I spent years in the USAF defending the Constitution. I feel it is everyone's right to protest (be it Tea Party or Occupy) and I have to wonder how far the government is willing to go to infringe on that right......

I spent years in the USAF defending the Constitution. I feel it is everyone's right to protest (be it Tea Party or Occupy) and I have to wonder how far the government is willing to go to infringe on that right......

Why is this an issue? Tweets are in the public domain. Anyone can sign up and recieve them. Why shouldn't they be supoened? Is the tweeter ashamed of what he said?

We have told you that the government would have to control the media by manipulation of the First Amendment well here are the first steps.

What is the point we all know that George Soros moveon.org and is community organizers are behind OWS.

Go to Cuba with your Revolution.

AG99 it seems that you have been in the Tardis too long. Perhaps when you come down to earth you may find things have changed.

Isn't it conceivable that this chap may have other folks that he contacts privately by Twitter?

If it out in the public domain why would they need a subpoena in the first place. Perhaps the prosecutor was friended.... LOL

This is getting to be like subpoenaing ones private mail. E mail etc are just that you know, private mail, where there is the expectation of privacy between the writer and those particular folks who follow him on Twitter one would imagine.

Because it is posted on a public forum does not make it any less private. Off course the prosecutor is probably trying to verify if the Tweets posted were actually specifically sent by him.

Hope he did not pirate any one elses phrases.... and post before getting their permission to copy and paste etc.....LOL

Still can't imagine why the prosecutor would want this protestors tweets from 2 days prior to his arrest, unless he is trying to prove that the guy intended to get arrested or whatev... LOL

Amazing though isn't it?

Makes one wonder what next will be done in the name of security etc....

Peace..... love and freedom.....

Corporate-Supreme Court Fathered-Cayman Island Checking Account-Swiss Bank Savings Account-People through their Political Dogs in the Executive Branch of governments hard at work protecting their wealth and power, at work. Just let Mitt be the spokesperson for the 1% as his head looks good on a poster, with a red circle with diagonal line drawn through it nailed to a pole.

And since they pay such a small share of the taxes, it is you, the middle class who is paying for the 1% attack on you.

IRS says top 1% pay over 1/3 of income taxes.

BZe1: I don't twitter so I don't know much about it. Can you have a private tweet network? And how is this different from supoening text messages or other phone records?

@ a2phil, keep it up, and the target will be you as you get yourself arrested. You need to get help before you hurt someone.

HA HA u post on a completly PUBLIC forum (twitter) and think ur gonna get privacy????!!!!

pathetic

Hmmmm, now that is funny, coming from someone who has a screen name of 7.62x39mm.

Yes, Bruce, they DO pay 1/3 of income taxes. Thing is, they take in more than 2/3 of the income, so...

AG99, perhaps you should read your previous message again.... you gave the impression that this was no biggie re requesting the postings because it was in the public domain.

The question is why should these tweets from 2 day before the guy was arrested be needed in the prosecuting of this guy. What has those tweets got to do with his arrest 2 days later i.e. what is so important about those tweets?

Shouldn't the case against the protestor be specifically about his arrest, what he did during that protest that was against the law and that resulted in his arrest during the protest. What is so important about what he did 2 days prior to the protest and should his activities at that earlier time when he was not actively in the protest be held against him?

What is this ... fishing for other evidence to use against the protestor? Is this fishing for evidence to show that the guy colluded with other protestors to get arrested or to break the law and to try to bring other charges against him and others?

Lets say you did not wear your seat belt and was stopped. Should the police be allowed to then search your car or search you and worse search the content of your cell phone which you were not using at the time, or investigating what you did or was doing 2 days earlier which really does not have anything to do with not wearing your seatbelt.....

We are getting on some slipperyslopes in this country, and our rights to privacy etc are eroding, disappearing even. The question is why?

how comes that no body investigated the teabaggers movement ?

The Tea Party paid for city permits to protest and didn't create civil disobedience acts that have and still are costing $millions. The Tea Party didn't block traffic or pedestrian right of ways, throw fire bombs, concrete blocks, take over abandoned buildings, camp illegally, urinate and defecate where they felt like, refuse to disperse, resist arrest and assault police officers etc.

Tad; the Tea Party has already fizzled out - they had no passion - just some fake leaders who found it wasn't cost effective to bother with keeping the movement alive. Check history - the Right has had several splits in the party in the past, and all of them died out without a whimper.

The Right-wing has lots of mis-guided ethos - but zero passion for life..if you gotta break a little glass to get attention - so be it. The only vision the Right has is to go backward or stay in a rut (big oil) until the damage is so great that what could have been is no longer available due to wasted funds and time.

Proactive wins - reactive is doom.

Wow Tad... Way to show the love for the main stream media propaganda. I can't tell if you really believe all that crap about OWS or if you are part of the propaganda machine. Maybe watch something besides Fox and little bits and pieces of edited film. Like they said... it's not against the law for them to lie.

Hisdudedness: Yes, the top 1% earn 2/3 of the income. Key word: earn. It's their money, not the governments, and certainly not yours.

Personally, I love paying more income tax every year (taking every legitimate deduction possible along the way). It means I get to keep more, too. Of course, in order to do that I need to increase my earings. Neat concept, you might want to consider it instead of living off the productive class and free government cheese.

Mechanical Diagnosis

Question; What's that noise? Answer; Rod's are knok'in.

What's that gonna cost? A lot.

What else can I do? Cheaper to buy new.

What caused it? Not paying attention to the oil.

This same thing happens to our government when we don't pay attention.

IT AIN'T GONNA BE CHEAP FOLKS.

Bruce... hate to tell ya but the IRS is paid to say that. We all know it isn't true.

It's me or them, repub or dem, read these links to see what stinks.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/matter-trust

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/rise-praetorian-class

a2phil

You and your terrorist friends in NY and Oakland are the reason of the subpoena, We don't need more terrorist like Bill Ayers bombing buildings and killing cops. Weather underground is the inspiration for some radical leftist nuts from OWS who call acts of terror freedom of speech.

BZe1 - They are most likely looking for evidence of premeditaion of the march on the bridge. If I recall when it happened the protestors said it had been a spontaneous decision to march on the Brooklyn Bridge and that they had not planned to interfere with traffic. Some had even used as their defense that the police had corralled them and they had no choice but to leave the walkway on the bridge. If they find evidence of tweets from a day or two before the march that show that they had indeed planned to march on the bridge and had hoped to cause a disturbance to traffic patterns it would refute their testimony. They may not even be looking for his tweets to use against him per se, the supeona may be intended to collect evidence against the organizers, for example. This is standard practice to collect evidence that would refute anticipated testimony. It's not any different really than supeoning this phone records to see who he called and interviewing them about the conversations he had. Well except that they could lie for him and the tweets can't.

The thing is, yes we have freedom of speech in this country.
Guess what? We also have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law....including what you say online.

If you don't want your words to come back to bite you, don't put them out there for the world to see. Or at least be smart enough to use an anonymous account that cant be traced back to you....strong>P>

Norm you say "Yes, the top 1% earn 2/3 of the income. Key word: earn. It's their money, not the governments, and certainly not yours" Well guess what? The other 99% earn their income as well. Key word: earn 1/3 or their income but pay 2/3 of the taxes. It sounds great when you say that only 1% pay 1/3 of the taxes. Sounds like a few are paying the majority for everybody else, and they are. So in your thought process it would be ok if I made $200,000 and you made $100,00 and the taxes on that were lets say $30,000 all together. You pay $20,000 and I only pay $10,000. So I make more but pay less and that is fair?

People need to realize that NOTHING they write on Social websites on the web is Private. They are public domain and can be read by anyone.

If you want to keep it quiet, do NOT put it on the web in any way shape or form. Facebook, twitter, email, etc.

If the police are investigating you they can search your emails, sites you look at, etc.

This is NOT big Brother, you paranoid ones. This is modern police work.

In Favor - your logic is faulty. I have seen a better analogy, unfortunately I don't have the original source to cite, but I"ll post it for you anyway because it makes me chuckle....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.

