One step at a time.
Sep. 29th, 2004 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe home team wins one:
Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al., No. 04-CIV-2614.
A federal judge ruled the gag order clause of The PATRIOT ACT was overbroad (it makes it a crime to tell anyone the FBI has come looking at things, or asked about them... this is part of the library fracas). The Gov't says it hasn't been used, but who can say... if they lie about it, telling them you were searched, queried, etc., is a federal offense.
An extract from the opinion: "Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction."
Given that the Gov't demanded a huge amount of redaction in the filings (including the, not as infamous as it ought to be, blacking out a Supreme Court decision citation, "The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.") this is a hopeful sign.
Regrettably, the judge stayed the decision for 90 days to allow the Gov't to appeal (and they will) but now the someone has to make a decision, or it voids that. I'd rather he'd given them 30 days, so it could be brought up before the election, but a tally in the win column is a tally to the good.
Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al., No. 04-CIV-2614.
A federal judge ruled the gag order clause of The PATRIOT ACT was overbroad (it makes it a crime to tell anyone the FBI has come looking at things, or asked about them... this is part of the library fracas). The Gov't says it hasn't been used, but who can say... if they lie about it, telling them you were searched, queried, etc., is a federal offense.
An extract from the opinion: "Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction."
Given that the Gov't demanded a huge amount of redaction in the filings (including the, not as infamous as it ought to be, blacking out a Supreme Court decision citation, "The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.") this is a hopeful sign.
Regrettably, the judge stayed the decision for 90 days to allow the Gov't to appeal (and they will) but now the someone has to make a decision, or it voids that. I'd rather he'd given them 30 days, so it could be brought up before the election, but a tally in the win column is a tally to the good.
