Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

ACLU Sues FBI, Justice Dept Over Y2K Flick 11

Posted by michael from the breakin'-the-law dept.
An AC writes " BetaNews reported that on Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made good on its plan to file a lawsuit against the FBI and the Justice Department for allegedly suppressing a Web-based film that predicts a riot in Times Square on New Year's Eve." The ACLU's Complaint is online, and see the original slashdot story and the followup. The ACLU complaint gives a great deal of information about what the FBI actually did, errr, is alleged to have done. The ACLU also makes an interesting claim that this action was related to Project Megiddo, the FBI's plan to suppress any disorder around the millennium.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACLU Sues FBI, Justice Dept Over Y2K Flick More

ACLU Sues FBI, Justice Dept Over Y2K Flick

Comments Filter:
  • .. during the last months I really got the impression that the US had completly lost control of several branches of their government.
    Ciao, Peter
  • They're trying to say what we can and cannot see? Thats just like saying we cannot learn chemistry because we might be able to make a bomb. Just seeing a film clip about a riot or something doesn't mean that we will do that. If they keep on doing this it would surprise me if an underground internet would emerge. But then again with how little privacy we have right now that would probarbly get found out and tapped very quickly.

    Why do they try to shield us from the real world?
  • Okay. 1. Anyone who thinks this is real either cannot read or has serious discernment issues they need to work out.
    2. I understand why the FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA/WTF is bonkers over this type of stuff. It is inflamatory. Sorry ya'll. He puts the disclamers at the end of the tape and claims it's for discussion only? Right. People aren't going to notice that, they'd take it as gospel and go ballistic. They panicked on War of the Worlds, even tho it was cleary noted to be "fiction" (as my Dad says, he heard it)
  • I read through most of the text of the link, and it seems to me that the FBI were worried not by the film itself but by the phone calls thehad received from people believing the film to be real.

    Given the way the events are described (by the plaintiff), they imply but do not state that the FBI were heavy-handed. They also illustrate that the FBI gave the plaintiffs every opportunity to set their minds at rest, and instead the plaintiffs first failed to call when they said they would, then got attorneys to call on their behalf without their having been accused of anything.

    If the FBI had a genuine concern given the telephone calls they had received, then the plaintiffs could have set their minds at rest. The easy answer to the question "where did you get the tape" is, "I made it, it's fictional". The easy solution to the problem was to indicate that this was a work of fiction on the front page.

    The plaintiff compares his film genre to "War of the Worlds", and everyone knows that that caused serious panic. From the FBI's point of view, if that lopoked like it was going to reoccur, I can understand why they would want to put a stop to it.

    Before I get flamed into oblivion - I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but in my honest opinion, the information we need hasn't been provided. We really need to know how heavy-handed and aggressive the FBI were, and all we have are statements telling us how 'worried' the plaintiffs were, not the exact words or even a decent level of detail regarding what they were threatened with. Is it possible they just overreacted to being called by the FBI?

    To what extent is it irresponsible to imply that this tape depicting incited civil violence on Times Square originated in the military when that isn't true?

  • If the FBI had a genuine concern given the telephone calls they had received, then the plaintiffs could have set their minds at rest.

    They could have, but they have no obligation to.

    The easy answer to the question "where did you get the tape" is, "I made it, it's fictional". The easy solution to the problem was to indicate that this was a work of fiction on the front page.

    The correct answer would have been "Get a warrant." followed by slamming the door/phone.

    Speech is not a crime, no matter how inflamatory it may be. I feel that given the past actions of our government (the Bonus Army, Hoover ignoring the Mafia while inestigating MLK, the Steve Jackson Games case, etc.), the FBI/DEA/BATF et. al. should be presumed guilty until proven innocent, especially against someone with a politically unpopular view.

  • the FBI/DEA/BATF et. al. should be presumed guilty until proven innocent, especially against someone with a politically unpopular view.

    This is precisely what should be avoided. We should always be prepared to extend the same priviledgesin terms of judgement to others as we expect to be extended to us, be they individuals or organisations, governmental or otherwise. Otherwise we are nothing but hypocrites.

    The "get a warrant" approach is the traditional "you're the FBI therefore I hate you until you are sent on a mission from God himself" approach, but you're ignoring the point of my post. I'll repeat it : look at it from their point of view.

