Librarian Speaks of Fear of Imprisonment

Fang-Face writes "An
ACLU news release posted at CommonDreams.org tells how papers, which were ordered unsealed by the judge in the case, include three affidavits and a legal brief. One of those affidavits was filed by a librarian who was "charged with educating the library community and general public about intellectual freedom." This lawsuit challenges the National Security Letter provision of USAPA, which authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, including library records and the identify of people who have used library computers."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re:how?

"You know something? If I didn't know better I'd take that as a threat. A sort of "let's finish this talk outside" bit of bullshit that is totally unbecoming to members of our profession."

No. A threat would be something different. That was an invitation. There are lot of things that are unbecoming about our profession. Drawing an occasional line in the sand isn't one of them

"After reading this... thread, if I can call it that, I've seen one of the most childish displays of inept debating I've ever laid eyes on. In short I watched it disolve from a debate consisting of "Nuh uh!" "Uh Huh!" to name calling."

Oh, it didn't start out that way and if you had hopes it was going to end differently I can only ask "Why?"

how?

"I believe that members of the public have a right to know that their library records are subject to what I believe are unconstitutional government searches," said an unnamed representative of the ACLU's "John Doe" client. "But for the gag, I would inform members of the public about the NSL power and its application in the library context. Because of the gag, I am afraid that if I publicly discuss the NSL power I will subject both [name redacted] and myself to serious sanctions, including possible imprisonment."

The people already do know their records are subject to searching. If you feel they don't know you are free to inform them of such. The gag order doesn't stop you from doing so. You are not free to inform someone whose records are actually being searched because the person is being investigated for criminal activity probably terrorism. It seems a reasonable request to not interfere with a criminal investigation.

Re:how?

It seems a reasonable request to not interfere with a criminal investigation.

It seems reasonable to expect the investigators to get a warrant, too. Or reasonable to request that you be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Or to be safe from arbitrary search and seizure. Or that your freedom to receive ideas or information not be infringed upon because of the content, viewpoint, or source.

You'd think a free country would have principles like that codified somewhere, wouldn't you?

Thank goodness

It seems reasonable to expect the investigators to get a warrant, too. Or reasonable to request that you be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Or to be safe from arbitrary search and seizure. Or that your freedom to receive ideas or information not be infringed upon because of the content, viewpoint, or source.

Thank goodness we can expect all of that based on our Constitution. Thank goodness we have the redress of the courts if we feel we have been wronged. What a wonderful country it is in which I live.

re: How?

As a candidate for ALA council - how do your views on transparency from representatives and limits on the power of institutions inform your governing style?

If a government representative requested information on the membership without providing a warrant - would you comply?

Would you attempt to protect the rights of the membership by seeking judicial review of the request prior to compying?

Would you inform the membership of the request?

Re:how?

It seems reasonable to expect the investigators to get a warrant, too. Or reasonable to request that you be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Or to be safe from arbitrary search and seizure. Or that your freedom to receive ideas or information not be infringed upon because of the content, viewpoint, or source

They do get a warrant in effect because there is oversight. The search is in an effort to prove guilt, its for a jury to assume innocence. If investigators assumed innocence no one would ever be arrested. Arbitrary according to who? Sorry but there is no freedom to receive ideas or information without being infringed upon because of the content, viewpoint, or source. If you hang out with white supremacists and go to their meetings and read their books, chances are the FBI has a file on you and thats fine by me. Lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Re: How?

What information are you talking about? What would I have access to as Councilor that would require such a request? You're going to have to give me a for-instance.

Re: How?

What do they give the ALA council that the government would want to look at?


Did Osama bin Laden sign up for the SRRT.


I know there are Marxists and Communists in ALA but I think the government has written them off as loonie fringe group members.

Re: How?

Nice to see the All American sport of red baiting isn't dead yet. When in doubt just yell "Commie"

Re:how?

They do get a warrant in effect because there is oversight.

