Seems the FBI doesn't like the 1st, either

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9947/boal.shtml

Since this link will expire on 30 November, I'm posting the story here as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Subversive Filmmaker Attracts the Wrong Kind of Agent

FBI's Shutter Speed

Success seemed imminent. A local TV station was airing a segment about his Web site, and he began to savor those precious moments of microfame. No more dingy years of self-subsidized screenings; now there'd be an audience for his art. But then came the FBI.

In a highly unusual move last week, FBI agents called mike zieper, an independent artist who goes by thename Mike Z., and "requested" that he remove his site from the Internet. When he declined, the FBI worked in tandem with the U.S. Attorney's office to persuade his Web host and its server to pull Zieper's site—18 days after it went up—without having a subpoena or court order of any kind.

Mike Z.'s Web site showed an eerie but amateur video that purports to be a military briefing. The clip opens with fuzzy shots of Times Square, over which an unseen male voice describes a secret army plan to incite a race riot on New Year's Eve. "First Team," he says "you're all here by oh-four hundred," and he then instructs undercover black agents to "Give them a little of the Amadou s***, agitate it."

The FBI was alerted to the site after receiving phone calls from people who thought its Blair Witch-style footage was genuine army issue. The opening banner on the site read, "I don't know too much about this tape you are about to see. I got it from my cousin Steve who's in the army. . . . If it's fake, then there's nothing to worry about. If it's real, then we're in really big trouble."

The FBI's call came when Mike Z. was at a friend's house last Thursday watching his UPN 9 interview. Suddenly, his pager hummed, and when he called the number back, it turned out to be the local New Jersey sheriff's department at his front door with two FBI agents in tow, wondering if they could come in for a chat. Then agents Dan Calemina and Joe Metzinger got on the phone and said, " 'We know that you have this Web site and that it has been getting a lot of activity,' " Z.
recalls. " 'And we want to know how we can get people to stop seeing it.' The implication was obviously that I would face a
subpoena or an arrest if I didn't [take it down]," Z. says.

Instead, Z. contacted attorneys and put his computer in storage. But the agents made an end run around him. When Z. refused to pull his site, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office contacted Z.'s host, BECamation, the next day. And that was all it took. "I had no choice but to pull the site down completely or I would have lost my business," says Mark Wieger, BECamation's president, who feared that his own ISP would cut him off. Lisa Korologos, an assistant U.S. Attorney, requested that Wieger "remove the content so that it could not be distributed," Wieger says. (Both the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI had no comment.)

Wieger later apologized to Z. in an e-mail: "To us a $75 job is not worth losing our business over. . . . We regret that this
has happened and to lose you as a customer."

While Internet service providers are commonly subpoened by law enforcement officials, an attorney who specializes in cyberliberties at the ACLU could not recall a similar case in which the officers acted without a warrant. "I've never heard of anything like this involving the FBI," said Ann Beeson, a staff attorney at the ACLU.

Neither had Z., who was terrified when the agents called. "I was thinking, am I a criminal? I started to imagine those orange jumpsuits and spending time in jail." Z. believes intimidation was the point of the conversation, and that, says the ACLU, runs afoul of the First Amendment.

"Even though the ISP may not have been told, 'You must take it down,' there are still serious constitutional problems," says Beeson. "It is certainly constitutionally suspect for law enforcement to implicitly threaten any private entity with censorship." (The ACLU is considering a suit.)

For Z., blurring the line between truth and fiction is what makes his work unique. "I like to get people into a space that's not framed by narrative," Z. says of his video. "My work always looks like something that was not made for public consumption, and here it tries to address issues of race." For now, those issues will have to wait.

Tell us what you think. editor@villagevoice.com
[/quote]

And while we're at it, how about visiting www.becamation.com and signing their guestbook?

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.


[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited November 24, 1999).]
 
Wow, can you say Thought Police.

On another note, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA to all these stupid "liberals" that bash the Second and supposedly cherish the First. Guess that they'll have to learn the hard way.

I am dissapointed in the ISP though. Should have hung tough.

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
 
The Bill of Rights as a whole is the enemy of government control. If they had it their way, the BoR would only apply to them and not us.
 
I am dissapointed in the ISP though. Should have hung tough.

Such is the way freedoms are lost: one is faced with a high cost of exercising the freedom (the ISP facing FBI harassment and cost of lawsuits) and weighs it against the benifits (hosting someone's obnoxious minor project). The ISP told Z (paraphrased) "it's $75 in business vs. being shut down by the FBI. Sorry."

