The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/04/14/Amy_and_David_Goodman_Standing_Up_to_the_Madness

Mother Jones journalist David Goodman tells the story of four Connecticut librarians who were ordered by the FBI to release library records under the Patriot Act. After filing suit against the Attorney General to challenge the order, the librarians eventually won the case.

—–

The longtime host of the award-winning Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman has steadfastly covered grassroots activism, the political process, and government accountability. She has co-authored many books with her brother and fellow journalist, David Goodman.

Their collaborations include investigations into the mercenary aspects of war, media culpability, freedom of information, and international human rights, and seek not only to expose endemic corruption, but also to affect change.

Their bestselling book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, examines the full political spectrum, from The Washington Post to Bill Clinton, in an effort to bring genuine accountability into public discourse. The Goodmans’ latest project is Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times. Standing Up to the Madness celebrates grassroots activists across America and the power of the individual to bring change on a local and national level. – City Arts and Lectures

David Goodman is a contributing writer for Mother Jones. and co-author of Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders and the People Who Fight Back.

Duration : 0:9:31

Read more about The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

Constitutional Law, Legal History and Civil Liberties at the University of Virginia School of Law

Professor Risa Goluboff discusses the Law School’s constitutional law, legal history and civil liberties programs during an Admitted Students Open House.

Duration : 0:8:52

Read more about Constitutional Law, Legal History and Civil Liberties at the University of Virginia School of Law

Lawrence Lessig: Congress to Blame for Bush Era Mistakes

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/08/Lawrence_Lessig_on_Institutional_Corruption

Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig explores the concept of institutional responsibility by comparing a boarding school sexual abuse case with Congress during the Administration of President George W. Bush. In both cases, he argues that witnesses who did not act responsibly should be held just as culpable as the offender.

—–

Larry Lessig introduces the Safra lecture series with a discussion on institutional corruption.

He explores the prevalence of this form of corruption in fields ranging from politics to medicine to journalism, and describes his plan to study and contain this problem. – Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University

Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a professor at the University of Chicago.

He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. For much of his career, he has focused on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright.

Recognized for arguing against interpretations of copyright that could stifle innovation and discourse online, he is CEO of the Creative Commons project, and he has been a columnist for Wired, Red Herring, and The Industry Standard.

Duration : 0:3:11

Read more about Lawrence Lessig: Congress to Blame for Bush Era Mistakes

Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

A Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

LibertyInOurTimehttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/libertyinourtimeEducationwendt, asc2010, case, for, civil, law, over, commanA Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

Duration : 0:24:44

Read more about A Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Pulled form PBS Show called “The Botany of Desire pt1 Cannabis”

MARIJUANA CANNABIS MARIHUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZE WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL JACKSON DOPE GRASS BONG RIP JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NWO NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS H1N1 Flu HASH GANJA HEMP SEX LIBERTARIAN RAGE swine LEGALIZATION POT ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET LIBERAL COMPASSIONATE PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EDUCATION ACTIVISM HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro HIGH ECONOMY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE hosser420 NORML MPP DMT legalize conservative sex tits freedom GMO New Jersey nj

Duration : 0:2:49

Read more about WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Follow us on Twitter.

Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Duration : 0:6:2

Read more about Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Why Do Hot Girls Wan’t Weed Legal? (& Ugly Girls Like Beer Instead?)

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA CANNABIS HIGH MARIHUANA MEDICAL WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL PIPE BONG JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP legal cops POT PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ACTIVIST HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE conservative NEW YORK JERSEY CHRONIC NWO freedom GMO LIBERTARIAN ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET toke Sinsemilla HOSSER420 BAKED MSNBC CNN CBS marc emery BARRY COOPER love health cancer prop 19 California fox news ABC bp

Duration : 0:15:4

Read more about Why Do Hot Girls Wan’t Weed Legal? (& Ugly Girls Like Beer Instead?)

People and Power – Chiquita: Between life and law – 10 June 09

Fined $25m by the US federal court for funding a terrorist organisation, Chiquita, the US-based banana distribution company, is now facing a number of new lawsuits.

Duration : 0:23:56

Read more about People and Power – Chiquita: Between life and law – 10 June 09

Why You Must Vote Yes to Make Cannabis Legal!

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA CANNABIS HIGH MARIHUANA MEDICAL WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL PIPE BONG JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP legal cops POT PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ACTIVIST HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE conservative NEW YORK JERSEY CHRONIC NWO freedom GMO LIBERTARIAN ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET toke Sinsemilla HOSSER420 BAKED MSNBC CNN CBS marc emery BARRY COOPER love health cancer prop 19 California fox news ABC bp

Duration : 0:10:56

Read more about Why You Must Vote Yes to Make Cannabis Legal!