Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
First Amendment Organizations
Citizens United v. Federal Election commission — the recent case in which the Supreme Court invalidated a statute prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds either to support or defeat a candidate in the 30 days before an election, and overruled an earlier decision relied on by the minority — has now been commented on by almost everyone, including the president of the United States in his state of the union address. I would like to step back from the debate about whether the decision enhances our First Amendment freedoms or hands the country over to big-money interests, and read it instead as the latest installment in an ongoing conflict between two ways of thinking about the First Amendment and its purposes. We can approach the conflict by noting a semantic difference between the majority and concurring opinions on the one hand and the dissenting opinion — a 90-page outpouring of passion and anger by Justice Stevens — on the other.
Kurt Nimmo Infowars April 6, 2009 As we reported on March 22 when Jay Rockefeller was peddling nonsense about a pimple-faced kid in Latvia taking down the power grid in America with a laptop computer, the current wave of fear-mongering about cyber terrorism is just that — unsubstantiated fear-mongering. Critical networks are largely protected and “nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal,” according to Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism.” Indeed, there are political forces are behind Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who declared last month that we would all be better off if the internet was never invented.