Linda Tripp's recordings of Monika Lewinsky led to the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton. Afterwards, she was charged for violating Maryland's wiretapping laws in what has been termed "the most disgraceful, transparent campaign of politically motivated vengeance in recent American history". In an irony of disgraceful proportions she was the only actor in this drama to face criminal charges. To most of us she was a heroine who blew the whistle on our debauched former president.
Fast forward 10 years to today and nearby Pocomoke City. Stephanie Burke and husband Billy are political activists running a blog critical of the town administration. Stephanie also ran for town council against the local machine backed apparatchik. She was defeated last Tuesday by an unprecedented and overwhelming absentee ballot campaign supporting the town machine. The ballots have all been seized by the State's Attorneys office and an investigation of voter fraud is under way.
Thursday, Pocomoke City police raided the Burkes home, seized all electronic equipment, and arrested Billy for "wiretapping". It seems that Billy recorded a public rant by the town mayor on the town hall steps. He sent the recording to the State's Attorneys office as evidence of wrongdoing by the town administration. Clearly, he didn't feel he was violating any state law by recording statements in public because he then sent that recording to the State's Attorneys office.
It sure looks like the Linda Tripp case of "politically motivated vengeance" all over again. There is, however, one even more troubling difference. Linda Tripp did wiretap over the telephone as it's commonly understood. The Burkes recorded an elected official in a public area.
Between their blog and run for office the Burkes are a mortal threat to the Pocomoke machine. Their fight for good and open government is gaining ground and we can only hope that their efforts and suffering will bring about much needed change in Pocomoke City.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Victory In The Fight Against Eminent Domain Abuse
Eminent domain abuse is one of the most insidious crimes against citizens of towns nationwide. Runaway town spending forges an unholy coalition between developers and their municipal administration allies. Together they try to fatten tax roles by condemning middle class homes to make way for upscale development. Citizen groups fighting this abuse have faced all kinds of obstacles from their respective municipalities and developers including "slap" lawsuits. Well chalk one up for the good guys this time. The following is from the Institute For Justice http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2656&Itemid=165 .
March 30, 2009
Arlington, Va—Evidently you can fight city hall—and fight private developers who use city hall’s power, too.
In an order issued on March 26, 2009, Judge C.L. “Buck” Rogers of the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tenn., vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a former member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC). Swift and Wilkinson sued the CPRC because its members criticized them for supporting Clarksville’s controversial redevelopment plan, which authorizes the use of eminent domain for private development. In a newspaper ad, the CPRC noted that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers and said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.”
The court ruled, “Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited [and] wide open. . . . Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation.”
“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain,” said Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the CPRC in defense of their free speech rights. “The decision puts thin-skinned politicians and developers on notice: If you file a frivolous lawsuit against people just for criticizing your public actions, your case will swiftly be thrown out of court.”
Across the country, in places like Renton, Wash., and Freeport, Texas, there has been an ominous trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to suppress the speech of home and business owners who oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development. The CPRC’s victory in Clarksville resoundingly reaffirms that the First Amendment protects that speech.
“I am thrilled that the court reached the right decision to protect my right to free speech,” said Joyce Vanderbilt, a member of the CPRC. “Swift and Wilkinson tried to bully us with this lawsuit, and the court just told them that they should never have brought it in the first place.”
“We won this fight not just for us, but for every home and business owner who gets sued just for speaking out against eminent domain abuse,” said Pam Vandeveer. “I’m glad that this is still a free country.”
Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as local counsel for the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.
March 30, 2009
Arlington, Va—Evidently you can fight city hall—and fight private developers who use city hall’s power, too.
In an order issued on March 26, 2009, Judge C.L. “Buck” Rogers of the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tenn., vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a former member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC). Swift and Wilkinson sued the CPRC because its members criticized them for supporting Clarksville’s controversial redevelopment plan, which authorizes the use of eminent domain for private development. In a newspaper ad, the CPRC noted that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers and said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.”
The court ruled, “Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited [and] wide open. . . . Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation.”
“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain,” said Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the CPRC in defense of their free speech rights. “The decision puts thin-skinned politicians and developers on notice: If you file a frivolous lawsuit against people just for criticizing your public actions, your case will swiftly be thrown out of court.”
