Category Archives: Civil Liberties

Quote of the Day: Sotomayor’s “Pro-State Bias” Edition

Civil Liberties, Constitution, Crime and Punishment, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, General, Individual Rights, Legal, Privacy, Quote of the Day, Supreme Court, The Bill Of Rights, Theory and Ideas

This article in The Boston Globe about Sonia Sotomayor ought to delight “tough on crime” conservatives and cause great concern for civil libertarians of all stripes. Prosecutors and law enforcement organizations give her high marks for her “aggressiveness” both as a prosecutor and as a judge.

One quote from the article stood out and seems to support what I wrote about her in a post I wrote last week:

“[Sotomayor] certainly doesn’t seem to have a pro-criminal bias and, if anything, because of her history, may have a pro-state bias.” – Law Professor and Sentencing Expert Doug Berman

I take exception to the “pro-criminal” part of the quote because in our system (at least in theory), individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Beyond this, I am troubled that a nominee for the Supreme Court would show a detectable bias toward either toward the prosecution or the defense. The only bias a judge should have should be toward the Constitution (the Bill of Rights in-particular).

This is one bias Judge Sotomayor appears not to have.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Security Theatre Of The Absurd

Civil Liberties, Government Incompetence, Individual Rights, Technology, The Surveillance State, War on Terror

Hey Cougars? Want to flash those pearly whites and shiny disposition when that mid-20’s waiter flatters you by asking for your ID at the bar? Well, good luck in Virginia… Smiling is forbidden:

Few places in Virginia are as draining to the soul and as numbing to the buttocks as the branch offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles. And yet, until recently, smiling was still permitted there.

No more. As part of the DMV’s effort to develop super-secure driver’s licenses and foolproof identification cards, the agency has issued a smile ban, directing customers to adopt a “neutral expression” in their portraits, thereby extinguishing whatever happiness comes with finally hearing one’s number called.

The driver’s license photo, it seems, is destined to look like a mug shot.

DMV officials say the smile ban is for a good cause. The agency would like to develop a facial recognition system that could compare customers’ photographs over time to prevent fraud and identity theft. “The technology works best when the images are similar,” said DMV spokeswoman Pam Goheen. “To prepare for the possibility of future security enhancements, we’re asking customers to maintain a neutral expression.”

At a Manassas DMV branch yesterday, that translated to a simple directive: “Don’t smile.”

Now, this is unlikely to be an issue for me. Given how much I hate stupid bureaucracy, inefficiency, waiting in lines, and the government in general, I’m most certainly not smiling in my license photo. And given that I’m tall (and thus the picture is slightly shot from below), let’s just say that if the picture were used for the nightly news, it wouldn’t fit for their feel-good story.

Every time you see government security, it must be weighed against government control. For example, it has been shown and explained numerous times that the government no-fly list is useless at fighting terrorism, as a committed terrorist will quickly and easily have the means to get a useable fake credit card and ID — or fake boarding pass and real ID — to get through a checkpoint — as the checkpoint workers do not verify names against the list. Thus, the no-fly list becomes another huge government database that has the power to make your life miserable if you accidentally get on it but doesn’t actually enhance security in any meaningful way.

But you know what all this security does? It makes normal citizens, whose interaction with the government is already rare and painful, even more difficult. But instead of taking the proper lesson from this — that government is largely useless and their security is entirely for show — they come away with a different lesson. They believe that perhaps banning smiling in a photo is just what is necessary to keep us safe, and that they should do what the bureaucrats ask without question. They are learning the lesson that obeisance is the key to security, even though reason and evidence suggest otherwise. They learn that it is not necessarily personal vigilance that is required to be safe, but rather letting the government keep ever-closer tabs on us. And that’s the wrong mindset for a country that used to have the values of America.

Then, of course, the story takes its truly absurdist turn:

When asked how DMV employees are able to determine when customers might be smiling too much, Goheen explained that the process is automated. Naturally, the new software is programmed to reject attempts at exuberance or human warmth. “It will send an error message if it detects a non-neutral expression,” she said.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from science fiction, it’s that the only way that we can defeat the evil android invasion when AI is first invented is to be able to detect the androids amongst us based upon their inability to behave like a human. It appears the machines are already trying to detect whether or not we can behave like them.

Hat Tip: Balko @ Reason

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Presenting the Latest Nominees for the Ramos-Compean Medal of Valor

Civil Liberties, Corruption, Crime and Punishment, Culture, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Legal, Media, Multimedia, Police Watch, torture

For going above and beyond the call of duty, I herby nominate these three members of L.A.’s finest to receive the Ramos-Compean Medal of Valor. As clearly shown in the footage below, the first officer bravely kicked the suspect in the head after he had surrendered. The second officer also deserves to be recognized for his efforts in protecting the community for punching the disoriented man as a precautionary measure. Last but not least, the third officer also deserves this distinguished honor for his dog handling skills to have the dog bite the suspect!

