Untitled Document
Taking a Closer Look at the Stories Ignored by the Corporate Media
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact

NEWS
All News
9-11
Corporatism
Disaster in New Orleans
Economics
Environment
Globalization
Government / The Elite
Human Rights
International Affairs
Iraq War
London Bombing
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism
Miscellaneous

COMMENTARY
All Commentaries
9-11
CIA
Corporatism
Economics
Government / The Elite
Imperialism
Iraq War
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism

SEARCH/ARCHIVES
Advanced Search
View the Archives

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly

POLICE STATE / MILITARY -
-

John Doe challenges PATRIOT Act gag order

Posted in the database on Thursday, September 29th, 2005 @ 12:17:02 MST (1432 views)
from Vermont Guardian  

Untitled Document

BRIDGEPORT, CT — In August, a Connecticut library organization was served with a national security letter demanding sensitive information about patrons, including borrowed materials and Internet use. And since the USA PATRIOT Act says that anyone who receives such a letter is prohibited from ever telling anyone about the demand, this organization is known only as John Doe.

Nevertheless, Doe decided to challenge the secret letter in court, and on Sept. 9 U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall said the gag order violates the First Amendment. "John Doe" has a First Amendment right to engage in the "current and lively debate in this country over the renewal of the PATRIOT Act," she ruled. An appeal by the government is expected.

According to a column in the Hartford Courant by Christine Bradley, director of the Connecticut Library Consortium, librarians are “concerned about the disastrous effect of the PATRIOT Act on their professional responsibility to protect the privacy of patrons.” Debate over its re-authorization is underway in Congress.

The act authorizes federal officials to examine patron records and belongings, even if they aren’t investigating a particular person; it allows the FBI to demand records without prior judicial review; and makes no distinction between library records and other business records.

Ann Beeson, ACLU associate legal director and lead attorney in the case, said “the court has recognized that gagging our client from participating in the PATRIOT Act debate violates the First Amendment and is profoundly undemocratic. Today's ruling makes clear that the government cannot silence innocent Americans simply by invoking national security."

In 2003, former Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly characterized librarians' concerns that the PATRIOT Act could be used to target library records as "baseless hysteria."

Bradley predicts that “these brave Connecticut Yankees will show lawmakers that the way to be a patriot is to protect civil liberties. Librarians, booksellers and others are concerned about the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.”



Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.
Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly




Untitled Document
Disclaimer
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact
Copyright 2005 Looking Glass News.