entire world has great respect for the US Constitution, largely because of how it was founded. The idea of fighting against an oppressive government for freedom and establishing rules to keep government small. I think the Bill of Rights was a commendable aspect of the constitution, for sure, I personally don't care much for the rest of it.



There probably isn't a single part of the Constitution that hasn't been thoroughly violated time and time again.

Very Sad, but true. I think public awareness of the Bill of Rights probably did help slow the growth in some respects. However, even the founders started the growth of violating these constitutional rights in rather disgusting ways, once they assumed power. Washington with his Whiskey Rebellion. Adams with his Alien and Sedition crap. etc.

The lesson to learn, IMO, is that taxation in all it's forms truly is extortion. Organizations financed in this manner will grow and breed corruption, especially when it is permitted by positive law. What Miss Sotomayer is doing is actually pretty typical of what virtually all governments do throughout history. :(

low preference guy
08-29-2010, 08:41 PM
The hell, It's Time?

Then you have this in your sig line:


There comes a time when a moral man can't obey a law which his conscience tells him is unjust. – Martin Luther King, Jr..

So, which is it?

the crazies.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 08:50 PM
Very Sad, but true. I think public awareness of the Bill of Rights probably did help slow the growth in some respects. However, even the founders started the growth of violating these constitutional rights in rather disgusting ways, once they assumed power. Washington with his Whiskey Rebellion. Adams with his Alien and Sedition crap. etc.

The lesson to learn, IMO, is that taxation in all it's forms truly is extortion. Organizations financed in this manner will grow and breed corruption, especially when it is permitted by positive law. What Miss Sotomayer is doing is actually pretty typical of what virtually all governments throughout history.

Yeah, the Bill of Rights helped to slow it, but it certainly didn't keep 'em in check. WE have to keep them in check, and uhhh, well....we failed.

An organization that is based on theft is, at the core, corrupt. After the income tax (and central bank) was established, those were the most serious blows to real freedom in this country. Sotomayor, Kagan, "liberals," progressives and neoconservatives have zero respect or admiration for the unique founding of this country...it makes me sick that they want us to be carbon copies of European countries, we can and have done better than that.

I'm rather cantankerous this evening though, so everything sucks.

low preference guy
08-29-2010, 08:52 PM
An organization that is based on theft is, at the core, corrupt. After the income tax (and central bank) was established, those were the most serious blows to real freedom in this country.

i think the seventeenth amendment and the creation of the fed combined are the two most damaging things. assuming they are in place, the income tax is just one more exercise in abuse.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 08:59 PM
i think the seventeenth amendment and the creation of the fed combined are the two most damaging things. assuming they are in place, the income tax is just one more exercise in abuse.

Yeah, the 17th is pretty bad too, from what I understand--I do need to read up on it more though.

low preference guy
08-29-2010, 09:02 PM
Yeah, the 17th is pretty bad too, from what I understand--I do need to read up on it more though.

it just destroys federalism. you wouldn't get Supreme Court Justices that ruled against California in that marijuana case if Supreme Court Justices were confirmed by people chosen by state legislatures. that's how it was done before 1913.

Dr.3D
08-29-2010, 09:03 PM
Sometimes I wonder just how a government selected and funded Supreme Court is supposed to make any kind of non biased decision when it comes to determining what the government can do.

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:05 PM
Yeah, the Bill of Rights helped to slow it, but it certainly didn't keep 'em in check. WE have to keep them in check, and uhhh, well....we failed.


Honestly, I really don't think this is the case. I don't blame the average taxpayer at all, I regard them more like confused victims of the natural outgrowth of the state. The last few generations have been filled with so much state funded propaganda and indoctrination their whole lives, they didn't stand much of a fighting chance from birth.

It's not just an American problem though, those of us in other countries are going through a pretty similar experience. Statism is a real prick. :D

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:08 PM
An organization that is based on theft is, at the core, corrupt. After the income tax (and central bank) was established, those were the most serious blows to real freedom in this country. Sotomayor, Kagan, "liberals," progressives and neoconservatives have zero respect or admiration for the unique founding of this country...it makes me sick that they want us to be carbon copies of European countries, we can and have done better than that.

