Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from http://www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."

dbackjon wrote:Very disapointing. And note this is a lefty site as well

dbackjon wrote:Very disapointing. And note this is a lefty site as well

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Very disapointing. And note this is a lefty site as well

Seems I've pointed this out before...


The left eat their young...because their moral values are a novelty rather than the core.

SMFH

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Very disapointing. And note this is a lefty site as well

And as I've pointed out many times...the Patriot Act should have been one of the first things the Obama administration should have eliminated...but once they understood the power available to them to go after anyone not supporting their agenda, NO ADMINISTRATION would give that up...

Chizzang wrote: SMFH
Typical 1/2 the story...

Timothy M. Morrison is a registered Republican conservative U.S. Attorney... who on June 25 in 2008 submitted a Subpoena requesting data from a Liberal News site and did again on the 24th of last month



get the whole story - He assisted during the Bush U.S. Attorney scandal in the state of Indiana...

Oh the humanity

One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote: SMFH
Typical 1/2 the story...

Timothy M. Morrison is a registered Republican conservative U.S. Attorney... who on June 25 in 2008 submitted a Subpoena requesting data from a Liberal News site and did again on the 24th of last month



get the whole story - He assisted during the Bush U.S. Attorney scandal in the state of Indiana...

Oh the humanity

One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Very disapointing. And note this is a lefty site as well

And as I've pointed out many times...the Patriot Act should have been one of the first things the Obama administration should have eliminated...but once they understood the power available to them to go after anyone not supporting their agenda, NO ADMINISTRATION would give that up...

Chizzang wrote:Baldy,
You posted this as an Obama Brown shirt, evidence of Liberal hypocrisy... etc. etc.
What it turns out to be is Conservative U.S. Attorneys subpoenaing Liberal News Organizations
Baldy Conservative: "FAIL"




3....2....1... * crickets

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

Chizzang wrote:Baldy,
You posted this as an Obama Brown shirt, evidence of Liberal hypocrisy... etc. etc.
What it turns out to be is Conservative U.S. Attorneys subpoenaing Liberal News Organizations
Baldy Conservative: "FAIL"




3....2....1... * crickets

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Baldy,
You posted this as an Obama Brown shirt, evidence of Liberal hypocrisy... etc. etc.
What it turns out to be is Conservative U.S. Attorneys subpoenaing Liberal News Organizations
Baldy Conservative: "FAIL"




3....2....1... * crickets

What part of, "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general", do you not understand?

NEWSFLASH: Alberto Gonzalez is no longer the Attorney General of the United States. Sorry...

Cleets' Harvard Education: "FAIL"

Skjellyfetti wrote:From your article, Baldy:

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

I guess the headline at Drudge is the only thing needing to be read.

JMU DJ wrote: Failing to read when the subpoena was filed in both the original article and in a rebuttal post = FAIL


... you should really read these articles before blasting off

Baldy wrote:

JMU DJ wrote: Failing to read when the subpoena was filed in both the original article and in a rebuttal post = FAIL


... you should really read these articles before blasting off

Sorry, Ace....

The date of the subpoena is Jan. 23, 2009. Clearly issued at the beginning of the "hope and change" era.

This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap.

Try again...

Baldy wrote:

JMU DJ wrote: Failing to read when the subpoena was filed in both the original article and in a rebuttal post = FAIL


... you should really read these articles before blasting off

Sorry, Ace....

The date of the subpoena is Jan. 23, 2009. Clearly issued at the beginning of the "hope and change" era.

This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap.

Try again...

Baldy wrote:

JMU DJ wrote: Failing to read when the subpoena was filed in both the original article and in a rebuttal post = FAIL


... you should really read these articles before blasting off

Sorry, Ace....

The date of the subpoena is Jan. 23, 2009. Clearly issued at the beginning of the "hope and change" era.

This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap.

Try again...

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Sorry, Ace....

The date of the subpoena is Jan. 23, 2009. Clearly issued at the beginning of the "hope and change" era.

This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap.

Try again...

You've been schooled here, Baldy. Time to limp back to AGS and fight with the eighth graders.

"Grizalltheway"

Funny part is, he undoubtedly started the exact same thread over there, and the conk circle-jerkers probably lapped it up like warm milk.

JMU DJ wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Sorry, Ace....

The date of the subpoena is Jan. 23, 2009. Clearly issued at the beginning of the "hope and change" era.

This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap.

Try again...

Eric Holder... in office since Feb, 3rd 2009.


Your move

Baldy wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:
Eric Holder... in office since Feb, 3rd 2009.


Your move

Are you insinuating that Chairman Obama's minions weren't in control of the Attorney General's office after his inauguration?

Damn Liberals and their reading "comprehension". I will type it out for you again word for word. "This falls squarely into Chairman Obama's lap."

If you want to put your head into the sand and blindly dismiss this like Cleets, even you have to admit there are some grave concerns residing in the AG's office:

1. A "Rogue Conservative" (Cleets, you make me laugh) Assistant US Attorney is running amok inside the halls of justice at the AG's office, and

2. You have an incompetent rubber stamper as Attorney General of the US because he hasn't quashed this subpoena in 10 months, and allowed this egregious error to be picked up by the media.

Those are your two scenarios:
Either the Obama Administration is getting drunk off it's power and circumventing the Constitution, or Eric Holder is a complete boob and is just like his boss, in over his head.

You choose.

Check Mate...

Chizzang wrote:

"Grizalltheway"

Funny part is, he undoubtedly started the exact same thread over there, and the conk circle-jerkers probably lapped it up like warm milk.

Seriously,
They don't like being compared to Rush Limbaugh - yet continue to act just like Rush

Obama Brown shirts stifle free speech..!!!
Oops.. Turns out: conservative US Attorney appointed during the Alberto Gonzales debacle attacks Liberal News agency...

We can still blame this on Obama..!!! when does it get embarrassing..?