By Mac Slavo
The blogosphere is sounding off about a pending new Obama policy that would impact not only the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st Amendment as well.
As incredible as it seems, individuals would be in violation by “merely posting information on the Internet about common firearms” which “could be interpreted as illegally sharing sensitive information with foreign nationals”
Applying issues related to “exporting” and “foreign nations” under an international treaty to individual on-line speech (under the guise of improperly sharing technical data about firearms) may seem like a stretch, but it is apparently what is happening, unless public opposition is voiced before this oh-so quiet regulation sets in towards the end of summer.
While it remains to be seen if such a policy would be enforceable, the mere redefinition of Internet activities – now under FCC regulation – is startling, suggesting that the “bark” about guns may be just as threatening to this anti-gun administration as the “bite” of ‘military-style weapons’ like the AR-15 that so frequently drives media coverage. According to theWashington Times:
Gun control and control of free speech would be combined in a new Obama administration plan that could send Second Amendment advocates to prison.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is furious about new regulations announced last week. The plan uses national security as an excuse to threaten gun advocates with prison time for sharing information about “military-style weapons. The problem is that almost every firearm is considered “military-style” by President Obama and the gun-control crowd.
These new restrictions involve commonly and legally available personal firearms.
Under the new proposal from the State Department, merely posting information on the Internet about common firearms could be interpreted as illegally sharing sensitive information with foreign nationals. So Mr. Obama’s plan is two-for-one in restricting constitutional rights: He would combine gun control with control over free speech.
And the penalty for violating this policy could be drastic if upheld:
The penalty? 20 years in prison plus a $1 million fine for each violation. Each time that any foreign national accesses the data is considered a separate violation.
Wow… I guess that’s pretty severe – enough to discourage even chance encounters with loose talk about one of the most sacred items that many Americans own.
The NRA is charging that the interpretation of language in the proposal would have the State Department treating online speech about firearms in the same way it treats actual firearms when it comes to the regulation of their “export.”
It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.
[…] the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.
The rationale is technical, but maybe that’s the point. The potential to enforce gun speech all about catching people on the technicalities, and is tied to the history of participation of in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). None of that will stop it from creating consequences for those it would go after:
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.
The end run around the 2nd Amendment is nearly complete, giving Obama until the end of his administration to set in place legal hurdles that even a gun-toting, pro-2nd Amendment, NRA- and Tea Party-backed politician would be hard pressed to undo completely.
I’ll see ya’all in jail,,,,,, or the morgue!
In the “Land of the Free” You Can Face 20 Years in Prison for Clearing Your Web Browser History
By Matt Agorist
Boston, MA — Khairullozhon Matanov, a former taxi driver, is scheduled to appear in US Federal Court next week to face sentencing on charges of obstruction of justice related to the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing.
Matanov did not participate in or have any prior knowledge of the bombings, according to U.S. authorities. However, those facts are irrelevant.
Matanov could be locked in a cage for 20 years because he cleared his browser history in the days following the attacks.
A Grand Jury indictment issued on May 29, 2014, states that Matanov “deleted a large amount of information from his Google Chrome Internet cache” following the bombing, including “references to the video of the suspected bombers [later identified as the Tsarnaevs],” “two of the photographs of the bombers released at approximately the same time,” and “a photograph of Officer Sean Collier, who had been allegedly killed by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.”
For those who may be unfamiliar, if you browse the web, you have a cache. A cache is a repository for stored data that is used to expedite the process of retrieving data. Caches are used to speed up a process so that data does not have to be recomputed or fetched from its original location and, therefore, saves time.
Because Matanov deleted his cache, he was charged with “Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records, Documents, and a Tangible Object in a Federal Investigation” which could land him in a cell for 20 years.
The government has admitted and the indictment makes clear they have “no evidence that Matanov had foreknowledge or participated in the bombings.” Yet he’s been in jail this entire time.
Matanov is seemingly being prosecuted for just knowing the alleged bombers.
Because Matanov does not want to spend decades behind bars he pleaded guilty to all of the charges, while asserting his innocence the entire time.
“You’re afraid if you go to trial you could be found guilty of all four of these charges and the sentence might be longer than the 30 months?” the judge asked. “Is that it? That you think you are not a guilty person but given the circumstances you’d rather [not] go to trial?”
To which Matanov replied, “I signed a deal and I found guilt most fitting for my situation.”
The law used to ruin this man, who claims he’s innocent, dates back to 2002 and was enacted by Congress under Bush. It’s called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
In a report last week for the Nation, Juliana DeVries explained the nature of such legislation.
“Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway,” she wrote. “In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer’s number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete.”
TechDirt’s Tim Cushing explains that under Sabanes-Oxley, “U.S. citizens are almost expected to hold onto everything, just in case… and if you’ve ‘destroyed’ any data prior to the examination of your electronic devices, you could face felony charges for performing simple computer maintenance.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury agreed, telling The Nation that the U.S. government wants and believes it deserves access to all online data for policing purposes, according to CBC.
Fakhoury said that the government’s “underlying theory” is this:
“Don’t even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don’t have access to that data, we’re going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you.”
“LAND OF THE FREE”, MY ASS! If the average American had peanut size balls the scumbags in DC would be headed to china. FREEDOM IN AMERICA HAS BEEN LOST FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON. MOST AMERICANS ARE CHICKEN SHIT!