Yup. Those who want to abuse that corrupt power are the most likely to pursue it. Honest and humble people don't usually like joining the Mob. :D

amy31416
08-29-2010, 09:14 PM
Honestly, I really don't think this is the case. I don't blame the average taxpayer at all, I regard them more like confused victims of the natural outgrowth of the state. The last few generations have been filled with so much state funded propaganda and indoctrination their whole lives, they didn't stand much of a fighting chance from birth.

It's not just an American problem though, those of us in other countries are going through a pretty similar experience. Statism is a real prick. :D

I understand...I do blame the average taxpayer though (and that includes me), for dropping the ball because we're all susceptible to indoctrination. Americans are no more immune, despite the Constitution....

I don't have answers for anyone aside from myself. It's a total bitch.

amy31416
08-29-2010, 09:15 PM
Yup. Those who want to abuse that corrupt power are the most likely to pursue it. Honest and humble people don't usually like joining the Mob. :D

Definitely...with only a few very rare exceptions.

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:29 PM
I understand...I do blame the average taxpayer though (and that includes me), for dropping the ball because we're all susceptible to indoctrination. Americans are no more immune, despite the Constitution....

I don't have answers for anyone aside from myself. It's a total bitch.


Maybe I'm wrong but, I think you do have the answer, if you understand that taxation is extortion and is completely corrupt at it's core, which you do. Knowing this isn't going to fix anything tomorrow, but it is THE answer, imo. It's why the the American Experiment failed, as noble of an effort as it may have been. It is simply NEVER okay to initiate aggression against innocent people, no matter what a piece of paper says, or what kind of costume you have on.

Most people completely understand and adhere to the Non-aggression principle, even if they haven't been introduced to it as a philosophical concept. The problem is, everything political completely violates this. Everything and everyone you vote for will, in one way or another, enable some people to initiate aggression against others. Ron Paul is a rare exception of someone who has the power but pretty much never wants to even use it, but, imo there's simply no possible way to fill a government full of people as principled as him. The system is completely rigged against liberty, and this is 100% an intellectual battle for the collective human consciousness. We just need enough people to wake up to this, and that's our job as champions of liberty.

/rant. :)

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:30 PM
Definitely...with only a few very rare exceptions.

Yup. The Jedi are all too rare, but they are powerful. :D

http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/Ron-Paul-Jedi-of-Republic-thumb.jpg

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:43 PM
I think one part of the educational solution is to try and shift the diologue of the way we debate. To Start using the argument from morality, instead of the argument from a political document.

For example, Instead of arguing for gun rights because "It's my constitutional right, guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment" We should be saying something like "You can’t take away people’s guns without sending men after them with guns. So then how the hell can can you say that people don’t have a right to have guns?"

The argument from morality is near infallible and not open to interpretation. It will expose the gun in the room, and people don't generally like violence once they see it.

Sorry about the triple post btw.:)

Anti Federalist
08-29-2010, 09:45 PM
Congressman Calls for Execution of Wikileaks Whistleblower

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/congressman-calls-execution-wikileaks-whistleblower/

A Michigan congressman said this week that if an Army private charged with leaking classified material to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks is found guilty, he should be sentenced to death.

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told a local radio station on Monday that the charges against Pvt. Bradley Manning are worthy of capital punishment.

"We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," he told Michigan-based WHMI. "That's pretty serious. If they don't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder.

"I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here," he said. "He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers . . . If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is."

Danke
08-29-2010, 09:47 PM
Mike Rogers probably wants to use piano wire too.

ClayTrainor
08-29-2010, 09:52 PM
Congressman Calls for Execution of Wikileaks Whistleblower

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/03/congressman-calls-execution-wikileaks-whistleblower/

A Michigan congressman said this week that if an Army private charged with leaking classified material to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks is found guilty, he should be sentenced to death.

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told a local radio station on Monday that the charges against Pvt. Bradley Manning are worthy of capital punishment.

"We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," he told Michigan-based WHMI. "That's pretty serious. If they don't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder.

"I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here," he said. "He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers . . . If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is."

:(

That's just awful.

