Tag Archives: First Amendment

Ted Cruz says 41 Senate Democrats Co-Sponsor Bill to Repeal 1st Amendment Regulate Free Speech

Ted Cruz Repeal 1st Amendment

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors retreat that Senate Democrats want to limit free speech through amending the Constitution.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

Calling these “perilous, perilous times,” Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19 – “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

Ted Cruz says Democrats want to limit free speech.

“What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient,” Cruz said.

UPDATE… Because of several comments on this story indicating they would like the list of Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, we are providing the list below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (alpha order by last name):

  • Tammy Baldwin (WI)
  • Mark Begich (AK)
  • Michael Bennet (CO)
  • Richard Blumenthal (CT)
  • Cory Booker (NJ)
  • Barbara Boxer (CA)
  • Sherrod Brown (OH)
  • Benjamin Cardin (MD)
  • Thomas Carper (DE)
  • Christopher Coons (DE)
  • Richard Durbin (IL)
  • Dianne Feinstein (CA)
  • Al Franken (MN)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
  • Kay Hagen (NC)
  • Tom Harkin (IA)
  • Martin Heinrich (NM)
  • Mazie Hirono (HI)
  • Tim Johnson (SD)
  • Angus King, Jr. (ME)
  • Amy Klobuchar (MN)
  • Edward Markey (MA)
  • Robert Menendez (NJ)
  • Jeff Merkley (OR)
  • Barbara Mikulski (MD)
  • Christopher Murphy (CT)
  • Patty Murray (WA)
  • Jack Reed (RI)
  • Harry Reid (NV)
  • John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
  • Bernard Sanders (VT)
  • Brian Schatz (HI)
  • Chuck Schumer (NY)
  • Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
  • Debbie Stabenow (MI)
  • Jon Tester (MT)
  • Mark Udall (CO)
  • John Walsh (MT)
  • Elizabeth Warren (MA)
  • Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
  • Ron Wyden (OR)

Please note that the above article mentioned all co-sponsors as Democrats. Actually, there are 40 Democrats and one admitted socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/cruz-41-senate-democrats-co-sponsor-bill-repeal-1st-amendment-regulate-free-speech/#GUlI6UzQGkwTWJc8.99

Facebooktwitterrss

18 Year Old Looking at 20 Years for Anti-Government Lyrics On Facebook

cameron prison 20 years for anti government lyrics on facebook

A teenager from a small town outside Boston has been held without bail for weeks. He faces terrorism charges and 20 years in prison for posting rap lyrics on the internet.

On May 1st, Cameron D’Ambrosio was skipping school when he posted some lyrics that included a vague reference to the Boston Marathon Bombing and called the Whitehouse a “federal house of horror.” Shortly after that he was arrested and charged with Communicating a Terrorist Threat, a felony that carries 20 years in prison.

Here are the lyrics to the song that Cameron posted:

“I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive).

(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

A search of Cam’s house found NO evidence that he was planning any violence, but a judge still ordered him held without bail for the next 3 months, pending trial.

It’s not a surprise that the judge in the case felt pressure to come down hard on Cam, since the local media has been quick to sensationalize the story and demonize a harmless teenager.

Before charges were even formally filed, local newspapers were already posting pictures from Cam’s facebook and pointing to “disturbing” posts like “Fuck politics. Fuck Obama. Fuck the government!” All of this is free speech that is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment.

The media printed:

“(Expletive) a boston boming wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous”

The actual line is:

“(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping”

Notice something? The context completely changes the meaning of the line. Suddenly something that sounds like a threat of violence is clearly just bragging about how good Cammy Dee is going to be.

Massachusetts Law is pretty clear about what constitutes a “terroristic threat”. The statement has to claim that there is a weapon or a bomb, and/or threaten a specific place or location with the intent of causing disruption. Cam comparing his rap aspirations with the amount of media coverage tragedy in Boston got doesn’t even come close.

Fight For the Future currently has a petition set up to release Cameron.

Facebooktwitterrss

FBI’s “National Security Letters” with Gag Orders Restrict Freedom of Speech says Judge in Devastating Blow to Obama Surveillance State

FBI says, “I’m going to do whatever I want and you can’t say a word or else!” in the form of “National Security Letters”. Giving the federal government unlimited power and then letting them restrict anyone from saying anything about it. This is an inherently bad plan. The Bill of Rights was specifically designed to protect citizens from these kinds abuses.

Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

FBI's National Security Letters Restrict Freedom of Speech says Judge“We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a challenge to NSLs on behalf of an unknown telecom that received an NSL in 2011. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”

The telecommunications company received the ultra-secret demand letter in 2011 from the FBI seeking information about a customer or customers. The company took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it.

Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs over the years and has been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients.

After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, claiming in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority.

The move stunned EFF at the time.

censorship“It’s a huge deal to say you are in violation of federal law having to do with a national security investigation,” Zimmerman told Wired last year. “That is extraordinarily aggressive from my standpoint. They’re saying you are violating the law by challenging our authority here.”

The case is a significant challenge to the government and its efforts to obtain documents in a manner that the EFF says violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association.

In her ruling, Judge Illston agreed, saying that the NSL nondisclosure provisions “significantly infringe on speech regarding controversial government powers.”

She noted that the telecom had been “adamant about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing public debate” on the government’s use of the letters.

She also said that the review process for challenging an order violated the separation of powers. Because these provisions cannot be separated from the rest of the statute, Illston ruled that the entire statute was unconstitutional.

Read more  FBI’s “National Security Letters” with Gag Orders Restrict Freedom of Speech says Judge

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!