Clearly, these men are all heroes! While they may not quite live up to the high standard set by Ramos and Compean (not one member of the trio fired his weapon at the suspect after the surrender), we can be sure that the LAPD is quite proud that its reputation is still intact.

The Ramos-Compean Medal of Valor is an honor presented by The Badge Worshippers and Law Enforcement Bootlickers of America

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

The Limits of Campaign Finance Law Abridgement of the First Amendment Tested in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Activism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Election '08, Election Law, Elections, Free Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of the press, General, Individual Rights, Media, Multimedia, Political Correctness, Politics, The Bill Of Rights, The Nanny State, Theory and Ideas

During the 2008 presidential campaign, an organization called Citizens United produced an anti-Hillary documentary called “Hillary: the Movie.” The movie was available on pay-per-view cable channels until the FEC pulled the plug claiming that the broadcast violated campaign finance law. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, is now being considered by the Supreme Court.

During oral arguments, the government’s attorney revealed that campaign finance law as currently written could be interpreted to restrict not only documentaries such as “Hillary” but any other political speech “broadcast” during a campaign. A banned “broadcast” could include a store advertising the sale of candidate dolls, toys, or action figures. Even if the advertisement makes no direct endorsements nor advocates the defeat of a candidate, the mere mention of a candidate’s name or likeness would violate current election law.

But surely books would be safe…right?

Not if the book is “broadcast” on a device such as a Kindle, says the government’s attorney. While the FEC believes “dead tree editions” are currently safe from FEC regulation, former Chief of Staff and Council of the FEC Allison Hayward, says that such regulations could be imposed if congress brought such an interpretation into the law.

In the very beginning of the video below, Steve Simpson, Senior Attorney for the Institute for Justice says something which bears repeating here because he captures exactly the First Amendment problems found in current campaign finance law:

“The problem is not too much money in politics; the problem is too much power in government. Government regulates everything and of course, people want to affect the course of the government. So the campaign finance reformers ultimately what they want to prevent is that. It’s the ability to affect the course of our government; it’s the ability to affect which way people vote. That’s the dirty little secret of campaign finance law. They don’t just want to control money, they want to control speech.”

I would like to believe that free speech will ultimately prevail in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, but given SCOTUS’s history, ruling on the side of the Constitution is by no means sure thing. I also can’t help but wonder how an Obama appointed Justice would rule if this case was before him or her. Which side would receive the most “empathy,” the federal government or a private organization or individual citizen? We already know that such a judge would not be considering “abstract legal theories” such as entailed in the First Amendment.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Park Service Honors Freedom’s Heroes By Stomping On Property Rights

Civil Liberties, Freedom, Property Rights

The passengers of United Flight 93 were heroes. Scared, unsure of what the future held, and in the face of everything that passengers previously understood about hijackings, they knew that it was their duty to try to overcome the odds and take down the hijackers on that flight. They didn’t turn to a sky marshal, or rely on nonexistent “authorities”, they courageously got up and fought. While they were ultimately unsuccessful at bringing Flight 93 to a safe conclusion, and paid a heavy price for their efforts, they’ve saved countless lives through their actions. They saved those who were the intended target of Flight 93 that day. But more importantly, more than anything the TSA and airport checkpoints could have done, the simple knowledge that passengers won’t sit idly by and acquiesce to hijacker’s demands are IMHO the reason that we haven’t seen an attempted hijacking since 9/11.

I would love to see the courage and bravery of those passengers memorialized. But not like this. Not at the cost of freedom:

The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.

In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims’ families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.

“But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful,” said the statement.

Landowners dispute that negotiations have taken place and say they are disappointed at the turn of events.

…

“We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things,” park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.

And when government cannot come to an agreement, they resort to their final tool: the barrel of a gun. What they want, they’ll simply take, if it comes down to it. Sure, they offer “just compensation”, but if they’re the ones deciding what is “just” without you able to refuse, they can give you whatever pittance they choose. All this to meet an arbitrary 10-year deadline. They claim it’s necessary to move this quickly because they can’t stand the idea of not completing this in time for 9/11/2011. Anyone want to take odds on them actually completing in time, even if they do get the land quickly?

The passengers of Flight 93 stood up to defend themselves and the intended victims of the intended crash site. They also stood up to defend the freedom we cherish in America from those who would attack it. They deserve to be honored, but we need not sacrifice the freedom that they were trying to protect in doing so.

Hat Tip: Positive Liberty (via email from reader Tom R)

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 38 39 40 41 42