Media refuses to meet with Holder

I really hate it when I'm at odds with journalists I like and respect, (there's more of them than you might think), about the leak investigations. In the latest twist in the storyline, most of the major media heads are refusing to meet off the record with AG Holder to discuss the matter. I'm sorry to have to say this ends up looking like they care more about pumping up a so-called scandal than finding a solution to the problem.

It's too weird to find myself in agreement with the WaPo and Politico who so far are the only major news orgs willing to say wait a minute, we routinely have off-the-record conversations with the government, so we're going to the meeting. The rest of them are coming off as entirely off base. Or in other words, as this tweet points out:

@AlecMacGillis: Exactly. The piousness on this is a bit much. RT @jackshafer: News organizations that go off the record all the time suddenly get picky.

Hells bells. It's supposed to a gripe session, not a fucking press conference. It's not like they're going to be writing policy or making some secret pact. And frankly, I don't blame Holder for wanting it off the record. Who can't predict how that would go. They would spend an hour or two discussing the problem and all that would be reported is some out of context, off the cuff remark to draw traffic in the slow news cycle of summer.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, outside of the insider bubble, not seeing any sympathy for the solipsism. Media might want to take notice:

@BrettLoGiurato: This is perhaps the clearest indication about how the public feels about AP, Fox leak investigations:



Click through on that link to read the responses. My personal favorite being, "Sheesh. Go after the leaker, not the journo."

Funny. Last I looked, no journos were being hauled into court for national security reporters "standard operating practices." The only ones paying the price are the inside sources they convinced to breach their contractual agreements and the law simply for a "scoop" that didn't even expose any government wrongdoing. Seems to me the sources are the real victims here.

All that being said, I'm not without empathy for the media in this. I understand the pressure to produce traffic. What worries me is when inside sources are squandered for stories that don't expose government misconduct for short term gain, then when real misconduct occurs, the sources will be too afraid to come foreward. Not seeing how that serves anyone in the long run.

News Corp can't find DoJ notice on Rosen subpoena

Well how interesting. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation says they don't know nothing 'bout any subpoena:

News Corporation said on Sunday that it had no record of being notified by the Justice Department nearly three years ago of a subpoena for the telephone records of a reporter at its Fox News cable channel.

The company’s chief legal counsel at the time also said that he had never seen material from the government related to the subpoena.

The Justice Department says they notified News Corporation on Aug. 27, 2010, that it had seized Rosen phone records by fax, email, and certified letter, as it the custom in all legal matters.

You may remember that this is the same News Corporation that claimed for months on end it didn't know nothing 'bout phone hacking and police bribery until the proof finally caught up with them. But hell, they pretty much got away with lying about that without any major punishment, so why wouldn't Murdoch's US enterprise lie about this now?

Not making any accusations until the facts are all in, but thinking the circumstantial evidence and history is on the DoJ's side. Surely DoJ will have copies of the notifications. Lawyers never throw anything away.

Why I don't defend Rosen or the government

It seems my friend Dan at Pruning Shears and I are having a disagreement. I don't think we're actually as far apart on the government surveillance of the media as he does. I think I made rather clear in my earlier post on James Rosen and also on the AP records grab that I don't condone secret government surveillance on the media -- or anyone. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the government conducted these investigations illegally. The laws that make it possible have been creeping into our judicial system long before the Obama administration arrived. And let's not lose sight of the fact that Rosen isn't being charged with a crime regardless of the dicey allegations made by the government to get its authorization for his records.

Booman and I differ on that point. I don't consider Rosen a criminal. I think he's an irresponsible journalist. Rosen's email to his source made clear his main interest was in scooping his competitors, not in changing any policy. However, his piece was written in a way that revealed our intelligence operation. If he had simply done the usual anon source says N. Korea will blah, blah blah... without revealing we had an inside source in N. Korea and had lost track of their missiles, I wouldn't have seen it as damaging.

While Dan Ellsberg would probably disagree, I don't see any comparison between the Pentagon Papers and what Rosen did. The Pentagon Papers revealed serious government misconduct. Our government lied to the people and to Congress. Big lies that resulted in tens of thousands of lost lives. That was whistleblowing in the service of public interest. I'm wondering what government wrongdoing Dan sees as having been revealed by Rosen.

