High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits - Forbes.com

~~~ This ruling disappoints me.
A close loss at 5-4 too.

Last year it could been 5-4 the other way.
( Or even 6-3 -- as Rehnquist was a bit of a maverick on free speech ) .

Welcome to the Roberts & Alito court . ~~~ tp

===================

High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits - Forbes.com: "
Associated Press
"High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits"
By GINA HOLLAND , 05.30.2006, 11:12 AM

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.

By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government's inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote"

"Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some Documents to Former White House Aide"

~~ Seems reasonable to me , as Libby is the source ,, so there no "source" for the reporter to protect in this case. A fine line ,as the reporter has rights too.

But in this case I do not see the reporter 's note protected.

Anyone-- even Libby --must be given wide latitude in obtaining
ANY information that could prove they are innocent.~~` TP
===========================
=================

Time Ordered to Give Documents to Libby,
Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some
Documents to Former White House Aide - CBS News:

"Judge says Time magazine reporters must turn over some documents to former White House aide"

WASHINGTON, May. 27, 2006
By TONI LOCY Associated Press Writer"

"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of subpoenas that Libby's lawyers had aimed at Time, NBC News and The New York Times for e-mails, notes, drafts of articles and other information.

But in a 40-page ruling, Walton rejected the news organizations' argument that they have a broad right to refuse to provide such information in criminal cases."

U.S. House Judiciary Committee: Legislation aimed at preventing high-speed Internet network providers from discriminating.........

Stock Market News and Investment Information | Reuters.com

"WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation aimed at preventing high-speed Internet network providers from discriminating against unaffiliated services, content and applications."

---------------------------

~~~~ CLICK HERE FOR EARLIER POST ON THIS IMPORTANT MATTER ~~' T P

===============

Apple Loses Bid to Unmask Bloggers' Sources :The Sixth District Court of Appeals on Friday

~~ This makes me happy.!! ~~ TP
---------------------------------------------

"Apple Loses Bid to Unmask Bloggers' Sources"
by Ryan Singel and Kevin Poulsen
Friday, 26 May 2006

"A California appeals court has smacked down Apple's legal assault on bloggers and their sources, finding that the company's efforts to subpoena e-mail received by the publishers of Apple Insider and PowerPage.org runs contrary to federal law, California's reporter's shield law, and the state Constitution.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals on Friday roundly rejected (.pdf) Apple's argument that the bloggers weren't acting as journalists when they posted internal document about future Apple products. 'We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalis(m).' The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here,' the court wrote.

'Beyond casting aspersions on the legitimacy of petitioners’ enterprise, Apple offers no cogent reason to conclude that they fall outside the shield law’s protection".

Source:
© Copyright 2006, Lycos, Inc.
Lycos is a registered trademark of Lycos, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Your use.... constitutes acceptance of the Lycos
Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions !!! "

=============================

: Supreme Court Developments on Yahoo! News

Print Story: Supreme Court Developments on Yahoo! News: -- Yahoo! News

Supreme Court Developments
By The Associated PressMon May 22, 4:24 PM ET

Highlights of actions taken Monday by the Supreme Court. The justices:

_Ruled unanimously that police do not need a warrant to go into a home to break up a bloody fight, in a case involving a 'melee' that Brigham City, Utah, police officers saw through a window.

_Rejected an appeal from Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman, who wanted the court to declare that the drug protocol used in most executions amounts to cruel punishment.

_Refused to hear an appeal in the case of a mentally ill man, Andrew Goldstein, whose conviction was overturned in the death of a woman pushed into the path of a subway train in New York.

_Said they would not consider the case of convicted murderer James Hamm, who graduated from law school and is being thwarted in his efforts to become a practicing attorney in Arizona.

_Delayed a decision on whether to take up a fight over reporters' confidential sources, apparently because a former government scientist's lawsuit that prompted journalist subpoenas may be settled.

_Declined for the second time to get involved in a child custody fight between a San Diego woman and and her former [female] partner."