The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;

The fifth would pay $1:

the sixth would pay $3;

the seventh $7;

the eighth $12;

The ninth $18.

The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before.

And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

"I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?

The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

"We didn't get anything at all.

The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Maybe know that most of you Libs see how you can lose your 1st admendment rights you will worry alittle more about the 2nd. And can see why the fore fathers put it there.

@Hisdudeness and In Favor - the top 1% do not earn 2/3 of the money. Based on data from the IRS website from 2008 (the last year they had the report for) the total income earned, as reported to the IRS, was 8,426,625,000,000. The top 1% earned 1,685,472,000,000 that is 20% of the total earnings. The total amount of taxes paid was 1,031,512,000,000, the top 1% paid 392,149,000,000; that is 38% of the taxes, so the top 1% are paying a ratio of almost 2 to 1 for taxes paid versus money earned when compared to the total amount paid.

In contrast, the top 1% may hold 2/3 of the wealth in this country, but we don't tax wealth, we tax earnings. If you have $100 in your bank account at the end of the year, that is not taxed the following year. If your 85 year old grandmother has a house that is worth 250,000 but is paid off, she does not pay taxes on that asset. That is what wealth is; it is assets that you have. It is also referred to as net worth.

Natedom, you can't rationalize with people that only respond with how they feel at any given moment.

Whining about the 1% sounds and feels good so the talk about it like it is fact.

Just like this article, it sounds and feels bad that a OWS has had his tweets subpoena, but if this was some CEO they would be cheering it.

I think the definition is hypocrite.

Hike in taxes to the people that pay 2/3 of the total revenue will end to a lower revenue. Lefties are wrong pretending that tax increase = more revenue. California increase taxes in 2009 and their revenue fall 13.9 %. Greece did the same with equal result. However class warfare mongering continue demanding more taxes to the " 1% " for political gain but at the long run it will hurt the country with lower revenue for the poor , ironically the people they say are for.

@Tom - Plymouth - I know you can't rationalize with some people, but I also know that there are many out there who don't really know the truth and if people who do know the truth allow those who would rather believe the talking heads spout their nonsense, then others will begin to believe the nonsense. This is why I post the real numbers, to hopefully inform those who really want to know the truth but only find hyperbole.

@redvirginia - While I agree that an increase in taxes will create less revenue, I think the bigger concern is that people actually believe increasing revenues will lead to a balanced budget. Our budget goes up every year, regardless of what the revenues are doing, congress needs to get a control on their spending and stop spending money they don't have, once they can figure out how to spend less than they have coming in, there can be no rational conversation about decreasing our debt. You can't try reducing your debt when you run a deficit every year. You could never reduce your credit card bills if you count on them every month to buy groceries, the government is no different. A budget is a budget, whether it be your personal budget, a company's budget, or a government's budget. Expectig to spend more than you have will only lead to trouble.

BZe1: I was going to respond, but Xina beat me to it. My guess would be looking for premeditation, too.

Hisdudeness95 They earn that income and reinvest it so that the likes of you can find a job. Give it to the U.S. government and find out how much of it exported to countries and individuals who don't reinvest it in the U.S.

Xina the Awesome,

I think I saw this same thing in 2008. Oh no, wait! And in 2010!

Wow, I will grant you the Rove-types were the first to get a handle on this who "talking-point" thing (e.g,. "death tax..."; but...

Thank g-d the Democratic party has succumbed to that.

Sally and Tyler,

As the election cycle counts down, I hope you will hold tighter reins on what constitutes "Inflammatory."

Thanks

Sally and Tyler,

24/7/366...?

Then there are more "Moderators" than you two, right? Can you introduce us to the rest? Give us some kind of contact info?

Ag99, unfortunately the protestor was not arrested or mirandized 2 days prior to taking part in the protest.

Re looking for evidence of collusion by the organizers, is that it is just like searching my home to find evidence against my neighbor because my neighbor and I live in the same neighborhood or were at an event at the same time.

If the prosecutors want to determine collusion by the protest organizers then they need to subpoena those particular folks phone records, not this particular protestor unless he was one of the organizers. He was arrested for his particular actions, not the actions of the whole group.

If the actions of the police regarding possibly forcing the marchers on to the bridge thus snarling traffic is in question, then interview witnesses at the event. If the actions of the police was premeditated then they would no doubt have been 'ordered' to do what they did by those at a higher pay grade so to speak. It is those police dept meetings and planning meetings etc and doccumentation of same etc including recordings and messages etc that should be subpoena-ed and not trying to fish, glean or search for possible evidence against the police from the arrested person's phone messages 2 days prior to the arrest or event.

Perhaps the prosecutors should be getting the minutes etc of the meeting that reportedly took place by all those 18 or so mayors nationwide and homeland security etc agents regarding plans to deal with and or contain these protests, if they need info on police actions. Perhaps they should be also be viewing those folks communications 2 days prior to the NY protest bridge incident, don't you think if it is info on police actions that is being investigated as suggested in Xina's message.

We are in the era of new technology with instant communication in which we can speak to a few or to many people at one time. It is like a mega conference call, only with text messaging or postings. Does that mean that because the communication is between more than a couple of people who may or may not know each other on sight or personally etc or in a particular place, that that that speech/communication is still not private? Isn't it that only those 'friends' who have joined that other person's tweet are able to access it or reply? Why should these folks not have an expectation of privacy even with comments/ conversations that took place 2 days prior?

I do not believe that it is like Newsvine for example where anyone can simply read the messages there, and even with Newsvine you have to sign up and join etc to actually post or answer messages there.

There are also private groups on some message boards for example but don't one have to sign up to join in those conversations?

What does the term 'in the public domain' mean under these circumstances?

There is a slippery slope thing going on regarding the interpretation of our rights as guaranteed by our Constitution in the 21 century. It appears also that some of our laws are being changed and rights are being taken away, which could be intentional or un-intentional.

We therefore need to be mindful of and question these new 'interpretations' and attempt to perhaps change laws, and not just say 'if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about', because you never can tell when it might impact you.(pl)

Also, what is done (in the courts /judicial system etc) is oftentimes very difficult, time consuming and costly to get undone once it becomes new law..... see giving corporations personhood, and money as speech rulings that were made recently.....

Peace.... freedom....privacy.....

What are you talking about? The prosecutor filed an affidavit of probable cause and got a court order, signed by a judge. That is what a subpoena is. The subject has an opportunity to respond through the court system, which he is apparently utilizing through a motion to quash the subpoena.

Big Brother wouldn't need a subpoena and the OWS guy would not have the chance to argue. Even if he loses the motion to quash the subpoena there will be a suppression hearing at a later date where he will have another chance to argue the constitutionality of the evidence before it is used in trial.

This is the traditional, time honored process that our courts have used for many years. What erosion of our rights does this represent? Surely the government has a right to acquire evidence of crime through due process, in this case applying for a subpoena.

So, destruction of private property and accosting pedestrians in NYC while closing the businesses of people you claim to represent is OK with you ?

Anarch : Utter negation of law ! Protest ; a complaint ,an objection or remonstrance .

You tell me which it OWS and which is the Tea Party ?

Definitions from Webster Dictionary

The problem is probable cause this guy is a freelance journalist what is the interest of 3 months of back e_mails except to go fishing.

The problem with your "traditional, time honored process that our courts have used for many years" other Bob is in the first step where the probable cause affidavit is presented to a judge. 99.99% of the time the affidavit is approved and the warrant issued. Sounds sort of like a rubber stamp process to me, where the average citizen is thrown into a financial and power battle with the courts that is almost impossible to win.

That is the problem with your system. If there were a hearing prior to the issuance of the warrant by a panel of unaffiliated judges most of the cases that end up being tossed out at the appellate level would have never gotten off the ground via the rubber stamp, saving the citizen a life altering financial burden and slimming the overall cost of government not to mention the improvement to freedom and justice which is supposedly the ideal of this nation.