I don't suggest we blindly accept every government claim of acting in the interest of national security while they abridge our civil rights. We need to look no further than the odious NSLs the Bush administration was so fond of to see the danger in that. But neither do I trust the motives of our present day media so much that I'm willing to unequivocally defend them. Surely Jon Karl and his anon source who provided altered emails to perpetrate a false GOP narrative would suggest our skepticism should go both ways. What good is a free media if they lie to us too, or jeopardize our intelligence assets, simply to drive traffic? As far I'm concerned neither secret surveillance nor irresponsible journalism should be defended. We deserve better from both sides

[Crossposted at my long dormant FDL account]

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater

Well we have a brand new brouhaha about surveillance on a journalist. Today it's James Rosen of Fox News over a story he published in 2009 about North Korea, based on an insider leak. To be clear, it's important to protect journalists. It's equally important to protect leakers when they're exposing government wrongdoing. But once again, this is not really the case here.

I'll spare you my thoughts on how ineptly they covered their tracks. Hell they were practically asking to get caught, but here's my big problem with James Rosen's reporting. His motive appears to more about career enhancement than truth telling.

[Rosen] also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

I've read a few posts about this today and noticeably missing from most of them, is a link to Rosen's original article. Here, via Booman, is the key flaw in his reporting.

What's more, Pyongyang's next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea, that the regime of Kim Jong-Il intends to take -- but not announce -- once the Security Council resolution is officially passed, likely on Friday.

As Booman explains:

It's important that the policy advisers and policymakers inside our government know if the intelligence they are reading is coming from straight inside the Pyongyang government. It is equally critical that the North Korean government not know that.

If someone in Pyongyang sticks their neck out to talk to the CIA, they should not be reading about it the next week on the Fox News web page. The government was basically forced to try to figure out who leaked that information, and the only thing that should be up for debate is how far the government should be able to go to solve the mystery.

I'd add I'm not sure it was in the national interest to tell North Korea we lost track of their missle movement either, but I guess that's a judgment call. Thinking it's better the North Koreans not know that, but an argument could be made that the public has the right to know.

In any case, in striking a balance between national security and protected speech, there are competing interests. This is point worth remembering as we seek to strike that balance.

Adam Weinstein: We as journalists have the right to work with leakers to report the truth. The gov. has the right, within the laws, to find/punish leakers.

First Amendment protections are not absolute. The press enjoys greater protection than most of us. The onus is on them to use it responsibly. I have to agree with Booman. This is yet another case where it wasn't.

I'll take self-serving traffic baiting for $1000 Alex

I love Alex Pareene. I wouldn't have thought him capable of writing such a mean-spirited tirade against Media Matters for trying to break through the knee jerk defense of AP going on among the big name stars of the media insiders and inject some much needed perspective.

Let's review the facts one more time. The AP didn't break the second coming of The Pentagon Papers with their story. They exposed an important counter-terrorism operation based solely on leaked information which ultimately led to to the outing of a CIA asset who had infiltrated an active terrorist group. Jack Shafer explains why that matters:

To begin with, the perpetrators of a successful double-agent operation against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would not want to brag about their coup for years. Presumably, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula will now use the press reports to walk the dog back to determine whose misplaced trust allowed the agent to penetrate it. That will make the next operation more difficult. Other intelligence operations — and we can assume they are up and running — may also become compromised as the press reports give al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula new clues.

Likewise, the next time the CIA or foreign intelligence agency tries to recruit a double agent, the candidate will judge his handlers wretched secret keepers, regard the assignment a death mission and seek employment elsewhere.

Last, the leaks of information — including those from the lips of Brennan, Clarke and King — signal to potential allies that America can’t be trusted with secrets. “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” as Obama put it today in a news conference.

Alex sneers at Media Matters' question, “Is this story about a government source blowing the whistle on government misbehavior, or about a source gratuitously exposing ongoing counter-terrorism operations?” He finds it useless because no liberal wants Media Matters to be the boss of their talking points. Well they probably don't think they need Alex to be the boss of how they choose to influence the public discourse either. Better Alex should answer the question.

Kevin Drum confirms the entire undercover operation had to be shut down and the double agent was put in jeopardy. If the AP hadn't built the bandwagon with their irresponsible traffic baiting, this operation would still be delivering useful intelligence on terrorist plots. So tell me how was the public interest served by the AP story? And where do you draw the line between national security and profit seeking opportunism by the media? If AP hadn't published the leak, the government wouldn't be looking for the leaker and their records wouldn't been subpoenaed.

