Learn all about Sam’s situation at http://sam.jailedactivist.info
http://freedomwatchonfox.com/…
This week’s “Freedom Watch” is a special episode, totally driven by your feedback!
Guests: Rep Ron Paul, Daniel Hannan, Lew Rockwell, Jason Sorens, R.J. Harris, Cody Willard & Shelly Roche.
Topics, as voted on by you: Right to record; Reporters getting arrested everywhere! Free State Project, Secession, Nationalization and much, much more.
Lets hope Sam Dodson gets brought up.
Tune in live at http://interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=3
I’ll post the YouTube version when available.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/…
Don’t officers supposedly swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution? At least the state constitution? I know the US Constitution says Congress can pass no law infringing the freedom of speech and incorporation has push that onto the state of Virgina regardless of what their constitution and laws say. And if the legislative branch can’t pass a law infringing the right of speech the executive branch has no authority under their system to do so. If Don Gotthardt wasn’t working for the government he’d be within his right to complain but he’s acting under the capacity of the executive branch of government and their own rules restrict him from acting in a way which could be seen as censoring the freedom of expression.
A new legislative proposal to restrict the sale of video games portraying negative racial stereotypes and bad language has been proposed in the New York Assembly.
The measure, A01474, was submitted by Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright, a Democrat from Manhattan. The bill, which has been referred to the Assembly’s Consumer Protection and Affairs Committee:
Prohibits the sale to minors of certain rated video games containing a rating that reflects content of various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes or derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons.
A similar bill proposed by Wright in 2007 failed to pass.
GamePolitics readers will recall that New York passed a video game law in 2008 mandating – redundantly – that game packages display ratings and that consoles offer parental control features. The video game industry did not bring a legal challenge, however, since those remedies were already in place and the law did not threaten sales.
Isn’t the First Amendment supposedly incorporated? Does he really expect this to stand up in court?
touretzky writes
“Two ex-employees have sued Diskeeper Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court after being fired, alleging that the company makes Scientology training a mandatory condition of employment (complaint, PDF). Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high level, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church. Diskeeper’s surprising response to the lawsuit (PDF) appears to be that religious instruction in a place of employment is protected by the First Amendment.”
The blogger at RealityBasedCommunity.net believes that the legal mechanism that Diskeeper is using to advance this argument (”motion to strike”) is inappropriate and will be disallowed, but that the company will eventually be permitted to present its novel legal theory.
I’d side with Diskeeper but not because of their reasoning. Nothing in the federal constitution disallows this and any federal law which could be used would be unconstitutional. There are likely laws at the state level which disallow this but given no one was harmed I see no case. An employer should be allow to place whatever requirements for employment they desire and the potential employee or current employee can choose to or not to work or continue working for them.
I have to take all kinds of dumb training courses as part of my job. Including some managing ones which are very cult like. They have particular words they use with often times special definitions. If they started asking me to take some dumb cult study course… no problem. I’d gladly get paid to learn more about the insides of such an organisation.
“If the court grants our request … then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.” – U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien
“The government can’t ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can’t ban the display of the Mongols’ logo.” – Marc J. Randazza
“What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? – Zeichner Ellman
The case hasn’t even gone to trial yet , but U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has authorized the seizure of the defendants’ . . .
* Clothing, motorcycles, and other property bearing the Mongols trademark.
* Any similar property bearing the trademark that belongs to the defendants’ “agents, servants, employees, family members, and those persons in active concert or participation with them.”In other words, many people who weren’t even indicted will have their property seized.
This ruling has serious problems . . .
* In April, Mongol Nation transferred its trademark to Shotgun Productions, LLC, in April, a company that isn’t even named in the indictment.
* Prohibiting possession of trademarked items sets a dangerous precedent. If the government for some reason seizes the Nike swoosh, could FBI agents strip Tiger Woods of his cap, shirt, and shoes?Civil asset forfeiture was already wrong. The government has no right to seize property without a trial and conviction. But now Judge Cooper and the Justice Department have taken it to a whole new level . . .
* An organization could lose its trademark because of the alleged crimes of some of its members.
* Normal asset forfeiture only seizes property alleged to have been used for illegal purposes, but now the government can take property simply because it sports the wrong logo!
* People completely unrelated to any indictment are now having their property seized too!Civil asset forfeiture already violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Now it endangers the First Amendment too. Government officials could trump-up charges against any organization they don’t like, seize its name, and put it out of business! It could happen to DownsizeDC.org!
This will chill freedom of expression.
Civil asset forfeiture must die. Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell Congress to repeal civil asset forfeiture.
Use your personal comments to tell Congress . . .
* About the Mongol case
* That’s its wrong for the government to seize property without due process and a conviction
* And even more wrong to seize property simply because it sports a legally-obtained, trademarked logo.Demand that Congress abolish civil asset .forfeiture.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.
And a hat tip to The Legal Satyricon blog for providing links to government documents.
James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org
This is really slick. I hadn’t considered such an action. Asset forfeiture has generally been able to continue do to its reach. It effects few and often those who are accused or convicted of a crime taking advantage of the fact that many do not wish to be associated with criminals and therefore will not stand up for their rights. However, should that reach grow as it has in this particular case perhaps there will be more public outrage. Then again perhaps not. Eminent domain has been more and more abused recently with relatively little increase in response.
 |
|
Shared News feed twitter feed
|
|