Ah, Bob-3592828, you see a portion of the scene and say, "What's the problem? This is the way things are supposed to work!" However, in your final paragraph, you make the statement that the government has a right to acquire evidence of crime through due process. In my Constitution, the government has an obligation to have evidence of a crime prior to charging a suspect - and the government has no right to acquire evidence - especially upon application of subpoena - and the court is forbidden from issuing an order causing evidence to be turned over to the government - when that application fails to state what crime has been committed, and what evidence of that crime the government seeks. That is not due process - it is a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, the government is attempting to further define the First Amendment's protections without benefit of law or rule by blurring the lines between private and published communications.

And even more alarming is the fact these subpoenas are being issued for use in MISDEMEANOR cases, and likely with the intent to inundate the National Lawyers Guild by causing them to expend more time, energy and even more money to defend petty charges which were brought against their clients. It is an extended version of the "charge-stacking" which goes on in most criminal prosecutions today, only lacking additional charges to file in these cases, prosecutors are stacking costs of defense.

The defendants' right to free speech, their right to privacy, their right to publish, and their ability to defend themselves against an over-reaching government - otherwise known as due process - are all being abridged. What Constitution are you living by???

Well stated Mr. Glenn. Informative, accurate and to the point.

I failed to mention the prosecutors seek a SUBPOENA, NOT A SEARCH WARRANT - meaning they intend to present the documents obtained as a result of the subpoena as WITNESSES to the matter before the court - NOT as EVIDENCE against the defendant. This literally means they are depriving the defendant of his right to avoid self-incrimination before the court. They seek to use his words - spoken without benefit of Miranda-ization, and in private, or in public - against him to incriminate himself.

Yes! very well said indeed, I'm glad that there are people like you to articulate effectively. I would have had a difficult time. Bravo!

"Beware of the words "internal security," for they are the eternal cry of the oppressor."

-- Voltaire, 1768.

And if this was done properly, the NLG would have been at the hearing for the subpoena and it may never have been issued. (Note: I do not have a Twitter account and have never seen it in use) From what I can gather, in order to see a tweet, you must be a "follower", so basically, Tweets are private conversations between the "Twitterer" and their followers, so the Prosecutor is trying to bypass the legal process by obtaining all those records. They must first present factual evidence to obtain the subpoena.

"Big Brother" has been chipping away at our rights for decades. In modern times, a huge chuck was taken when the Courts allowed the police to impound our cars while they waited for a warrant to search. They used the adage that if you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to refuse a search. Well, it is my Constitutional Right to refuse a search without factual evidence. Being "nervous" during a traffic stop is 100% normal, not an indication you are doing something wrong, yet that is a reason put forth by the Courts to justify "probable cause" to search a vehicle.

We need to start letting our Government and Courts know that we rather protect our Rights then give them up to make it easier to convict real criminals. If 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 criminals go free to protect 1 innocent citizen from wrongful prosecution, then our system is working; but if we allow 1 innocent citizen to be convicted to prevent real criminals from going free, do we truly deserve our Freedom? If you have to think about this, then you do not deserve the Freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

The actions against the OWS protesters is also violating our Right to over-throw a corrupt Government, which our Fore-fathers knew we would one day have to do. That is a specific reason we the right to bear arms and a right to gather.

If the Prosecutor can not specify the exact Tweet he is looking for, and how it shows the writer broke a law, then he has no evidence and is just hoping to find something. And short of stating a well thought out plan to kill a specific person, or group of people, then I believe Freedom of Speech overrides any misdemeanor charge.

Now if the Tweet was from the police about setting up the protesters, then I would say it needs to be used to show the abuse of the use of power the police force has.

I do believe OWS is a threat to Politicians who are worried about losing their positions because they have forgotten they are in office to SERVE THE PEOPLE of the US, not for self gain, and that is why the OWS protesters have been attacked across the Country by various police forces. They are trying to make all the protesters look like criminals.

As long as the OWS protesters, as a group, are not physically harming others, then they are allowed to protest in any way they feel like doing it. As for the "bad apples" in the bunch, then they need to be treated as individual offenders with no reflection on the group.

The police actions are causing riot-like conditions. It's fine when our Government for whatever reason (such as a parade; allowing a movie to be filmed; etc.) to interfere with traffic or conducting business, but it is against the law for us to do it? Unions can picket disrupting traffic flow to a business and that is OK?

Since the stock market does not create many jobs outside of itself, then I personally have no problem with shutting it down. The main purpose of the stock market is to make a profit. At one time it was to raise funds for business for production which the profit would be derived from, but today it has little to do with that: ask any small business owner or other person who is trying to market a product they ope will become a "hit". Today it is Venture Capitalists that provide the funding, not the stock market.

This subpoena of a Twitter account is just one more attack on our Constitutional Rights and Protections by the self interest, self gain elite who are corrupting our Government.

bob-occupy wall street- I agree that the government is eroding our rights and personal freedoms. However, if you think that the solution is BIGGER GOVERNMENT, like the OWS generally demands, then you are delusional.

The whole point of LIMITED GOVERNMENT is to keep them in check, and prevent a tyranny from forming. Do you OWS people NOT realize that the things you are demanding like free (government) health care, free (government) college education) and free (government) entitlements are the very route that allows tyranny to form and squash personal freedom and liberty? It appears not.

timetraveler100. where did you get that feeling of bigger government from bob-ows?

Not all of OWS is for free everything from the government. Like all Tea people aren't ignorant. And don't forget that all that squashing of personal freedom and liberty is already taking place. Direct that rage where it belongs.

Dean, read the article. He's not been charged. He's being investigated. There's a difference.

Also, his words CAN be used against him. Miranda or not. If you tell a friend that you plan on Killing the president, or Blowing up a building and something happens, they can damn well USE that as evidence against you.

You are confusing social programs with unfettered bureaucracies. The formation of social security, medicare or universal health care such as implemented in Canada, has not led to diminished rights - in fact, it has led to greater citizen rights.

The size of government isn't as important as the manner of government. A very small government is just as capable of ruthless tyranny as a large one.

The most dangerous government is a paranoid government whose overriding premise is to protect itself and the status quo at the expense of it citizenry.

From my understanding of OWS, they want the Government to take from one group and give to another.

That is not a social program, that is stealing!

culheath- The size of government isn't as important as the manner of government. A very small government is just as capable of ruthless tyranny as a large one.

Sort of. Any government, or for that matter, any individual is capable of terrible acts, but the worst kinds of tyranny are when the government has immense power, funding and reach.

I know people who are moving their business and household out of this country (I'm not one of them) for places like Costa Rica to find freedom and independence that can no longer be found in the U.S. because, as they reason, the government there simply doesn't have enough money to micro-manage (screw with) the people.

The most dangerous government is a paranoid government whose overriding premise is to protect itself and the status quo at the expense of it citizenry.

We agree on this. In fact, could you deny that we have this very situation today?

I think leftists often overlook the dangers of government encroachment on liberties when their party is involved in doing it. The same people who bemoan the Patriot act under G.W. Bush, become strangely silent when their man Obama keeps it...and EXPANDS IT'S POWERS! In the end, we the people lose. The only gainers are the political class.

Right, and it wasn't stealing when they rigged the system so that all the money flowed upward to the elite and the corporations? We have all been fleeced, and it is time for those that stole from the American people to pay up. It's not redistribution, it's retribution for what they have been doing to us for years. It was redistribution and stealing when they took our worth from us and profited from our losses.

culheath,

"The size of government isn't as important as the manner of government."

Cul, on the nose!

I would add (given recent history) maybe size-of-gov't isn't as important as the size of the military. (Based on military support in Egypt in the Summer/Autumn, the military plays a huge role.). Fingers crossed, the Egyptian military is (maybe?) standing aside? We can but hope.

Then there is Syria.... Let's see what happens in there... their "War" with Israel" has given its (Syria's) military even more power. Let's all pray for no WWIII -- would USA again (as in WI and WWII be isolationist" until the last moment?

Tom - Plymouth,

"That is not a social program, that is stealing!"

Tom, how do you define "Social Program"?