As I've said before, I've been fighting for First Amendment rights all my life. I worked my heart out in twenty years working for the ACLU and in private practice defending those rights. I want to protect the freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility to use it for the public good. I was outraged when Valerie Plame was outed by our government for political gain. Why shouldn't I be equally outraged when the media outs an agent in an active operation simply for their own profit? Dumping on Media Matters for trying to hold the press accountable for irresponsible reporting doesn't answer the question.

You have the right to remain silent

Good old Miranda Rights aren't what they used to be and neither, apparently is this one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 a redress of grievances.

Granted, despite the current rumors in some circles about federal co-ordination, these explosive responses to the Occupy demonstrations are vested in local ordinances. Nonetheless, this stuff surely feels like a violation of the spirit of our First Amendment.

In Portland, Oregon, a 15 year old kid gets hit in the face with a "riot stick" or as we used to call them back in the day, a billy club.

The Portland cop that struck him was dressed like this.

Seriously. What have we come to when ordinary citizens peacefully protesting on a public street are attacked by LEOs dressed like Darth Vader stormtroopers? The civilian police are supposed to keep order, and prevent violence. When did it become okay for them to instigate violence against orderly crowds?

And is this riot cop without a riot the new norm in New York City?

A black rifle at the ready. Really? I'm told he's far from Zucotti Park. He's armed for an at war, military style shoot out. Granted I haven't been to the big city in the last ten years or so, but I still know a lot of people there. I'm pretty sure there's not Kabul level chaos on the streets of Manhattan. Not at Zucotti Park either.

Distinction with a difference

The twitter machine tells me almost 2,000 non-violent Occupy Wall Street protesters have been arrested at this point. Then I saw this on Facebook.

So, why the difference? Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Faint praise

Giving this the quote of the day because it made me laugh out loud. Really. I actually kind of like Eugene Volokh. As conservative apologists go, he's not just a knee jerk hippie kicker wallowing in cognitive dissonance like most of them. Anyway, Volokh's brief defense of the ACLU is worth reading in full, but here's the punch line:

There’s much that I disagree with the ACLU about, and I’m sure we all can find things on which most organizations — including the ACLU — have been inconsistent under our definition of consistency.

Meaning, I suppose, ACLU is good when they're defending us, but bad when they're defending others like, oh, Black Panthers or something. The cons really do make their own reality. But good of Eugene to at least point out to the knuckledraggers in his audience that blanket condemnations of the group are wrong.

SCOTUS upholds Phelps hate speech

Surprisingly, it was Alito, of all people, dissenting. Sadly, the court ruled correctly. As Adam so adroitly put it:

By 8-1, the Supreme Court voted no. It's one of those rulings that reminds you that at least on some very basic understandings of what "free speech," means, both conservative and moderate jurists on the court are on the same page: You don't forfeit your First Amendment rights just by being an asshole.

Exactly. Unless there's a clear line between the hate speech and actual physical harm, you can't outlaw speech you don't like and still protect the speech you do. In any event, the public has already discovered the antidote. The counterdemonstrations that effectively block out Phelps paltry showings at these funerals. As we used to say at the ACLU, the antidote to bad speech, is more, good speech.

Sometimes I hate the First Amendment

Well, not really. I've been a huge advocate for First Amendment rights all my life, but I do hate that people use it in such ugly ways sometimes. Nonetheless, the SCOTUS rules correctly in this one no matter how much I hate the protected speech.

In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.

Certainly I think people who torture animals should be subjected to the same treatment themselves, but as always, free speech has to be protected for everyone, no matter how vile, or no speech is truly protected. Also, as someone pointed out somewhere today, allowing these videos may make it easier to find and prosecute the perps for animal cruelty.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

On the wings of fearmongers - Updated

I'm not one to jump to hasty conclusions, but the nexus here is easy to trace. Dave Neiwart collects the quotes on the Pittsburgh shooter.

Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, "Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you." [...]

He was also convinced that the government wanted to take away his guns and his freedom.

Of course, Obama has no intention of pursuing a gun ban but thanks to the concerted efforts of the wingnut early false alarm system, many are convinced that there is such an evil plot in the making. A point well proven by the rise in guns and ammo sales being driven by panic buying. TBogg andThink Progress have more connections.

