ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance

aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."

Re:ACLU

[gbulmash]

wow, doing something useful for once

Better than arguing a Muslim woman should be able to have her face covered in her driver's license photo. Society has an interest in having a drivers license photo accurately picture the individual that overrides religious freedom.

Before you argue that no societal interest overrides religious freedom, please note that all of the following "crimes" have tried to use the religious freedom defense:

• Prostitution
• Possession and distribution of drugs
• Child Molestation
• Child Abuse
• Letting children die of treatable ailments

In all of those cases, courts (up to the Supreme Court) said society's interest in prohibiting those crimes outweighed the First Amendment rights of the individuals.

The First Amendment is not absolute. You can't incite people to riot without punishment. You can't publish libelous accusations without punishment. You can't do anything you want and get away with it on the claim "God Says So".

While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Shelled]

In my youth there was a common sentiment, expressed in Hollywood movies and television as "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Interesting how that's not only disappeared as a moral imperative, when present it's treated as simplistic, too idealistic now that 'everything's changed' or against the nation's values (depending on speaker.)

I *LOVE* IT!

[slightlyspacey]

I'm going to risk a few Karma points but here goes:
You know that anytime the letters A*C*L*U* are used in a Slashdot posting, regardless of the subject at hand, you will get the following within one hour:

1. Swipes at religion
2. Swipes at conservatives (not the same as 1.)
3. Swipes at the United States and its foreign policies.
4. Swipes at the ACLU's position on xxx, where xxx is not related to the subject at hand
5. Counterswipes at 1-4.

To quote Rodney King ... "Can't we all just get along?"

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

Glad you asked, actually. I'll take your questions in order. Bear in mind that I'm a firearms owner and pretty into it...but I guarantee my answers will surprise you. "Liberal" gun owners aren't common.

1. I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in these cases, as we (as a nation) need some clarity on just how laws regulating firearms actually apply in the real world, not just as abstract legislation. The Second Amendment and whether it applies to individual or militia ownership has never been clarified. It needs to be.

2. I don't know if regulation of firearms is "constitutional" or not, not being a lawyer, but it's a damn good idea.

3 & 4. Here's what I'd like to see (well-regulated and status quo changes): This is what I call the "automotive" model of firearms ownership. Libertarians will probably have a stroke and if you're one you shouldn't read this :)

What society gets: Licensing (passing a course equivalent to the "Gunsite" series of classes, not cheap or easy) and registration...mandatory. Insurance...mandatory. Draconian penalties for possession of stolen, unlicensed or unregistered firearms. I think a mandatory 10-year sentence for a first offense is not out of line.

What gun owners get: An end to idiotic laws that ban posession of certain firearms based, fundamentally, on what they look like. A Winchester 1897 repeating rifle has MORE capacity that most modern "assault" weapons and is just as accurate and deadly, and yet can be bought in all fifty states. Let's end the bullshit and let those who can pay the insurance for destructive weaponry own them. If you can't pay for your acts or mistakes then you don't get to play.

Obviously, although I'm a lifelong shooter and gun owner, I am not an NRA member. They're the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners and a political and PR liability for us.