Either we are a "rich eat their kill" society," or we're are a "Co-operative" society, making sure we "all survive" society.

If you have found the "in-between," please, PLEASE share!

I think leftists often overlook the dangers of government encroachment on liberties when their party is involved in doing it. The same people who bemoan the Patriot act under G.W. Bush, become strangely silent when their man Obama keeps it...and EXPANDS IT'S POWERS! In the end, we the people lose. The only gainers are the political class.

Could not agree more.

Boris,

Great points

ummm..no they're not.

Be specific, what right have you lost that you had last week, or last year, or under the previous government? Unless you are caught committing an actual crime, then you should have less rights than law abiding citizens.

They shouldn't be poking around social media to use as evidence. If he was some sicko who molested children, or some kind of murderer- that would be a different story. This is wrong, and those 2 British kids that were deported for doing nothing is wrong.These things start with a whisper.....its like Nazi Germany, and we all know how that ended.

Some of these guys have been watching Fox "News" too long...

I wonder anyone on here ever complain about the Bush Administration and Obama administration refusing to submit emails to congressional subpeona. How about subpeonas for the banks emails relating to the loan fiasco. Emails are more private that Twitter posts. If you believe that all emails, facebook posts, twitter posts, letters, conversations should be private and not be available for subpoena so be it. Just remember next time when you are pushing for subpoenas on something you don't support.

THAT'S how the 1% operate!!

"We've got all the money, so we don't have to follow the law"...

That's why we have "Just Us" (as in "just us millionaires and billionaires") instead of JUSTICE!!!

regalarte1

I don't know what rights you think are being taken away, or what rights you think you have lost (care to list them?) but I have all the rights that I had earlier today, and yesterday, and last week, and last year, and since I was born, including the right to join this thread and point out nonsense.

Right to privacy on Twitter? Where is that right specified in statute or case law?

Are you arguing that the DA may not go to court and request the judge to issue a subpoena? It's not only his right, it's his job! It's due process of law!

Moving right along, among the rights that remain is the right to post ignorant hyperbole on Newsvine. Thank you for exercising that right in our still free society.

Paranoia and panic runs deep in the liberal mind !

Maybe Kool-Aid causes dementia !

did you just notice that???

Rights are being taken away. What's happening is people are losing all common sense.

Allen Hoof, you have got to kidding. Just in the last 2 days the Federal gov't has started a push to make sentencing in state courts "consistent" so that state judges will lose their sentencing guidelines. This will essentially negate laws tailored to solve their state crime problems.

If you don't see the implications of that on individuals then maybe you could take a look at the constitution and what it has to say about states rights. Try thinking about victims rights for a good place to start!!!!!!!!!

Look back at the Patriot Act. You want a list of rights that are being stripped away month by month... year by year? You want everyone here to do your homework? If you are smart enough to post here then you should be smart enough to look closer at constant legislative activity that will impact your rights each and every day.

Inalienable rights - those rights granted to all humans and specifically enumerated in our Constitution - are not being wholly taken away. Instead, they are being abridged - infringed upon, redefined, constricted, stripped of substance, etc. etc. - by a government hell-bent on controlling everything and everyone in its skies, waters, soil, etc. - as well as many lands and peoples NOT within that government's domain or authority to control.

And if you can't see or understand that basic fact, you certainly won't miss those rights when they are completely gone.

Good Post Dean, You said it far better than I did. I hope you and I end up on the same militia when the necessity arrives. Take care.

The funny part is neither of you learned your lesson from the story. Hint: this chat room can be used against you as well. Silly militia talk.

Your inalienable rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You have liberty you are allowed to use twitter. If you choose to use twitter to incite riots or illegal activity it's evidence. You are violating our legal rights system. Liberty doesn't mean do whatever you want, where ever you want. You still have to obey the law.

if you think your rights are being taken away, LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I can say is WOW!!! And the right wing nut cases comebacks are always, either, yer drinking the Kool-Aid, or Leave our Country. If "WE" the citizens of America don't do something about it now, in a few short generations it wont matter, as we our teaching our kids that the govt can bend the laws to their favor and blame it on terrorism and WMD's and if we don't take out The Saddams of the world, they will invade us and kill us all in our sleep. Go ahead right side sheeple, vote in either your old pal Newty or the newest moron on the block Romney, they can pick up right where good ole boy Georgie left off.

has it occurred to anybody that this guy possibly could have been up to no good?

it's not like the occupy folks did not break any laws with their (peaceful) protests at some point.

It is those who are not willing to fight to protect our Constitutional Rights and Protections that need to leave.

There is no evidence of rioting or other actual illegal activity. If there was , the Prosecutor would have made that known and charged them with it.

At the worst, it would be civil disobedience, but really what is that? To me that is illegal laws made to prevent the State and US Citizens from being able to overthrow a corrupt Government. Our right to bear arms and to gather were specifically written into the Constitution in order for us to be able to form a militia to overthrow corrupt Government and protect ourselves from invasion.

As a person who went into the Marines, it is my sworn duty to protect the Citizens of the US, and our Constitutional Rights, even from those in our own Government. I would be committing treason if I did not do so. If it comes down to that, I will do my duty.

If the Prosecutor can prove there was an actual violation of a legitimate law, then he can use the Tweet(s) to prove it, but if he is only trying to get the records to go "fishing" for proof, then the Constitution forbids him from accessing them.

If you look at all the video footage, you will plainly see that the protesters were basically setup. It was Unconstitutional action of the police that caused the problems on the bridge. Had the police done there job and properly guided the protesters across the bridge, we would not be talking about this today the way we are.

Every American needs to support OWS protests to send a message to the corrupt individuals in our Government that we have had enough of them. We want all of our Freedoms and Protections left 100% intact. Many have given their lives for our Constitution and way of life and it is our job to make sure their lives were given up for a reason. Even if you do not agree with the OWS, you need to fight for their Right to express what they believe.

I'm not saying to support the wrong-doing of certain individuals in the OWS, but as a group, they are not doing anything truly illegal or Unconstitutional and therefore deserve our support.

Honestly, are they doing anything more wrong than was done at the Boston Tea Party? Are they doing anything more wrong than those that conspired to overthrow the British rule over the Colonies? The OWS is only looking for change, not a war against our Government. The are only looking to oust the individuals who are dragging our Country down into despair solely for self gain. I support the goal of OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

protest if you want, but breaking the law while you protest does you no good, it takes away from everything you are protesting for, all you end up having is people seeing you break the law. basically QWS is saying we want the 1% to comply with our demands or else. or else what? where do you go from there? there is nowhere to go. you do not like it? then vote , run for office, write your congressman etc. protest with out breaking the law. there is no way i would ever support a sinking ship as this. to me they are just lazy, and naive, just because you have a college degree does not mean you are guaranteed a high paying job. working for what you want is the way to success, focus on want you want and do it. waiting for someone else to enable you gets you nowhere.

It is not only about not achieving what you expect, it is also about the loss of jobs (shut-downs, down-sizing, etc.) while stock profits go up.

The only laws I know of that, as a group, OWS has broken are laws put in place to keep the status quo (i.e. civil disobedience laws). They are marching and occupying spaces to bring attention to some serious problems with how corrupt our Government has become. The "laws" they are breaking are more or less meaningless. These laws do not protect anyone from harm, but allow harm to befall those who "break" them.

OWS peacefully gathered as allowed by our Constitution. Our Government (on various levels) has deemed what they are doing is illegal Unconstitutionally. The Government has done so mainly to protect itself from being controlled by the Citizens for which it works for. (Note: it is those corrupt individuals in our Government that are the problem, not the system as a whole).

It is not a case of comply with the demands, it is more of carry your fair share of the burden. They benefit the most from our Government yet pay the least to support it. If the 1% paid an equal amount of taxes by income, the US would not be so indebted. We the 99% would be able to pay less taxes over all and therefore the economy would be strong.

The OWS is a less violent protest then the Boston Tea Party was. And it is not inundated with drugs and sex like the Vietnam War Protests.