Free speech is important and must be protected, even when we're uncomfortable with the speech, but at some point it has to be weighed against public safety. I think we're reaching that point with hatemongering media that use the false memes to create unneccessary outrage and fear, purely for personal profit.

Update: The Pittsburgh newspaper is reporting Poplawski was "convinced the nation was secretly controlled by a cabal that would eradicate freedom of speech, take away his guns and use the military to enslave the citizenry." Gosh. I wonder where he got that idea?

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

I don't think it means what she thinks it does

It always amuses me to see the wingnuts redefine the meaning of the First Amendment.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

First of all, I don't think the voters need the media to convince them that Palin is running a negative campaign. I'm pretty sure they can figure that out by themselves. In the second place, the First Amendment means everybody gets to talk. Palin gets to spew her hateful rhetoric and the media gets to call it mean and spiteful.

Additionally, as as Glenn points out, if you want to drag the Constitution into it: "The Constitution also guarantees freedom of association. Thus, by Palin's "reasoning," when newspapers -- or Palin herself -- criticize Obama for his associations, they're threatening his constitutional rights."

Some days this campaign feels more like a really bad SNL skit than anything else. I mean, how bizarre is it that someone this uninformed about basic rights is running for VP?

[More posts daily at The Newshoggers and The Detroit News.]

Librarians attack

by Capt. Fogg

It's understandable that John McCain wants to distance himself from George Bush. No one can blame him, even though he seems to be intent on carrying out Bush's agenda to a significant extent. Bush has the popularity of Leprosy at the moment and it's clear that party loyalty no longer extends to allowing comparison to the sitting president. I can however blame his campaign staff and the Denver Colorado police from denying the right of a 61 year old librarian to be on public property for a public meeting, carrying a sign proclaiming McCain=Bush.

The banshees at Fox and the snickering snots who listen to them will never let you hear the end of the Obama campaign workers who asked two women wearing Muslim head scarves not to sit where the camera could see him, but they weren't escorted out to the street by the police, weren't issued a ticket for trespassing or told they would be arrested for constitutionally protected behavior.

Of course the cable news opinion shouters who still support Bush have a chance to show that the McCain campaign has insulted them and the President and the party, but I'm willing to bet we won't hear anything but silence from them and from John McCain. Republican apologists have little to build a defense on other than the grave danger posed by nice old lady librarians with opinions, but they will probably try.

I hope I can be forgiven for suspecting that McCain will be another president who thinks the constitution is a stumbling block and try to scare us out of our desire for freedom.



Cross posted from Human Voices

The cult of Freedom

by Capt. Fogg

It's my personal observation that the average Englishman has a better vocabulary than the average American, but it's not a point I want to argue. That the British are just as full of self-righteous idiocy as anyone is an argument more to my liking, and I have evidence. According to The Guardian, a London teenager has fallen into the hands of the Linquistic Inquisition and is facing prosecution for having publicly used the world "cult" to describe the cult of Elron Hubbard, known as Scientology.

The crusade to rid language of any words that might somehow be construed to be offensive, is raging on both sides of the Atlantic. Such things thrive in inarticulate America, but apparently the Brits ( it seems to be allowed to call them that but don't call the Japanese Japs) are just as bad.

Why isn't Scientology a cult, and whether it is or whether it isn't, why is that a bad word? My casual readings in Archaeology frequently contain mentions of the cult of Isis or Venus or the Magdalene or the Virgin Mary. It derives from the Latin word for worship, but apparently, what's good for one Scholar is bad for another - we must consult the oracle.

The very American Merriam Webster dictionary defines cult as:

• formal religious veneration
• a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
• a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
• a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
• great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work.

The veddy British Oxford dictionary adds that the word sometimes describes a religion that exercises excessive control over its adherents, but then all of these definitions can apply and have at times applied rightly and honestly to any religion at all. In fact these are all definitions of religion and that includes the fact that every religion is unorthodox to other religions.

" Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" read the confiscated placard peacefully displayed at a peaceful demonstration in front of the opulent London Headquarters of the Church of Scientology. Would it have been less "offensive" if it read: "Scientology is not a cult, it is a dangerous religion?" Who can tell, because either statement is, in my reading, equivalent. Someone is telling us however. Someone, some authority not derived from the will of the governed has an arcane system by which their dark stars favor a word on one day or denounce it on another and it sure as hell works in mysterious ways. By mysterious, I mean stupid.