    You're looking at legal rights to free speech, let's also look at legal responsibilities of the FBI. If they are aware that a level of hysteria is building around a phenomenon such as this video, and they do nothing, or they have to put up with civil lack of co-operation and are delayed beyond 31st December as a consquence, and a riot breaks out on Times Square provoked or not by this information, what will the post-mortem of the event look like? Let's take another traditional "everything is the FBIs fault" approach: The FBI were aware that a certain uncertain number of people were concerned by their belief that something nasty was going to happen on Times Square on New Years. They did nothing, pleading "constitutional inability to act". Only two conclusions are possible:

    1. It was their fault because they should have done something. But you've already discounted that argument because you disagree with giving them the power to do something about it in the first place by denying them any information whatsoever, so for all they know. it really is a plot!

    2. They didn't have the necessary power to prevent it. This is something we would want prevented in future. Therefore we give them the power to prevent it in the future. So by standing up so obnoxiously and uncooperatively for your civil rights, you've actually managed to reduce them by demonstrating that their misuse can lead to civil unrest for no apparent reason, and cause the potential loss of life.

    Either way, the protagonists of the film still come off as the bad guys and the FBI still come across as the people working in the dark with no information trying to prevent a potential catastrophe, with no cooperation from a group of people disseminating falsehoods whilst claiming they are the truth.

    On a related point, isn't misrepresentation a crime of some sort in the States? If you claim you believe something came from the army, and it didn't, and you knew it didn't, is that not in some way prosecutable? What about inciting to riot?

  • Those responsible for the "Y2K" television movie, of course, have money and respectability and so were in no danger of being busted for essentially the same "crime". If Orson Welles did "War of the Worlds" today, his radio station would be shut down in minutes.
  • If you want to see a good millenium-fever type movie, go and see Strange Days with Ralph Feinnes. It's excellent.

    And since it didn't pretend to be in some way factual, you can go and see it without jumping out of your skin every time someone in a suit wants to ask you a couple of questions.

  • This is precisely what should be avoided. We should always be prepared to extend the same priviledgesin terms of judgement to others as we expect to be extended to us, be they individuals or organisations, governmental or otherwise.

    Quoting from the first part of the complaint [aclu.org]: [the FBI] acted pursuant to a policy ... to take actions to suppress speech without any judicial determination that the speech is unprotected by law. Well, they certainly extended him all of the courtesty that I extend them, ie, none.

    The "get a warrant" approach is the traditional "you're the FBI therefore I hate you until you are sent on a mission from God himself" approach...

    No, the "get a warrant" is the "read the Constitution" approach. Since the Constitution was specificaly written to inhibit the power of the Government, I know that this is unpopular with them. Tough, as America isn't quite a police state, yet.

    ... but you're ignoring the point of my post. I'll repeat it : look at it from their point of view.

    From their point of view, it seems to be: "Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants! If you citizens know what's good for you, you'll just cooperate -- otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt."

    You're looking at legal rights to free speech, let's also look at legal responsibilities of the FBI.

    The first of which is to have a warrant, issued "...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In other words, if you can't get a warrant, no "probable cause" exists. Now, there is always a judge who'll issue a warrant for anything, especially to the FBI. If they didn't bother with one, what does that say?

    So by standing up so obnoxiously and uncooperatively for your civil rights, you've actually managed to reduce them by demonstrating that their misuse can lead to civil unrest for no apparent reason, and cause the potential loss of life.

    Note Niven's Law: F * S = k, or the product of freedom and security is a constant. in other words, to get more security, you need to give up some freedom, and vice versa. You're confusing civil rights with security -- the two are not the same.

    On a related point, isn't misrepresentation a crime of some sort in the States? If you claim you believe something came from the army, and it didn't, and you knew it didn't, is that not in some way prosecutable? What about inciting to riot?

    Misrepresentation as in lying to certain people (police involved in an investigation) or on certain documents (applying for a loan) is illegal. However, you can claim to be God, or say that the FBI has a microchip implanted in your butt, with which they control your thoughts, and it's not a crime. As has been recently demonstrated, lying is legal, as long as you're not under oath. Charging him with inciting a riot might be possible, but is more tricky. You see, an actual investigation would have to be conducted, and then someone arrested and charged. It's much simpler to just "lean on him a little" -- no muss, no fuss, no paper trail.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close