Most of the violence has been physically started by individuals in the police force, yet you don't see them being prosecuted. There are several officers, who have been identified, where there is video showing them committing criminal acts, but the Prosecutors are not going after them as much as they are the OWS protesters who have, at worst, committed minor acts of civil disobedience.

<deleted, double post>

We the 99% would be able to pay less taxes over all and therefore the economy would be strong. Should actually be:

We the 99% would be able to pay less taxes over all and the economy would still be strong.

you wanna see true corrupt government? goo check out mexico for a year , America will seem like heaven and you will wonder why you left,

Mexico's government being more corrupt than our own does not negate the fact that ours is still corrupt. Would you tell someone who got hit by a car to stop whining because it could have been a bus?

So no one should speak up about their own countries corrupt Government until that government has surpassed others in corruption?

If someone wish's to improve the world around them it doesn't mean they don't appreciate what they have, it means they have higher expectations of our species potential.

I normally don't get angry over message boards, and I don't like to insult people, but the truth is our rights are constantly being undermined and shaved down little by little. If you haven't noticed it or think that people who bring it up should, "LEAVE" than I can do nothing for you other than wish you luck.

Ken Trout, if you were paying attention, just within the last few months the Democrats and Republicans just passed a law that basically says, if the government wants to call you a terrorist, they can arrest you, have no trial, throw you in jail, throw the key away, and you may never be heard from again. While you had your head up your butt, they took away your right as a US Citizen to a trial by jury. They are now working on a law to strip you of your US citizenship. What is to keep the OWS from being labelled terrorist, they certainly have done allot of damage, they haven't killed anybody yet, raped a few, beat up a few but they haven't managed to kill anyone yet. What defines a terrorist? The home land security defines it as anyone belong to the Tea Party, is anti-Obama or owns a gun.

I am using someone elses thoughts here, not word for word:

Privacy is implied, and not up for discussion.

It is not about privacy vs. security, but about freedom vs control.

doncorneo

We the 99% would be able to pay less taxes over all and therefore the economy would be strong.

We the 99% would be able to pay less taxes over all and the economy would still be strong.

That's funny. If 99% of people were paying taxes there would be no OWS.

touche! bobby,!!! they are college educated but slept through math....

Which civil and/or constitutional rights are being taken away here?

regalarte1

Wake up...our rights are being taken away.

I'd like to give up my right to have my taxpayer dollars used in the cleanup efforts after an OWS riot.

I keep hearing about how our rights are being taken away. But NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON will be specific. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON will explain to the rest of us on this site how following constitutional law and legal procedure in order to obtain a subpoena is eroding our rights. Screaming "The sky is falling" doesn't make it so. No matter how often or how loud you scream it.

Probably because you don't know enough about your rights to recognize when someone states specific rights that have been/are being infringed upon. For instance, your right to due process prohibits the government from seeking - and the court from issuing - a subpoena which is non-specific as to the crime committed, the evidence sought or the location of that evidence. When those inalienable rights (the Bill of Rights) are redefined and/or restricted, they have been infringed upon - and while the right as a whole may not be totally lost to us, any infringement upon that basic right as it is granted in the Constitution is a loss of right to all of us. Is that specific enough for you???

POV..... Maybe you should back up and read some of them? Go ahead and stick your head in the sand on this issue. True American patriots will save you from the injustices when the #*it hits the fan.

@Dean A Glenn: nicely put. However, please explain where "a subpoena which is non-specific as to the crime committed, the evidence sought or the location of that evidence" has been issued.

Not in this case

All of you under djorlando's post bring up good points. But all the posts on this subject so far, in whining about "losing our rights" is mystifying. Where in a website/social media site/ or any where else on the internet does the particular site owner's "Term's and Conditions" is there any phrase, statement or inferrence that your so-called "private information" is truly "private", or "confidential" or "top secret" from anyone. Yes, your information and posts are "private" as you are typing them, but once you click the "Send", "Enter" or "Post", your privacy hit the wires, and just changed to "Public Information" and public knowledge. So, if you believe you've been violated or your "rights" have been infringed upon or taken away, then consider "should I hit the "post" button or not?"

First PX, the subpoena seeks ALL communications of the defendant - meaning the government has no cause to believe any specific communications offer evidentiary value - but believe there might by incriminating evidence in the package of documents they expect to receive - that is what makes it a fishing expedition. That is what makes it non-specific, and the government's affidavit for a subpoena states they have cause to believe evidence of A crime - not of THE CRIME WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS CHARGED - is contained therein.

Furthermore, there is an even more basic right to due process that is being violated here - the prosecutors seek a SUBPOENA, NOT A SEARCH WARRANT - meaning they intend to present the documents obtained as a result of the subpoena as WITNESSES to the matter before the court - NOT as EVIDENCE against the defendant. This literally means they are depriving the defendant of his right to avoid self-incrimination before the court. They seek to use his words - spoken without benefit of Miranda-ization, and in private, or in public - against him to incriminate himself.

If he had been read his Miranda rights prior to tweeting, speaking, etc. his subsequent communications and speech would be open to the prosecutor for use as evidence - and NEVER as a witness against him...

I've worked behind the scenes for 6 judges in my brief career as a lawyer. Most judges work very hard to do the right thing, but there are some who will sign anything put on their desk and really don't care or consider civil rights. The prosecutor has to have some power to collect evidence, but for me, the issue in this case and similar cases of evidentiary fish hunting is the ease with which we now allow them to gain access to information. Dean hits the mark. The scariest thing I have seen in my life is watching a couple law enforcement officers, with not great reputations in the courthouse that I worked, going into the office of a judge with the reputation of signing anything put in front of him and closing the door in order to get his signature. The officers could allege anything to get his signature and no one could stop them. For me, a public defense attorney should be allowed in that room to fight every possible subpoena or possible warrant, and frankly, simply to be a witness and deterrent to rubber stamping. There are many great law enforcement officers, but most never consider the damage they do when they go after the wrong people. There needs to be greater protections going forward, not less (less being the trend for the future), so that there are fewer innocent people with damaged lives.

Sorry Glenn,

"Miranda" right don't apply in the case of these Tweets, and a "lawyer-wan-ta-be" or "Jail-house lawyer" like you should know that. By your posts I sure you do, as you are trying to argue technicalities and word semantics.

If a person makes public statements, ie the Tweets, that are say video taped by a third party, ie Twitter servers, Miranda doesn't apply. Miranda applies after you are arrested. If it didn't all those "wire taps" and "surveillance video" wouldn't be legal. I know you think they shouldn't be, but they are.

Your argument that the Tweet "documents" can't be used against him, because they are self-incrimination is laughable. But as a "scum-sucking, bottom-dwelling, defence lawyer", I guess you have to try every TRICK to get your quilt clients off.

Dean A. Glenn -

You assume that the request for the supeona was non-specific. Perhaps in interviewing other protestors someone asked "why were you on the bridge that day, how did you hear about the protest?" and they said "I saw on Twitter a post by @destructuremal that we were going to shut down the Brooklyn Bridge and I was down with that"

This would give them a specific tweet to look for. Perhaps the time frame is such that the person giving them the information could not remember exactly what time the post was put up but he knows her read it a "day or two" before the event.

Perhaps they are not requesting it in conjunction with his case at all... But perhaps it is being requested for a higher profile case against one of the organizers of the event. In fact, the information they are looking for includes the email address and other personal information of the user.... which suggests that when it was supeonaed that information was not know to the prosecutor and they did not know it was this guy they were going after at all.

This article is entirely one sided and does not include any information provided by the prosecutor's office. All we know is that they requested a supeona and a judge granted it.

Which civil and/or constitutional rights are being taken away here?

If you use ANY PUBLIC medium to incite a riot, or any other illegal activity you will be charged and that medium is evidence in a court of law. Guess WHAT? Twitter is PUBLIC! No different than posting notes on a bulletin board, of all people you would think a protester would know the laws that governs his activity... dumba$$!

If you're not a criminal or a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

And that kid isn't a criminal or terrorist....so why in the hell should he have to be stressed for nothing but letting his opinion be heard?

