Grassroots groups speak up for Net Neutrality

Earlier this week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Network Neutrality policies that would preserve the open Internet on all wired and wireless networks. While the battle is far from over, this was a positive step forward for grassroots groups who partnered with the Media and Democracy Coalition to collect signatures in support of network neutrality from 40 grassroots groups representing communities of color, low-income communities, and other historically marginalized communities from across the U.S.

Read the coalition’s letter.

Excerpt:

…It is well documented that people of color and low-income individuals are among the least-connected segments of the U.S. population. In 2009, 46% of African Americans had broadband at home, and only 35% of households with incomes $20,000 and under had access, compared to the national average of 63% of adult Americans. That means millions of African Americans and low income individuals fail to get jobs that their connected neighbors get; their children struggle more to complete their homework; and their voices are not heard as loudly in important civic debates.  The very real divides between race and class in U.S. society continue to be perpetuated on the Internet.

[snip]…We are also steadfast in our support for efforts at the FCC that would prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating content on the Internet.  These network neutrality rules are needed for people of color and low income individuals to be creators of Internet content that is relevant to their communities, not just consumers of content that is profitable for big cable and phone companies.

Civil Lib Groups Endorse H.R. 3845, American Lib Assoc. Issues Action Alert

A coalition of 20 civil liberties organizations, including the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), released a letter today endorsing the USA Patriot Amendments Act (H.R. 3845) and pointing out the failures of the Senate’s PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act (S. 1692). As their names suggest, the Amendments Act proposes reforms to the expiring sections of the USAPA, while the Extension Act pretty much extends the USAPA provisions with very few promising changes. The next review will be in 2013.

CDT compiled this very helpful chart that compares the two bills to the current law. Check out the difference on gag orders (p. 2 and 4) and on Section 215 orders that would capture personal info from a library or bookseller (p. 3). Also note that H.R. 3845 places limits on roving wiretaps, and proposes the “lone wolf” provision be allowed to expire.

Today, the American Library Association (ALA) endorsed the ACLU’s call to action and expressed its support for the House reform bills as well. The ALA alert includes background info and talking points.

H.R. 3845 and 3846 will be “marked up” next Wednesday, Nov. 4. That means now’s the time to contact your reps. Yes, especially if you want to push this debate even further around issues of immigrant rights and profiling. Remember it was during the Senate mark-up period earlier this month that Sens. Feinstein and Leahy abandoned their commitment to curb dragnets against individuals, communities and human rights orgs. Some California Reps., like Dem. Jane Harman, are already supporting this legislation. Can’t hurt to remind her.

What else can you do? Write letters to the editor. Get FISA Right posted some templates to get you started.

View full Center for Democracy & Technology post.

House Judiciary Session Scheduled

The House Judiciary Committee is expected for a classified hearing on Patriot Act issues and proposed surveillance reforms on Thursday October 29 at 2:30pm EST. There are several ways to stay up-to-date and participate in the public discussion. But, most importantly, contact your state reps right now and consider writing an editorial in your local papers.

1. Contact your representatives now using the new action forum posted by the ACLU. The action text, thankfully, draws attention to some of the oversights in the current reform legislation, calling on representatives to continue pushing for stronger public protections and repeal of expanded FBI powers. In particular we need to continue demanding changes to Section 505 as well as the slippery definition of “material support” which leaves social justice and human rights organizations vulnerable to targeting and criminal prosecution. Add your own two cents now.

2.Write an op-ed or letter to the editor. I haven’t done a Nexis search to confirm this, but Get FISA Right posted on Tuesday that media coverage of the surveillance reform bills H.R. 3845 and H.R. 3846 has been slim to nonexistent. Here they provide Letter to the Editor templates you can use to raise these issues in your local papers.

3. Participate in today’s live discussion at the Patriot Act Action Hub.

Read more:

From today’s Huffington Post: Sen. Wyden warns Congress to abandon hasty fear-based policymaking.

From Irregular Times: A round up of information on the reform legislation being considered, H.R. 3845 and 3846.

See also, my prior posts on the California Library Association’s Patriot Act resolution (make your own!) and the need for deeper coalition building on these issues (includes more recommended resources).

Informing Innovation: No More Technolust

Today I’m blogging from a conference on student (and generally young adult) library users hosted by LAUC-B. I’m about to go into a breakout session with e-learning specialist Char Booth on community-centered research. Here’s a great new book:

Booth, Char. (2009). Informing Innovation: Tracking Student Interest in Emerging Library Technologies at Ohio University (A Research Report).

In it Booth presents practical tools for getting to know what tools and technologies local communities actually need and want. Yes, “research is where it’s at.” No more technology for technology’s sake. While Booth’s writing about academic libraries, the concepts and tools in this document offer valuable insights for public libraries and for nonprofit information centers. Speaking personally, this has been an area of my work for a long time — first, trying to select appropriate new technologies for then-Web 2.0 novice staff and community members (at a grassroots nonprofit), and later, researching and sequencing reference tools for public library users in Contra Costa County, CA. In all instances we need more models for thoughtful community research.

“This book by Char Booth examines one institution’s efforts to move away from technolust and towards a ‘culture of assessment.’” Read it.

Add ons:

Informing Innovation: Survey Instrument (PDF 268 KB): Download a template library/technology survey instrument, which can be adapted to customize a local environmental scan similar to the Ohio University Libraries project

Dynamic Webcast (Flash Video – Streaming): View a dynamic webcast of Char Booth and Chris Guder’s 2009 ACRL National Conference presentation, “If You Build It, Will They Care?”, which summarizes findings and practical applications of the Ohio University Libraries student environmental scanning project.