National Security Letters are not warrants and according to all reports require no judicial oversight. To get a warrant, you have to show probable cause, some previously found, admissible evidence that indicates you are more deeply involved than you claim. None of these criteria are necessary for NSLs. Moreover, calling an NSL
"effectively a warrant" is bogus legalistically. If is not a warrant, it can not be a warrant in a court of law no matter how much it looks like one.

If you hang out with white supremacists and go to their meetings and read their books, chances are the FBI has a file on you and thats fine by me. Lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Then why do you right-wingers squeal like stuck pigs when we see you acting like Nazis and then accuse you accordingly?

Re:how?

"Then why do you right-wingers squeal like stuck pigs when we see you acting like Nazis and then accuse you accordingly?"

What I want to know is: does your fan club think that's 'interesting' or does it actually rate an 'insightful'.

Re:how?

What I want to know is: Why didn't you answer the question? Why is it, if you comport yourself in keeping with a Nazi ideology, you then complain when you are accused of being a Nazi? After all: If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Re:how?

I'll be at ALA in San Antonio Mikey. Come ask me there.

Re:how?

because you gave him a juicy bit of flame that he could respond to instead. Now he can feel justified in crying "help, I'm being repressed" and avoid the thornier admission that you are correct that a NSL is really a warrant, or the sound of crickets chirping as he tries hard to ignore your valid point and hopes that nobody notices.

Re: How?

Wow! and maybe soon there will be a card-carrying fascist as well!

Re:how?

What kind of an answer do you have that you can not it write here, but only deliver it orally?

This smells like political stonewalling to me. Taking lessons from Bush? Or just can't admit that you can't answer the question? Do you expect your consituents to believe that you will answer questions any better once you are elected to the ALA? I have no doubt that if someone asked you that question in San Antonio that you would not answer it there either.

The entire point of cyberspace "instant" communications is that information can presented immediately instead of having to travel to where your subject is. Since you are, essentially, anti-communicationary, it does not surprise me in the least that you won't provide the information asked of you.

Re:how?

I'll be at ALA in San Antonio Mikey. Come ask me there.

You know something? If I didn't know better I'd take that as a threat. A sort of "let's finish this talk outside" bit of bullshit that is totally unbecoming to members of our profession. After reading this... thread, if I can call it that, I've seen one of the most childish displays of inept debating I've ever laid eyes on. In short I watched it disolve from a debate consisting of "Nuh uh!" "Uh Huh!" to name calling.

On and Fangy, when you haul out the goddamn Nazi thing, you better expect to get your ass kicked sooner or later. There's been times I disagree with Greg, hell I disagree with Greg most of the time. But dammit, he's no Nazi. If liberals are so damned worried about people being offended, then when do they start caring about me? I'm about as German as they get, and every time some ignorant dumbass hauls out the "You're a Nazi because..." I feel sick. You know, there's far more examples of governments in this world who arbitrarily take away rights from citizens because they believe them to be a threat, who lock up these citizens because they could be plotting against the government, and who will take away their citizen's businesses and give them to other citizens because one class is somehow better than the other.

That government is called the government of the United States of America. We did it to the Blacks and we did it to the Japanese during World War II. And keep in mind, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Democrat. From what I've seen, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one will screw you while they're looking at you.

Re:how?

Ahem! that should read "... you are correct that a NSL is really nothing like a warrant ..."


Carry on.

Re:how?

Wow! I just read further. I hadn't considered that he might issue a veiled threat...

Re: How?

Sure, try to find a real Fascist organization to join. All the nuts in the world flock to them and they are really looking for the Neo-Nazis.

There are no true Fascist organizations in the States. Thats good or too bad, depending on how you look at it.

Fascism, like many other isms looks good on paper, but the execution of it always fails.

Re:how?

Fangy, when you haul out the goddamn Nazi thing, . . .

That wasn't about the goddamn Nazi thing, that was about the double standard morality inherent in mdoneil's position.

Yeah, when you lie down with dogs you get up fleas; but that applies universally, not just to those whose prejudices don't agree with yours.

Syndicate content