THat just what they want you to think Wally. Way to be a loyal robot to the propaganda machine that is the US government.

@Justin See: who says he is stressed?

Just wait until YOU'RE called a "terrorist"....

If he or she is a republican, they are called terrorists everyday.

Jeezzzzzz Philosopher, why don't you back up and read some of the examples given. You are simply one of the sheep in a mindless herd of Americans who are so easily controlled. I find it pathetic that folks like yourself CANNOT open your eyes and ears and "pay attention" to what is going on.

Iv'e got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

@Ryan Merow: Precisely, on your first paragraph.

NO examples of lost rights have been provided. NONE.

Yes they have. You just don't want to admit it. You are either in denial, smoking something.......... OR.............. ya wanna play the "philosopher" role and have all of us call you Dr X or some such goofy thing.

PhilXerfer

Take a copy of the second amendment, along with a loaded pistol and shot gun into a city police station. You and the paper will be on the floor. Right gone, guns gone, freedom gone. Words of Constitution gone. Test complete.

Unless you are a cop and do that all the time anyway. A subpoena by a rubber stamp judge will get a cop into my home at any time day or nite.

George,

Wrong, the 2nd amendment only give you the "RIGHT" to own and carry "arms". It in no way give you a right to carry those "arms" anywhere you want to. You are another example of someone reading "rights" into the Constitution that aren't there.

For example, I have the "right" to tell YOU, that you can't carry your "arms" on MY property. If you are stupid enough to walk into a police station or other government building with your "arms" without the proper permits, and following the proscribed procedures, then you deserve what you get. The Constitution doesn't protect against YOUR own ignorance and stupidity.

No rights are being taken away. You have the right to publish. You have the right to free speech. If you choose to use those rights to incriminate yourself in a crime you're stupid. Oh and you have the right to be stupid too..

Here's the thing. Imagine you rob a bank. You then send a post card to your old college roomate bragging "hey remember that bank robbery last month....That was ME! I planned the perfect crime! haha LMFAO"

OK, then one of your co-consiprators gets busted and says, "hey it wasn't my idea - Johnny planned the whole thing, I even saw him send a postcard to his friend Mike, one of his old college buddies bragging about it!"

The postcard is supeonaed and presented in court. Just because someone has free speech doesn't mean they aren't held accountable for what they say.

Remember people you also have the Right to remain Silent.

O.K. htdjpf,

Webster's; to bear, to carry.

You have a lot more words in this post then in the writing of the second amendment. Looks to me like you are reading more into its meaning then is needed. 27 to 44 in your first paragraph alone.

I can carry my firearms into a hunting lodge just about any place. I can carry in my truck with a licence in most states. I can't carry in a federal building today permit or not. This includes county, or state buildings. As when the amendment was ratified it was more then likely not against any law to carry at that meeting or any other public building. Police can carry in any of these buildings and this makes me a second class citizen in the meaning of that law abridging the original intent of the amendment. The right to bear arms was given to the people, not only law enforcement or military. This makes me seem guilty of being a threat to a, possible, corrupt entity yet no proof is aparent. The laws were allowed to go on the books by the people to enhance a civilized society and now the people are at the wrath of law enforcement to use deadly force to put down a reblion or demonstration by the people or to even walk into a police station with malice toward none. These same people can be imprisoned for the same law that is used to inhance a civilized culture. Civilized as in privilaged persons only. Does police state come to mind?

In the day, men went about thair daily task with the guns at the ready. This should not have changed. If that law did not exhist we ,as, citizens could carry anyplace we wanted to, and all, police included, would know we were probably ready to defend to the death our Constitutinal rights. When does a tyranny rear its ugly head? Before or after all of the guns are gone from the hands of the would be patriots, those to be opressed. Will the masses of this nation impose a tyranny upon themselves? I think not. I herd an FBI or bodyguard to a Congressman state once that he couldn't understand why the Congressman wanted him to carry a gun to protect him but didn't want citizens to have that same protection or right to carry. The suite of a fool can fit many. Your suite fits nicely. The yellow color even works.

In to responce to the stupid part of your comment. The stupid part was letting the law forbiding the right to carry may come back to cause us a more deadly outcome. No patriot is stupid for standing up for his privilage to live free with the intent to harm no other person unless harm is inflicted upon him. Ten patriots can guarantee some justice for any harmed by opression. Hence the need for a malitia

Which civil and/or constitutional rights are being taken away here?

Your right to speak your mind without being indefinitely detained thanks to NDAA. Thats' what rights Philosopher X.

You are mistaken. No such situation exists in the US. You still have the right to free speech without fear of indefinite detention. No one has been indefinitely detained in the US for merely speaking his/her mind. No one. Please prove otherwise...

REALLY? it should be OK then to be a Nazi and spread hatred? If I'm correct, speaking your mind isn't the issue here, committing actual crimes is more to the point. And any means used to publicly spread information to cause the illegal acts is considered evidence and can be used in a court of law. Remember the Miranda warning? Your words CAN & WILL be held against you in a court of law, this has never changed. Especially if you are dumb enough to print them on PUBLIC Media such as Twitter. And don't ask, even a child realizes the countless laws broken by the OWS.

more rights were lost in bush's first term than any other time in our history not the last 3 years.

@Philosopher X - Come on man, it's all theater. It is just a matter of time. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither will America fall in a day. Little by little.

Name one single person who has been indefinitely defined simply for exercising free speech...

I don't think I have my head in the sand. But I also refuse to buy into fear tactics targeting the US justice system (imperfect as it is)

Ken, even if you are a Nazi bastard spreading hate, you have the right to spread that hate. IF you let people sensor everyone, and then they come after you, who is going to stop you from being censored and taken away? Bad things start with baby steps. They chip a bit of your freedom away here, a little there, then they come for the big pieces. Two British people were recently deported for goofing off on the internet. They were obviously coming here for a vacation and to have some fun. Paranoia and fear are taking hold of this country. You have to be really naive not to notice.

@Justin See: I have noticed you are paranoid and afraid... In fact, it sure seems like you are promoting the very paranoia and fear that you are lamenting. Get help.

You've got to excuse philosopher x...

He's been spoon-fed Fox "News" too long....

Hate to burst your bubble...I hate Fox news, and am not a conservative in any way. I am simply rational. Try it.

You are mistaken. No such situation exists in the US. You still have the right to free speech without fear of indefinite detention. No one has been indefinitely detained in the US for merely speaking his/her mind. No one. Please prove otherwise...

"without the fear of INDEFINITE detention" DEFINITE detention however is acceptable ?

According to the SC, MONEY is thus far the only explicitly spelled out entity entitled to "FREE SPEECH". That should please you .

Ken - funny you should mention Miranda rights - specific rights or waiver thereof to speak or refrain from speaking - which are invoked by the reading of those rights to you by a certified member of the government - DID YOU GET THE DISTINCTION THERE??? Miranda rights are not in effect unless and until you are read those rights by a member of law enforcement, the judiciary, or the prosecutor, and if necessary, those rights must be explained to your understanding.

Which is how Twittering, emailing etc. etc. differ in their classification as protected speech and private communication.

@Maurice: what!?!?!? Lay off the pipe, man...

You just made zero sense

@Dean: "Ken - funny you should mention Miranda rights - specific rights or waiver thereof to speak or refrain from speaking - which are invoked by the reading of those rights to you by a certified member of the government - DID YOU GET THE DISTINCTION THERE???"

You made no distinction in the quote above. You simply explained Miranda rights. You did not distinguish those from any other rights in your quote above

PX - the pre-arraignment & pre-mirandaization communications of the defendant are being sought (post-arraignment, mind you) by the prosecution to appear as a witness against the defendant. Please read posted response to your last directed response above...

I asked where "in your post" you made any distinction...

Perhaps I assumed the distinction was self-evident in that the defendant's un-Mirandized speech (tweets, twitters, emails, etc.) was protected as such...

The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

“The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”

Justice Kennedy responded that “by definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”

Kennedy must be enjoying Colbert/Stewart these days.