If any speech offensive to someone looking for offense is actionable, then do I have the right to have the Gospel of John confiscated and half the works of Martin Luther banned for vicious condemnation of the Jews? Should the finally deceased Jerry Fallwell have been arrested for saying God Didn't listen to Jews or that the AntiChrist was a Jew? Forgive me for being confused. If Christianity or Islam or the cult of Refafu claims that whatever religion I might have is dangerous to any soul I might have, then Christians or Sufis or any other cultists anxious to discuss the error of my ways should be silenced and prosecuted along with anyone standing at any pulpit, who describes anyone else as a sinner, apostate, heretic, gentile or reprobate. The wages of sin is death? as a member of the Church of Sin and a committed sinner, I'm offended. Call the police! Call my lawyer!

Of course, in the interest of preserving my own freedom of speech I'm not hoping to see any such thing, but I am hoping that whatever mysterious and invisible entity there is that decides what I may or may not say -- and whatever dangerous cult surrounds it -- will reveal itself unto me so that I can dedicate myself to offending it.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Sexually suggestive rainbows

By Libby

This First Amendment victory in Florida is good news. A federal judge ruled the school violated students’ rights of free expression when the principal banned all rainbow themed items.

During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today, Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that he believed rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make students unable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind. The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gay pride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many find controversial, such as the Confederate flag.

That guy needs to get his mind out of the gutter. I'd bet he has a computer full of hot lesbian porn at home. Meanwhile, "[t]he judge also warned the district not to retaliate against students over the lawsuit." I wouldn't count on that if I were those students, although I expect the school administration will be careful to retaliate in a more subtle manner. Nonetheless, I find it heartening to see young people standing up for their rights.

Pimp this post - Updated

By Libby

I wasn't going to blog about David Shuster's remarkably thoughtless off the cuff remark about Chelsea Clinton but in reading over the reactions, a couple of points come to mind. First of all, as AttyTood aptly points out, this is not the worst thing that has ever been said about Chelsea. I remember some rather awful things being said about her as a teenager in the White House and Will unearths a particularly loathsome remark made by John McCain himself.

Secondly, the connation of pimping has changed and the word is routinely used in ways that have nothing to do with prostitution, at least in the plying of the oldest profession sense of the word. I mean isn't there a TV program called something like Pimp my Ride? It's a hip expression now, not a dirty word. Shuster's real offense was in suggesting that there was something wrong or unusual in having a candidate's family member do some politicking. That point I think is being lost in the obsessing over the language he used to convey a false point.

Furthermore, by rights, guys like Chris Matthews should have been kicked off the airwaves long ago for much more egregiously sexist remarks that were couched in more polite language. Making Shuster the scapegoat draws the line in the wrong place and provides cover for the Matthews of the pundit class. It implies a simple grudging apology will do as long as street talk isn't used to ply their misogyny.

Lastly, I think the furor over this will cause more harm than good and I wonder if the rapid removal of Shuster isn't really a subtle plot to discredit progressives. It fuels the whole meme on the redmeat side of the fence that paints the PC/feminist crowd as overly sensitive nannies who want to outlaw free expression in order to protect themselves from every mild offense. It's difficult to argue otherwise when the term "blogwhoring" is an acceptable use of language widely employed in Leftopia. The furor then begins to take on a air of "it's okay when a leftie does it."

I guess it's too late now, since the tempest has already blown through the news cycle, but I fear we'll live to regret making an issue of this.

[cross-posted to The Reaction]

Update: My colleague at The Reaction, J. Thomas Duffy posts the full transcript of the segment to put the damning quote in context and notes that Jane Hamsher is also pretty much on the same page as we are about this little brouhaha.

Waffles the Clown and staying power

By Libby

To call him a friend would be to overstate the relationship, we're not close, but he's more than a mere aquaintance. Josh has been to parties at my home when I lived in lovely downtown Noho and I knew him well enough that when I discovered a forgotten briefcase after the revelers left, I knew immediately it was his, even though there was no ID. How? Who else carries around a rubber chicken?