Across the country, in places like Renton, Wash., and Freeport, Texas, there has been an ominous trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to suppress the speech of home and business owners who oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development. The CPRC’s victory in Clarksville resoundingly reaffirms that the First Amendment protects that speech.
“I am thrilled that the court reached the right decision to protect my right to free speech,” said Joyce Vanderbilt, a member of the CPRC. “Swift and Wilkinson tried to bully us with this lawsuit, and the court just told them that they should never have brought it in the first place.”
“We won this fight not just for us, but for every home and business owner who gets sued just for speaking out against eminent domain abuse,” said Pam Vandeveer. “I’m glad that this is still a free country.”
Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as local counsel for the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Eastern Shore Freedom Of The Press Case Part II
The Maryland Supreme Court case concerning a local developer and local bloggers is put into perspective by the following article.
In defense of anonymous Web posters
By Marta Mossburg
Examiner Columnist | 3/3/09 5:19 AM
Zebulon J. Brodie, an Eastern Shore businessman, may not enjoy having his Dunkin’ Donuts called “dirty” any more than I like being called a “tool” by anonymous Web posters, but he better get used to it.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last week that newspaper Web sites, blogs and other sites do not have to give up the identities of anonymous posters except under well-defined circumstances.
Good. Call those people cowards or jerks or liars, but their speech should be protected in the same way that all other speech is under the First Amendment.
As the decision from the state’s highest court notes, “anonymity or psuedonymity has been a part of the Internet culture” from its beginning. It has also been a part of U.S. culture from our founding.
Anonymous pamphleteers railed against political leaders in party newspapers, “the Republicans with a scurrility that even modern bloggers rarely achieve,” wrote Myron Magnet in the most recent issue of City Journal.
Democracy depends on people speaking their minds to thrive. And in this era of newspaper closings, forcing Web posters to reveal their identity would effectively shutter the “comments” section on most sites, limiting speech even more.
Imagine a United States where the government or a powerful person or company could demand the personal information of account holders on newspaper sites or Internet providers as in China. It sounds far-fetched, but a Maryland trial judge could have made that situation much more likely.
Many postings do nothing to inform and elevate the populace by most standards – unless you count speculation on celebrity relationships and nasty personal attacks against members of the opposite political party in that category. But perceived quality of work should not be the deciding factor of whether someone’s comments deserve anonymity.
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, “Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.”
This does not mean that writers should always be given a free pass, however. As Walter Abbott found out, the First Amendment does not protect threats to criminal action. The Parkville, Md., man was convicted in October of writing an e-mail to Gov. Martin O’Malley that said he would strangle him. Abbot was given a suspended sentence of six months’ in prison and two years’ probation.
But that was not the case here. Brodie, the developer with a Centreville Dunkin’ Donuts, wanted the names of anonymous posters writing on a forum run by Independent Newspapers Inc. He claimed they defamed him in their comments about his restaurant.
The Appeals Court decided that Brodie did not correctly identify the posters who made those comments, negating his claim to their names. But the court went farther by outlining a process judges should follow “to balance First Amendment rights with the right to seek protection for defamation.”
It found that a plaintiff must make a reasonable attempt to notify anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena; give the posters time to respond; transcribe the comments exactly as written by the posters; and show how those comments have defamed him or her. The court also found that judges must balance First Amendment rights against the strength of the evidence against them.
That makes sense. Those tests follow ones made in other courts and standardize how Maryland courts should look at claims instead of dealing with them on a case by case basis.
Next time Brodie and those like him would be better served by marshalling supporters to advocate for his cause instead of using the courts to try to skewer a few random Web posters.
In his case, scrupulously maintaining a clean restaurant would have been the best means to combat accusations a minute portion of the population read in an online chat forum instead of publicizing them through a lawsuit.
While those scrutinized by bloggers and other posters may not like what people write about them, tolerating mean accusations, even false ones, is better than silencing the voices of Marylanders. Truth, like lies, needs voices to spread.
Examiner columnist Marta H. Mossburg lives in Baltimore.