In case any condescending a..h...s need the point spelled out, the comments are illustrative of the relative priorities as to the interpretation of what constitutes "free speech".

OWS activists are villainized for the methods they choose to express " free speech" but corporate (WS) methods are rewarded for their method (use of money) to exercise "free speech".

if you print something on a public forum. like this, i do not like the government, that's ok you have that right,

if you are stupid enough to print something like, okay this is the plan we are going to start a riot , if the cops push us , okay we are going to go to this place and make sure these people hear what we have to say. do what you have to do even if it means breaking the law.

now when you print stupid sh@t like that on a PUBLIC forum for all the world to see don't be a bit surprised if the powers that be come a calling because YOU broke the law and YOU violated someones rights.

if he did not do anything wrong then he will be vindicated.

just because you have rights, they do not give you a go ahead to do whatever you want to do. that's why we have laws..

and will one of you so called civil rights activists explain to me just exactly what rights are being taken away?

give it a rest, investigating someone who may have committed a crime is just that. you guys need to strike the tents and get back into the real world, quit whining about it not being fair, and go and get the job you want, cause you will not get a job sitting around complaining. but you do have that RIGHT.

and one more thing if you clowns think that burning the flag earns you points you are mistaken. that is the actions of complete morons, protest if you must but keep the flag out of it. if this country displeases you so much then find another country that will take you in.

PhiloX,

Are you baiting us for information needed to enforce the NDAA program that is coming our way? Will you give all patriots a clue as to when we should consider that our rights will be violated? Before SOPA? During SOPA or NDAA?

Stand in the middle of a train track with that blindfold on. You can't see the train and we'r telling you it's coming. One body bag please.

Does the old literary work "Animal House" touch a nerve anyone?

How about a "Disturbance in the Force"?

Forest for the trees?

Oh! That can't happen. Can it?

Dumb down America.

Bend over.

Animal Farm.

Please tell them not to burn the flag, because 99% of Americans do not burn our own flag.

It's just the 1% that shi*s on it!!!

Poor deluded people. The OWS movement does not represent most Americans. The last poll I read is that 70% of us are now against it! How do you get 99%??????????

It is not the percentage of us that supports OWS, it is the percentage of us that bare the burden of the taxes versus our income. 99% of us pay more taxes from our income than the 1% who have the highest incomes. They pay 1/3 of the total tax burden, but they also make 2/3 of the total income.

NOT ACTUAL NUMBERS, illustrative only: We, the 99%, pay $1.00 in tax for every $10.00 we earn. The 1% pays $1.00 in tax for every $1,000.00 they earn. AGAIN, these are NOT actual numbers, it is just to illustrate the difference in how much taxes by income we pay versus what the 1% pays in taxes by income.

if you are sitting in a park in a tent with no job.....HOW are you paying taxes?

Some of us own businesses. Others have small investments. And then you have Reporters and others that have incomes they pay income taxes on.

Some protesters are there for the weekends, then back to work during the week. No more than half of the protesters are unemployed. Many of those are under employed.

Remember, there are Union members protesting too, and they are employed.

There are others who have some money and don't have to physically hold a job; they just aren't among the 1% who get to pay less taxes on their incomes.

Some are retirees. They may not be paying taxes in some cases, but they have payed into the system and understand how corrupt it has become and believe in doing their part to help fix it.

And lastly, just because a person is currently unemployed does not mean they have always been unemployed.

@DonCorneo - do you have any sort of proof for your lies? The 1% pay 38% ($392,149,000,000 out of $1,031,052,000,000) of all taxes paid, yet they earn 20% ($1,685,472,000,000 out of $8,462,625,000,000) of the wages. These are factual numbers, not some cockamamie theory or example. Those in the 1% pay $2.38 for every $10 earned, those in the top 5% pay $2.07 for every $10 earned, those in the top 10% pay $1.87 for every $10 earned, those in the top 25% pay $1.57 for every $10 earned, those in the top 50% pay $1.36 for every $10.00 earned, those in the bottom 50% pay $.26 for every $10 earned. These are real numbers, straight from the IRS's website, not just an example.

@ Linda M (agreeing with you):

"Poor deluded people. The OWS movement does not represent most Americans. The last poll I read is that 70% of us are now against it! How do you get 99%??????????"

Because the 1% (probably much less) that is the OWS has appointed themselves spokespersons for the 99%. They'll tell you that the 70% of the pollsters who disagreed are just plain wrong or too stupid/ignorant to speak up for themselves, and that they, the remaining 29% of the polled people, have to carry all the weight for everybody, in order to save the world (I'm not making this up....read the numerous posts above and below calling the people who disagree with their ideas and/or methods too dumb to agree with their distorted crisis).

@djorlando. Amen! The most well spoken I've read so far.

I argee whole heartedly - I'm certain he is into allot of other bull@!$%# - Ever heard of Capone/Tax Evasion - There's always a way to bring them to justice!

Obama, so long as he is president, is legally immune from prosecution and is not required to participate in any legal proceeding unless impeached by congress. Try using the internet to learn about what you are talking about before using it to spread your ignorance.

Obama's attorney ignored the Georgia court's order to appear. This could end up in his highness being decertified from the ballot in that state.

I think I read somewhere that obama said he didnt need geargia to win reelection so it doesnt matter if hes on the ballot or not

Why is Georgia wasting tax dollars on this crap? You can actually now buy a mug with Obama's birth certificate on it....get over it morons.

@Sickofthieves:

There's not a proceeding scheduled. The gubment just wants to get his tweets. I imagine he can refuse to attend his day in court later on for the disorderly conduct charges (and whatever they might add on once they have his words), but that would probably just result in a default judgement against him (and a contempt of court charge?). Besides, there are probably a couple of distinctions between O's lawyer and this guy's lawyer.

if you practice public ignorance, then you have to take the punishment without whining.

What private ignorance are you talking about?

His quote Wally, was actually about public ignorance which I translate to mean government misconduct including but not limited to: Illegal searches and seizure, 4th Amendment; attempt to use the citizen's own words against him, out of context as in expressing ideas in Tweets that are way too short to expound upon an idea as prohibited by the 5th Amendment and finally by separating the reporter from the herd in an attempt to make a lesson of him for the benefit of the rest of us which, I believe, is a violation of his 14 Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Throw in poison fruit evidence, maleficence, misfeasance, official oppression and abuse of power and you are starting to get the picture of a Government, Controlled by Corporate-People, blindly swinging the sword of justice on a crowded street, not caring who gets hurt, killed or maimed so long as their profits continue to translate into personal wealth that can be managed from the Cayman Islands and stored for safekeeping in a Swiss Bank Account.

so bob, what you are saying is that in lieu of your cause, it is okay to break the law? you sound like a common terrorist. in other words, the occupy wall street movement has broke the law, destroyed property, disrupted businesses , violated other peoples civil rights trying to get buy you to get to WORK, and you claim that is justified? then when one of your own hooligans gets investigated for doing these things you write a book about civil rights. listen bub, your not the only one with civil rights. you are walking a thin line, your civil disobedience ploy is just gonna go down hill from here, your just to dense to realize it.

Kilroy, this is what happens when you don't have money to buy free speech. When the voices of millions of people are being drowned out by an elite few and nothing is getting done to fix the mess our economy is in, then what options are left for normal citizens to take?

The laws you say OWS are violating are, if anything, minimal compared to the injustice of our tax system. Advocating for fairness should not be demonized. You people against OWS are un-American Fox News sheep.

when do you need money to speak your mind? you lose ALL credibility when you break the law, the very country you say is taking away your rights, gives you the right to protest, not break the law, you are blaming the 1% saying THEY are the reason YOU cannot get a good job, get ahead, etc, really? why not? nobody owes you anything, you owe it to yourself to go and take the bull by the horns. YOU are the master of your own destiny, not the 1 %, turn all that energy into something positive, blaming others for your lack of motivation is a cop out.