The spirit of 60s style civil disobedience is alive and well in the Happy Valley, thanks to old hands like Josh Dostis, who never gave up the fight and he's still at it. But this latest public event seems almost pale in comparison to his coup de grace to political demagoguery during the 2004 election season when he campaigned in New Hampshire. The Weekly Standard was there but didn't give him the respect he deserved for that stunt.

A man in a giant penis costume posing as a candidate offers all sorts of phallic campaign promises: He will "reform the penal code," he will "foster intercourse between nations," etc.

Josh is no poseur, he was a serious and his candidacy was validated by the courts.

News Item: New Hampshire court rules that independent presidential candidate Joshua Dostis may campaign dressed as a 6-foot penis under the protection of the First Amendment.

Many call Josh a dick and consider his antics vulgar, but I've always thought his acute sense of humor is a whole lot less obscene than the virtual shafting our political class inflicts on the public on a daily basis.

Tased and confused

By Libby

I'm just catching up on this kid that got tasered at a Kerry event. GTL has the videos and I have to agree with my gun toting friend that Kerry's response came late and was weak-kneed. But I don't think Kerry could reasonbly be expected to intervene in a local police action at the time and he could arguably have been unaware of the extent of brutality. Even with the tight shots on the video, you can't actually see the tasering.

However, that the cops over-reacted is clear from the tape. Sure the kid was a loudmouth jerk but he wasn't incoherent, just abrasive. That's not against the law. He wasn't presenting any threat to the public and Kerry was clearly willing to answer his question. Furthermore, with six freaking cops, there was absolutely no reason to taser the kid. This weapon was originally issued as an alternative to lethal force, not common sense.

But the real issue here is that the cops felt free to intervene at the exact moment it appeared to me the kid looked ready to step away from the mike that had just been cut off. The impression is clearly that the cops reacted to the content of his questions and not to any physical threat he made. You expect that at a Bush speech. Not at a Democratic function.

This is not an isolated incident. It's becoming all too common for LEOs to use their power to suppress dissent. Kerry fails in his response by not making a bigger point on the removal. He needs to issue a much more strongly worded statement in condemnation of the interference with constitutionally protected political speech.

Suppression of dissent

By Libby

I almost missed this yesterday and it speaks volumes about our increasing Orwellian state of the union. U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress.

ThinkProgress is now banned from the U.S. military network in Baghdad.

Recently, an avid ThinkProgress reader — a U.S. soldier serving his second tour in Iraq — wrote to us and said that he can no longer access ThinkProgress.org. ...

The ban began sometime shortly after Aug. 22, when Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste was our guest blogger on ThinkProgress. He posted an op-ed that was strongly critical of the President’s policies and advocated a “responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq.” Previously, both the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times had rejected the piece.

Not surprisingly, both the National Review and Fox News are still accessible.

Time was this would be both surprising and disturbing enough to generate public outrage. Think Progress is no Tokyo Rose. It's a legitimate website with well researched and meticulously documented posts that just happen to refute the White House propaganda.

I think we don't have to worry about the impending police state anymore. We're already living in it.

The "right's" right to lie

By Libby

I have to agree there's no grounds for the DNC to sue either Powerline or Glenn Reynolds. Being morally bereft is not a crime unless it ends in actual violence. But they both deserve to be taken out behind the woodshed and soundly whipped for recklessly and worse yet, approvingly, promoting a vicious rumor they have to know is false.

There's not one shred of evidence beyond the rantings of some knuckle-dragging shock jock who's looking for a ratings boost by spreading a malicious lie. They don't have audio. They don't have an eyewitness testimony. They have an ugly falsehood that makes the Democrats look bad and they run with it. And then they attempt to justify such irresponsible conduct as an exercise of the First Amendment.

I call BS on that. It's exactly this sort of abuse of the FA that has diminished its standing in the eyes of the public. All they're doing is pushing us down that slippery slope to censorship when they put up posts that in essence say, "Nyah, nyah - we can lie and get away with it." And they can legally and gleefully pass on someone else's lies. But Glenn is wrong, wrong, wrong when he declares the threshold of malice would be hard to reach against the jock. Unless that jerk can come up with some evidence to back up his smear, what possible reason can be proffered for disseminating it except to harm its target's reputations - public figures or not?

I hope the DNC sues the pants off the bastard and his station. I'm all for unfettered speech when it comes to opinions but it's about time we set some parameters on what lies the media is allowed to foist off as facts on an unsuspecting public.

[thanks to Liberty Street for the link]