============

Judge: Not unreasonable for city workers to surf Web -- Newsday.com

~~~ Bravo !! I hope the higher courts see this the same way. ~~~ TP
-----------------------------------

Judge: Not unreasonable for city workers to surf Web -- Newsday.com: "
In his decision, Spooner wrote: 'It should be observed that the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work. He added: "For this reason, city agencies permit workers to use a telephone for personal calls, so long as this does not interfere with their overall work performance.'"

Court: Hallucinogenic tea OK

~ A major win here for religious civil liberties. And an 8-0 shutout too. I find this to be a "Liberal" ruling, as it is allowing something the Federal Government wanted to ban. Not bad for a "Conservative" court. ~~~ TP

---------
Court: Hallucinogenic tea OK: "WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday rejected government arguments against use of a hallucinogenic tea in religious services.

The 8-0 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts stemmed from a New Mexico case involving O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, a Spiritst Christian sect originating in the Amazon Rainforest. The court`s newest justice, Sam Alito, did not take part in the case."

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/

Techdirt:No Network Neutrality, No Internet... And That's Just What Telcos Want

~~ This concept of the "Internet highway with tolls" gives me the creeps, Also see here

and next few posts below . ~~ TP
---------------------------------------------

Techdirt:No Network Neutrality, No Internet... And That's Just What Telcos Want:

Contributed by Mike on Tuesday, February 7th, 2006 @ 10:39AM
from the killing-the-internet dept.
The network neutrality debate has been heating up as of late, and with hearings today, it's no surprise to be hearing more about it. The always interesting Daniel Berninger has written up a good analysis on Om Malik's site explaining why the internet doesn't exist without network neutrality, while suggesting that's exactly what the telcos want. It's not so much about squeezing more money out of the likes of Google and others, but in killing off what makes the internet useful... which allows them (they think) to go back their older business model which is clearly under attack from the internet. Of course, most people recognize that this will never happen -- but that won't stop the telcos from making a mess of things in the meantime.

"Annoying Online Posts Could Be Illegal"

~~ As the culture of the Internet matures it seems the net will become a less free-wheeling "post whatever you want" theater. But is it possible to criminalize non-violent speech ? ~~ ` TP


PCWorld.com - Annoying Online Posts Could Be Illegal:

"Annoying Online Posts Could Be Illegal. Free speech advocates say a new law geared to stop cyberstalking could be cause for concern."

Samantha Nelson, Medill News Service
Friday, January 13, 2006
http://www.pcworld.com/

Writing annoying, anonymous online posts or e-mails could land you in jail for as long as two years. That's according to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed into law last week."

NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' On Computers |

~ I personally now will delete my cookies after visiting any Government website. ~` `TP

---------------

InformationWeek | Privacy | NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' On Computers | December 29, 2005: " By Anick Jesdanun , NEW YORK (AP)--The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them. These files, known as 'cookies,' disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States. 'Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern,' said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. 'But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.'"

"Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest:" : washingtonpost.com

~ This Spy-gate thing is going to be serious news for a while. When both Democrats & Republican Senate leaders are expressing civil liberties concerns, all citizens should be concerned. Nixon -- and those Presidents before him -- walked over civil liberties regularly. No one wants to go back to those times , with Presidential Enemy lists , covert wire taps, & etc. The Bush Team must feel the Power of Checks and Balances here.
Hopefully Congress is up to the job ~~ TP
-----------------------------

"Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel"

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01

"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation".

"Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed."

"Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year."

"Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program."

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show - New York Times

~~~ Not that this is really surprising. When i worked for GreenPeace in during the Reagan years, we knew that we were being monitiored. Strange thing is we had nothing to hide,, I mean we were publicity-hound-political-activists, who telegraphed to the media most everything we did or said. Why non-violent groups need to be "monitiored" is still really beyond me.

Either way the Bush Team is in trouble. If these domestic spying games the Administration is playing are found to be more than just unethical, but also to be illegal, some heads are going to have to roll. Being Scooter Libby already got indicted, maybe Dick Cheney is next, as he is the main powerplayer. { Don't tell me you really think Bush is in charge of this complicated stuff ! } ~~ ` TP
----------------------------

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show - New York Times: "the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a 'Vegan Community Project.' Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's 'semi-communistic ideology.' A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored."

"Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased?":The Christian Science Monitor

~~ IF you want your email to stay private after you pass on , it seems the onus is on you to state so in your will. Otherwise as this case below ,, the courts can release the the email to your next of kin ~~ TP
----------------------------------------------

Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased?

By Susan Llewelyn Leach |
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
"
....from a legal point of view, e-mail's status is not clear cut. Even the experts can't agree. One law professor describes it as "a property interest," but not intellectual property. Another lecturer on law says absolutely it is intellectual property and is covered by copyright laws.

What makes these legal distinctions more critical is the growing volume of e-mail - and with it rising privacy issues. Free e-mail accounts - some with storage capacities up to 250 MB - allow people to pile up digital photos, documents, and volumes of correspondence without a second's thought. Few people are thinking through the ramifications, says Alan Chappell, a privacy and data-collection consultant."

Next-Gen "Analog Hole" Legislation Proposed

~~ Mixed fellings here.
I believe copyrights should be honored. People do not honor them.
If everyone on the internet acted nice & honest this law would not be needed.

But then there is the Libertarian in me sayin' ,,
"Whaooh,, here !! Hold on a sec...." ~`
~~ tp
----------------------------------

Next-Gen "Analog Hole" Legislation Proposed: "The bill would essentially require all analog devices, such as televisions, to either re-encode a signal into a digital form, complete with rights restrictions, or to encode the rights restrictions into the analog stream itself.

Manufacturers would also be forbidden to develop a product that would remove those restrictions. Exectives at Veil Interactive, the developer of the VRAM technology at the heart of the legislation, described the technology as one that would not be noticeable by consumers."
=====================================================

November 8, 2005

Justices Back Paying Workers as They Suit Up

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that companies must pay plant workers for the time it takes to change into protective clothing and safety gear and walk to their work stations.

The issue was one of two that justices settled in a pair of unanimous decisions, the first rulings under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts in the new fall term. Roberts did not write either one.

In a defeat for business, the court said that employers must pay wages for the donning of ''integral'' gear and the time it takes workers to then walk to the production area.

The court, in a ruling by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of workers at a meat processing plant in Pasco, Wash. Those workers typically put on sanitary outer garments, boots, hardhats, aprons and gloves.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Protective-Gear.html?hp&ex=1131512400&en=31fdf239ce7f8501&ei=5094&partner=homepage

CBS News | He Said/She Said Over Home Search | November 7, 2005 14:00:09

CBS News | He Said/She Said Over Home Search | November 7, 2005 14:00:09: "the U.S. Supreme Court is about to examine whether the police need the consent of one or both spouses to conduct a warrantless search of a home"

6abc.com: Wrangling Over Denver Pot Vote

6abc.com: Wrangling Over Denver Pot Vote: "DENVER-November 3, 2005 - Denver officials say they'll sidestep a voter-approved city law that decriminalizes adult possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by prosecuting under state law."

Boo - hiss the City of Denver --TP

Court Hears Internet Anonymity Case -

Court Hears Internet Anonymity Case - Yahoo! News: "By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 2, 3:19 PM ET

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - The publisher of a financial newsletter told Maryland's second highest court Wednesday that he should not be forced to disclose his subscriber list and other information sought by an Arizona company seeking those it says made defamatory online comments."

I agree with the publisher , that is protected private information. ~` tp

The defeat of election-law aid for bloggers | CNET News.com

Democrats defeat election-law aid for bloggers | CNET News.com: "Democrats on Wednesday managed to defeat a bill aimed at amending U.S. election laws to immunize bloggers from hundreds of pages of federal regulations."

I am only blogging this under protest !!

Techdirt:Should Banks Be Liable For Online Banking Losses?

Techdirt:Should Banks Be Liable For Online Banking Losses?:

"The real issue is that, if banks knew they would be liable for such losses, then you can bet they'd make their systems a lot more secure" ~` EXACTLY