Illegal searches and seizure, 4th Amendment; attempt to use the citizen's own words against him, out of context as in expressing ideas in Tweets that are way too short to expound upon an idea as prohibited by the 5th Amendment and finally by separating the reporter from the herd in an attempt to make a lesson of him for the benefit of the rest of us which, I believe, is a violation of his 14 Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Throw in poison fruit evidence, maleficence, misfeasance, official oppression and abuse of power.

Wow...you know, you ought to throw the government a bit of praise here for their extreme efficiency in accomplishing all that in just the past few days since they announced the subpoena! (if only they'd get my tax return back so fast). Actually, they must have a touch of omniscience, too, cause I don't think they've actually received the tweets yet. Boy have they put the screws to this guy....what'd he get, like 10-20?

Perhaps wait a moment and see what happens here. What odds would you give for the system working the way it should, without any of the dire events above actually happening? Or has all the ill already transpired because the prosecutors tried to subpoena broadcast words that may support their case?

Perhaps they already have good evidence and/or testimony that this feller actually did incite violence or other crimes in his tweets. If he did broadcast such words to a large group of people, do you excuse that?

Yes you do have something to worry about: they can purposely take things out of context and spin their own meaning to it.

If you Tweet "Break it up", who knows what you are talking about? Break up the police line? Break the bridge up? Break somebody's car up? Or break up a fight? Or maybe break up a cracker?

You can bet all your Freedom that the Prosecutor will try to make it sound like you meant to cause harm, even if the Prosecutor knows 100% you were not doing so.

The agenda right now is to make OWS look bad. The corrupt individuals in our Goverment are become afraid that the American people will wake up and smell the coffee, realize it is bad and needs to be thrown out so new coffee can be brought in. OWS is a threat to their power and self interests. OWS stands to upset the status quo which means the corrupt individuals in our Government will no longer be living off the sweat of the American People.

how about this................ people should stop posting their lives!!!

we worry so much about big brother, yet we are the ones willfully submitting to him and are actually the very ones creating the potential for that to happen. twitter by definition is there for people who want the world to know what they are doing. twitter is an arm of big brother, so I am sorry, if you joined big brother, don't complain when it;'s used against you.

why isn't there an outcry when they subpoena someone's computer? those files may not ever have been intended to be public. yet we are all ok with that.........but twitter, you put it out there for all to see, so don't complain when they do.

The agenda right now is to make OWS look bad.

Or, is the agenda to prosecute citizens who committed disorderly conduct crimes?

Tip: if the popo tells you to quit blocking traffic...quit blocking traffic. Or, if you need to demonstrate disobedience, man up and take whatever heat it causes.

so if you get accused of (not convicted) doing something wrong - you're ok with the government going through records of all your personal online activities?

No, but I would be OK with the govt going through my public comments that are directly related to their accusations. That is the best way to quash the accusations.

It's called an investigation if you are accused with probable cause.

Wally, nobody can be accused of probable cause.

This kid was accused of disorderly conduct ... and what "investigation" needs to occur in what he "said" on Twitter to know if his "conduct" of being on the roadway where the police told him to go that day and then arrested him for being on that very roadway was "disorderly"?

That's GREAT!!! Next they'll subpoena the bank records...right?

arteu - I am reading your blog as stating that you don't believe that our judicial system should be used to prove or dispell an accusation. We could go back to the witch hunts, where any accusation meant a witchduck. Float, you are a witch and burned. Drown and you are innocent. Or the judicial system before that. You would be accused. If you couldn't win in hand to hand combat, you were guilty.

more laws are based on what might occur, not on what actually happened. You are guilty until proved innocent. As far as the law is concerned all are guilty. except for those who write or inforce the laws.

You DO NOT understand your rights very well.

It also appears that you have limited knowledge of how the legal system works if you do not understand subpoenas....

Yes, and all those corporate dictators should have the right to all their emails and memos, right? If they sent in-company emails to a large group of employees, with instructions or opinions on how to break laws to separate more money from you, that's privileged, right?

You don't even know what your rights are Peg, let alone which ones have been "taken away".

ask the tsa about your rights- ask homeland security about what rights have been taken away- im sure you wont like the answer

@Wally: Amen, Wally.

This is what happens when you get violent and disobey lawful commands.

Actions have consequences.

Maybe we should ask Wally who he works for? LoL Trolling Wally???

No one says you can't assemble and peacefully Protest. I would support that completely. But when you are infringing on OTHERS rights (like blocking traffic, camping in public parks, destroying public/private property) that is NOT peaceful protest.

Wally...

How much does DC pay you to be a suck up mouthpiece?

Baaaaaa.....baaaaaaa....baaaaaaaaa.....baaaaaaaa

All hail the QUEEN! Oh, that's right. We staged protests and got rid of her.

Sana,

When/where was it said they couldn't assemble? Err, welll...I guess they did get told to quit assembling in the middle of traffic....gosh, such injustice. And the horrible way they just started macing people for doing absolutely nothing at all!

Tell me how many other countries would have stood by and allowed what DID go on? I'm GLAD I'm here in the US, where free speech IS alive and well. Had I wanted to, I could have attended, held signs, chanted, smelled bad....the whole banana. I myself wouldn't have crossed the "civil disobedience" line and gotten arrested, because my job requires a clean record, but if I had, and bought some mace in the face, I hope I'd have enough knowledge of which laws I was breaking and just man up about it. Do all you folks consider civil disobedience consequence-free? Gosh, I think the 60's hippies, although severely drug impaired, had a clearer concept about it than you guys (or maybe they had a higher pain threshold for mace).

Myself, when the popo tells me to do something I do it. "Stop demonstrating here, and go demonstrate over there". OK. Cchhhching....no mace!

So the police charged the guy as an "occupy protester" too? Bastards! I guess he was one of the lucky ones, though, huh? And all the others got sent to Guantanamo for criticizing the government?

Unfortunately, behind almost all "anti" establishment protests, there lurks the anarchist, ready to burn and assault. If any group protesting bears witness to them acting in such deviant manner, drop them there and tie them up for the authorities.

I know, they could be using this technique on you, but start somewhere. With all the video being shot, someone must have proof of those doing the tying. It would help show those against the whole group protesting, that you all are not alike.

One of the more reasonable comments made on here. Others have immediately assumed that rights have been violated, and the system is doomed. Yes, let's see what happens.

You are arrested for a reason.

And what was the reason here, Wally?

Over 700 protesters were arrested that day, charged with the "disorderly conduct" of BEING on the bridge or roadway AFTER the police had lead them to that very roadway. It's all on video.

So, the reason for their arrest was ....???????

What privacy? Last I checked the whole point of Twitter was to share your thoughts to the world. You want privacy, then keep your thoughts in a diary. If you put them on the internet, you had better set the privacy settings pretty high before you start crying about your rights because once you put them in a publicly accessable forum, then it is no longer private.

Those of you who use social media to spread your ideas to the world then cry about "invasion of privacy" amaze me at how stupid you are. You shout at the world, then seem surprised when the world answers back with a dissenting opinion. No rights are being violated, folks. In fact, the prosecutors are following the rule of law.

Boy-OH-Boy....... Wally sure is interested in gathering information here. Wonder why?

The Founders were for individual freedoms like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to crap on your neighbors lawn. The also provided for the court system, because...like the poor, the evil will always be with us.

Wally, So now you say: " like the poor, the evil will always be with us." The Poor are Evil?? I say, you need to get out in the world and see for yourself what is going on. So turn off you TV and go out side, there is a whole world out there you need to learn about..

as member of veterans for peace this issue needs to be highlighted all over the world!to many have died (murdered)!!!!!!!our whole system has been sold out . we need to start prosecuting these traitors and have them in the world courts. treason is a crime.

@doncat - reading comprehension not a strong point for you? Wally said, like the poor, the evil will always be with us, meaning like the poor will always be with us, so will evil. He did not say, the poor are evil and will always be with us. He could have just as easily said, like the rich, evil will always be with us. Or like the good, evil will always be with us. There will always be rich people and poor people. There will always good people and evil people. The court system was set up because our founding fathers knew there would always be people who would break the law and they wanted to ensure all people had rights, not just those who were willing to take from others.