Senate approves more wiretapping powers

NYT: The Senate voted on July 9 to approve expanded surveillance powers to the government. Moreover, the bill includes legal immunity for phone companies that cooperated in the National Security Agency wiretapping program after 9/11.

The Times called the bill the “biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years.” FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will be significantly changed.

SC law permits Christian license plates

CNN: South Carolina’s legislature last month passed a law that would permit drivers to obtain a Christian license plate with the words “I Believe” accompanying a cross and a stained glass window. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed suit in federal court, saying that the license plate law gives preferential treatment to the Christian faith.

The law reads: “The Department of Motor Vehicles may issue ‘I Believe’ special motor vehicle license plates to owners of private motor vehicles registered in their names. The plate must contain the words ‘I Believe’ and a cross superimposed on a stained glass window. The biennial fee for this special license plate is the same as the fee provided in Article 5, Chapter 3 of this title. The guidelines for the production of this special license plate must meet the requirements contained in Section 56-3-8100.”

Americans United executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn said that these license plates “will not see the light of day” as they give preference to one religion over all others.

South Carolina permits any organization to get special license plates with 400 prepaid applications for the special plate or $4,000 from the individual or organization requesting the plates.

Editorial: South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has said he is willing to pony up the $4,000 for the plates (another entanglement between church and state?). Interestingly, South Carolina also had a law permitting “Choose Life” license plates, with fees going to crisis pregnancy support programs, and explicitly NOT to “any agency, institution, or organization that provides, promotes, or refers for abortion.” In fact, South Carolina is one of 17 states (according to Guttmacher) with “Choose Life” plates, but the law has been permanently enjoined (see Planned Parenthood v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786 (4CA 2004)).

1A rights of anti-abortion activists upheld

LA Times: The Ninth Circuit said that the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion activists were infringed when they were ordered to leave the site of a middle school they were circling with enlarged images of aborted fetuses.

In Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept., a panel of the Ninth Circuit said that police violated the First Amendment when they required the activists to remove their truck from an area adjacent to the middle school. There was some disruption to normal school activities, but the court said that it was not acceptable to remove the speakers just when they started to get reactions from their intended audience and noted that “listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.” The court added, “Plaintiffs’ speech was permitted until the students and drivers around the school reacted to it, at which point the speech was deemed disruptive and ordered stopped under § 626.8. This application of the statute raises serious First Amendment concerns.”

Read the opinion here. Read California Penal Code 626.8 here. The truck is the Canadian version of the Center’s trucks — presumably similar to those driven around the middle school. The Center’s website is here — WARNING, as soon as you access the website, a graphic video of an actual abortion in progress loads.

Hawaii gets a shield law

Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Hawaii governor Linda Lingle has signed a shield law to protect Hawaii journalists from having to reveal source names and notes in state courts. The law has a three-year sunset provision to allow review. Reporters must disclose information in felony cases or libel suits, and the law requires a three-part test to be met by district attorneys (no alternative sources, noncumulative and necessary to the case).

Even bloggers get coverage under the law as long as their work is in the public interest. HB 2557 can be read here.

Editorial: “Noncumulative”?  It should also be noted that this shield law focuses on the person writing the material, not the content of the material. The law will apply to individuals whose positions are “materially similar or identical to that of a journalist or newscaster, taking into account the method of dissemination.”

Google must turn over YouTube search data

LA Times: A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over search data for YouTube to Viacom for use in its $1 billion copyright infringement case against Google. Viacom said that it will not use the personal information in any way that would identify individual users: ”Any information that we or our outside advisors obtain — which will not include personally identifiable information — will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google, will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner.”

Privacy advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out that even without identifiable information such as IP numbers and user names, search histories can be used to identify a person as was done when AOL released search engine data in 2006.

Editorial: Shouldn’t YouTube be in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if it responds to notices of infringement by taking down the allegedly infringing content? Viacom says it needs the records to demonstrate routine posting and watching of copyrighted works. Why should this matter if YouTube appropriately responds to each notification?

Image from TechShout.