In defense of anonymous Web posters
By Marta Mossburg
Examiner Columnist | 3/3/09 5:19 AM
Zebulon J. Brodie, an Eastern Shore businessman, may not enjoy having his Dunkin’ Donuts called “dirty” any more than I like being called a “tool” by anonymous Web posters, but he better get used to it.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last week that newspaper Web sites, blogs and other sites do not have to give up the identities of anonymous posters except under well-defined circumstances.
Good. Call those people cowards or jerks or liars, but their speech should be protected in the same way that all other speech is under the First Amendment.
As the decision from the state’s highest court notes, “anonymity or psuedonymity has been a part of the Internet culture” from its beginning. It has also been a part of U.S. culture from our founding.
Anonymous pamphleteers railed against political leaders in party newspapers, “the Republicans with a scurrility that even modern bloggers rarely achieve,” wrote Myron Magnet in the most recent issue of City Journal.
Democracy depends on people speaking their minds to thrive. And in this era of newspaper closings, forcing Web posters to reveal their identity would effectively shutter the “comments” section on most sites, limiting speech even more.
Imagine a United States where the government or a powerful person or company could demand the personal information of account holders on newspaper sites or Internet providers as in China. It sounds far-fetched, but a Maryland trial judge could have made that situation much more likely.
Many postings do nothing to inform and elevate the populace by most standards – unless you count speculation on celebrity relationships and nasty personal attacks against members of the opposite political party in that category. But perceived quality of work should not be the deciding factor of whether someone’s comments deserve anonymity.
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, “Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.”
This does not mean that writers should always be given a free pass, however. As Walter Abbott found out, the First Amendment does not protect threats to criminal action. The Parkville, Md., man was convicted in October of writing an e-mail to Gov. Martin O’Malley that said he would strangle him. Abbot was given a suspended sentence of six months’ in prison and two years’ probation.
But that was not the case here. Brodie, the developer with a Centreville Dunkin’ Donuts, wanted the names of anonymous posters writing on a forum run by Independent Newspapers Inc. He claimed they defamed him in their comments about his restaurant.
The Appeals Court decided that Brodie did not correctly identify the posters who made those comments, negating his claim to their names. But the court went farther by outlining a process judges should follow “to balance First Amendment rights with the right to seek protection for defamation.”
It found that a plaintiff must make a reasonable attempt to notify anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena; give the posters time to respond; transcribe the comments exactly as written by the posters; and show how those comments have defamed him or her. The court also found that judges must balance First Amendment rights against the strength of the evidence against them.
That makes sense. Those tests follow ones made in other courts and standardize how Maryland courts should look at claims instead of dealing with them on a case by case basis.
Next time Brodie and those like him would be better served by marshalling supporters to advocate for his cause instead of using the courts to try to skewer a few random Web posters.
In his case, scrupulously maintaining a clean restaurant would have been the best means to combat accusations a minute portion of the population read in an online chat forum instead of publicizing them through a lawsuit.
While those scrutinized by bloggers and other posters may not like what people write about them, tolerating mean accusations, even false ones, is better than silencing the voices of Marylanders. Truth, like lies, needs voices to spread.
Examiner columnist Marta H. Mossburg lives in Baltimore.
Monday, February 16, 2009
When Pigs Fly
Our town manager has written a letter to me demanding that I apologize by March 2nd for my blog post "Charter Change Would Disenfranchise Elderly Voters". He doesn't seem concerned with the main point of the post which is summed up in the title. Instead, he's concerned that the town clerk gets credit since it was her idea to begin with. Whew...this is "I was only following der orders" turned on its head. Regardless of the who first came up with this brain fart, the fact remains that it was the town manager who presented this "idea" using the words "we" and "I propose" repeatedly at the January 26th workshop. No matter what the source, this proposal would disenfranchise voters not known for their fealty to the "town manager party" only a short time before the town election.
Instead of me apologizing for reporting the facts, I think that the town manager owes us an apology. In fact, I can think of 238,000 reasons for an apology as our budget deficit (which preceded the global financial crisis) leads to the shrinking of town services including police protection.
Instead of me apologizing for reporting the facts, I think that the town manager owes us an apology. In fact, I can think of 238,000 reasons for an apology as our budget deficit (which preceded the global financial crisis) leads to the shrinking of town services including police protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