Regardless of the FBI shutting down the site, the video has been copied, reposted, and widely distributed. Free Speech took a lump but won the fight.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"I had no choice but
to pull the site down completely or I would have lost my
business," says Mark Wieger, BECamation's president,
who feared that his own ISP would cut him off[/quote]

This is why the Internet is vulnerable to LE...its a chain and they can always go above you to threaten someone.

me....my ISP(primary)... next level ISP(secondary)...next level ISP(tertiary)...and so on. From purely an economic standpoint only at the secondary/tertiary levels is an account worth fighting for.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Jeff-
I'm not an ISP, so I can't provide the service. However, this story saddens and disturbs me.

ctdonath <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Regardless of the FBI shutting down the site, the video has been copied, reposted, and widely distributed. Free Speech took a lump but won the fight.[/quote]
I disagree. Free Speech should not be subjected to such abuse. Free Speech has lost unless someone's career is ended as a result.

The FBI's mandate is to enforce the law; not to determine what is in the public's "best interest"; not to enforce their idea of propriety thru coercion and threat.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited November 24, 1999).]
 
Coinneach, I wouldn't be surprised if Louis Freeh (what an ironic name for a moronic man) required all Americans to quarter FBI agents in their homes. After all, why leave the 3rd out when trampling the BoR?

------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
 
Ipecac, you got *that* right. Hell, with this latest assault, they've stabbed the 1st *and* the 4th in the back. Why not force us to quarter JBTs at no charge? And as an extra added bonus, having fedgoons under your nose effectively negates the 5th as well!

The only articles in the BoR that the Feds haven't tried to kill are the 3rd and 6th. How much longer can they resist the temptation?

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
A British gent was getting some heat from his govmint about his website, so he took to angelfire.com and cyber-rights.org and they both put it up. Here is the link: http://www.angelfire.com/ab2/irvine/

I suggest this guy do the same.


[This message has been edited by Leadfoot (edited November 24, 1999).]
 
If we have to quarter government officials in our homes, I hope I draw Janet Reno. heh, heh, heh.

I'll put her in the same room with my 87 y/o Mom. She'd fricasee Reno in less than 24 hours!

((Ding dong, the witch is dead, the witch is dead, the witch is dead.....))
 
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I recall a comment from one of the Nine Supremes that "...yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre..." is not protected under the First Amendment.

I can understand the worries of Law Enforcement people, given the tinderbox nature of racially-connected scenarios. Recall, if you will, the public panic which occurred during the radio broadcast of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds".

That said, the *Process* (or lack of Due Process) is the part that is worrisome. I can understand the FBI checking things out, but they should have also gotten a warrant from a judge and taken the case to court. They could have applied for a restraining order to gain a respite while the courts considered the matter. To me, this would have been "Due Process".

As it was, the FBI acted as judge, jury and executioner. Amateurish panic.

FWIW, Art
 
Art maybe your theatre analogy would go like this in this case, You gag all the viewers upon entering the theatre so they cant yell "FIRE"? Could this apply to what the man is doing? Dont know for sure if this is paralel or not. Just my .2
 
I read all the links re: this assault on the First Amendment. I also signed the guest book at BECamation and told them exactly what I thought. If the FBI or any other government entity harasses any citizen or business they don't particularly care for, then they need immediate disbanding. I am sure they will now come for me, but not before I had my say in public, under my own true name. I looked for another to have their say in the guest book, but none was forthcoming. Why?

------------------
Nancy
The original point and click was a S&W
 
Art E. said: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I recall a comment from one of the Nine Supremes that "...yelling
'Fire!' in a crowded theatre..." is not protected under the First Amendment.[/quote]

True enough, but it's not the same issue. Yelling fire when there is none is an abuse of the right which could lead to death, injury, and monetary loss. Putting info up and saying "This could be true or not" causes none of this to happen. It's not inciting a riot.
Punishment for the abuse of rights exercised irresponsibly in a way that causes some loss or harm or infringement on rights is the moral use of the force of law. Pulling websites because they might possibly be inflamatory but have yet caused no harm is censorship, plain and simple. One has to ask oneself, "Why are they worried?" If it's not true, it will reveal itself in due course. The only reason they might have for wanting it gone at this point is to keep it from getting out because it MIGHT be true. Can't have the world in general being aware that in the middle of November, the gov't has foreknowledge of a "race riot" occuring 6 weeks hence. Might be just a tad suspicious if such a thing does occur.
One thing's for sure; this coming New Year's promises to be highly interesting, no matter what happens. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be too "interesting."

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
Back
Top