The people who start these wars that result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent children should continue to play golf and go on vacations, while those who expose the truth about the wars should be killed. You have to be either completely evil, or indoctrinated to believe that crap.

amy31416
08-30-2010, 02:55 AM
:(

That's just awful.

The people who start these wars that result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent children should continue to play golf and go on vacations, while those who expose the truth about the wars should be killed. You have to be either completely evil, or indoctrinated to believe that crap.

I'll have to go with evil.

ItsTime
08-30-2010, 03:06 PM
The hell, It's Time?

Not trying to pile on, but, WTF?

You write this:



Then you have this in your sig line:



So, which is it?

I was actually being sarcastic.

Anti Federalist
08-30-2010, 04:40 PM
I was actually being sarcastic.

Oh, OK, NVM.

Danke
08-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Oh, OK, NVM.

Benefit of the doubt I guess.

But no smiley face, etc. And this:


So what gives Wikileaks the legal right to distribute stolen property, when they reasonably knew the items were stolen?

Mini-Me
08-30-2010, 05:35 PM
WHAT PART OF "NO LAW" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!? :mad:
ARRRRRRRRRRGH.

I am sick and tired of these scumbag traitors running the Supreme Court!

low preference guy
08-30-2010, 05:42 PM
Benefit of the doubt I guess.

But no smiley face, etc. And this:

He now has the right position, good for him.

QueenB4Liberty
08-30-2010, 05:55 PM
:(

That's just awful.

The people who start these wars that result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent children should continue to play golf and go on vacations, while those who expose the truth about the wars should be killed. You have to be either completely evil, or indoctrinated to believe that crap.

Yeah, it is just evil. And everyone that agrees he should get death is no less evil.

Agorism
08-30-2010, 06:10 PM
Good slogan for nor election.


"I SUPPORT WIKILEAKS, RON PAUL, AND I VOTE!

Hehehe

Bman
08-30-2010, 06:13 PM
http://theemptiness.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Latina_Sotomayor.jpg

People in black robes opinions on the constitution are worth more than yours, in the de-facto sense of course. ;)


http://photos.friendster.com/photos/18/66/66596681/1_569761533l.jpg

Mini-Me
08-30-2010, 06:14 PM
http://photos.friendster.com/photos/18/66/66596681/1_569761533l.jpg

Okay, that eased my pissy mood a bit. Thank you, Bman.

Bman
08-30-2010, 06:17 PM
Okay, that eased my pissy mood a bit. Thank you, Bman.

Anytime.:)

Seems fitting she is living in a land of fantasy.

Agorism
08-30-2010, 06:19 PM
The next round

YouTube - ACLU's Goal: "Blow Up" Military Commissions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXYqGqKH44)

Anti Federalist
08-30-2010, 06:42 PM
http://theemptiness.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Latina_Sotomayor.jpg

People in black robes opinions on the constitution are worth more than yours, in the de-facto sense of course. ;)

"Politics is show business for ugly people". - Gerald Celente

Cowlesy
08-30-2010, 07:08 PM
I'm being told she's right because, "You can't yell fire in a burning building. The wikileaks guy has blood on his hands." even though http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

Reason
08-30-2010, 07:23 PM
The next round

YouTube - ACLU's Goal: "Blow Up" Military Commissions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXYqGqKH44)

The "military comissions" bullshit "legal" system of trials should be eliminated...

Not sure what you're trying to say in your posting of that video....

TY ACLU for fighting the good fight.

RedStripe
08-30-2010, 07:23 PM
This is the gift progressives have given to humanity.

That there are no black and white lines.

LOL

Are you aware there has never been a black and white line rule w/r/t the first amendment, even well before the progressive era?

I mean, I know the progressives are the latest bogeymen for the right-wing, but at least get your facts straight.

angelatc
08-30-2010, 07:24 PM
http://photos.friendster.com/photos/18/66/66596681/1_569761533l.jpg

OMG - I am still laughing!

Mini-Me
08-30-2010, 07:25 PM
The "military comissions" bullshit "legal" system of trials should be eliminated...

Not sure what you're trying to say in your posting of that video....

TY ACLU for fighting the good fight.

Despite all the damage they do on other issues, the ACLU's commitment to due process always makes me glad they're as powerful as they are. We could do better, but we could sure as hell do worse...