H. Resolutions Bring PATRIOT Reforms Back Into Focus

Tuesday, the House Representatives proposed new legislation to keep the focus on needed changes/repeals to the USA PATRIOT Act by the end of 2009. Track the Patriot Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845) and the FISA Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3846) on GovTrack, also includes the full text of the bills and list of cosponsors.

These bills were introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA).

Additional analysis of the Senate Judiciary PATRIOT Act extension bill were covered in a prior post, and numerous background sources on the law (treatises, advocacy orgs, articles) are covered in my USAPA 2009 Resource Guide.

Mud Stencils Remind Wisconsin “Books Liberate”

Some creative souls spent the weekend making a public statement with mud! Activists in Wisconsin created mud stencils to send a message to Dept. of Corrections Security Chief Dan Westfield who, a year ago, banned used book delivery to prisoners. The book service had been run by the Rainbow Bookstore for years.

"Why Deny Used Books to WI Prisoners?" (Madison, WI)

On CNN: It Seems You Can’t Even Buy a Balanced Debate

On Twitter, @mediajustice just shared this: CNN rejected a television ad from immigrant reform advocates. The ad, critical of CNN’s own Lou Dobbs for his anti-immigrant and patently inaccurate tirades, was produced and sponsored by Media Matters and America’s Voice.

Dobbs’ hour-long show airs daily and has also been the target of the grassroots Basta Dobbs campaign in recent weeks. Ironically, that campaign is asking the show’s advertisers not to lend credibility to sensationalist, and racially hateful, journalism. While media outlets always reserve the right to reject ads, CNN seems to be sending the message that Dobbs deserves his pulpit while his critics do not. Yes, not even if they buy it.

From a public debate standpoint there are many nuances to this campaign and the Dobbs criticism. I plan to address those in future posts. But, for now, I will say: We need to understand media accountability as distinct from censorship, and journalistic speech as a powerful form of speech that can and should be held to a high standard by the public. If a journalist, even in an editorial form, is being irresponsible with their influence it’s the public’s right to challenge that influence, especially when lies are let to stand by a media outlet. Some would say this is a slippery slope to free speech infringement. I disagree. It’s a matter of understanding media accountability models developed within a human and civil rights framework — frameworks that inherently value freedom of speech and information (more on this in later posts). Further, just like book challenges provide a pulse-check on ideological debates (information we need!), media accountability campaigns bring necessary perspectives to the surface. It’s only then that we can engage the questions, “Are all ideas created equal?” and “Whose agenda is reflected in the criticism?” In the Dobbs case, does a major media megaphone for this particular man’s ideas create more danger and inequity than social good? And finally, if media outlets must operate in the public interest, is Dobbs’ particular brand of punditry in the public interest? Do we define that interest, or does the corporate outlet?

More on this story from the Huffington Post.

Watch the Media Matters ad.

Calif. Library Association Asks Congress to Do What Judiciary Did Not

October 13, 2009 • SACRAMENTO, CA — The California Library Association (CLA) has just announced a resolution calling on Congress to dramatically revise the up-for-renewal USA PATRIOT Act, passed hurriedly in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks.

Librarians have been front-line opponents of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act since its passage. The Act has made it possible, under Section 215, for the FBI to request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity. This jeopardizes the basic ethics of the library profession, expressed in the Library Bill of Rights of the American Library Association.

Expanding on the American Library Association’s PATRIOT Act resolution last July, the CLA resolution goes further to address imminent First and Fourth Amendment concerns with Section 505. This provision grants the FBI broad authority to sidestep constitutional safeguards though use of National Security Letters to obtain information.

CLA Intellectual Freedom Committee chair, Mary Minow, a leading expert on library law, said, “It’s past time for the blatantly unconstitutional aspects of this legislation to be removed from the books, and now is the opportunity for Congress to act.”

Two sections of the PATRIOT Act are currently up for reauthorization, with sunsets at the end of December 2009, and librarians across the country see this as an opportunity to correct those provisions that attack basic civil liberties. CLA’s resolution calls for Congress to allow Section 215 to sunset, to amend Section 505 to “include a clear exemption for library records,” and in general to intensify Congressional oversight of the use of the Act.
* CLA Resolution on 2009 Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act (PDF, 481k)

For more information, please contact:

Mary Minow, Chair,
CLA Intellectual Freedom Committee
408-366-0123

Amy Sonnie, Member,
CLA Intellectual Freedom Committee,
415-823-0497

or cla_ifc  [a t]  earthlink [dot]  net

Sustaining Libraries & People Who Love Them

In light of not so nice news in the world of libraries and social justice, here’s two nice things about today:

1) Someone told me I ‘looked’ like a librarian (without knowing I am one) as I sat researching away on my computer, which they followed with the exclamation, “God, I love libraries!”

2) I visited one of my favorite art blogs for some web/graphic design inspiration, and I saw this:

by Mary Tremonte, www.justseeds.org

God, I love artists who love libraries.

Feinstein, Judiciary Say We Deserve Even Fewer Rights

Unfortunate news. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary voted to extend expiring PATRIOT Act sections for another four years. The vote was 11-8 with California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as expected, among the majority in favor of prolonging the FBI’s expanded powers. I have it on good authority that Feinstein does not want to be “hounded by librarians.” This is second-hand, but let’s consider that a compliment!

The issue is now on to the Senate floor, making public and organizational pressure even more important. Let’s increase the hounding!

Judiciary Panel Approves Patriot Act Sections

New York Times, The Caucus, by Charlie Savage

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation to reauthorize three sections of the so-called Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year, after largely rejecting a series of proposed changes to surveillance laws sought by civil liberties and privacy advocates.

By a vote of 11 to 8, the committee sent the legislation on to the Senate floor. The bill would extend provisions that expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the course of counterterrorism investigations. [continue reading]

Obama Sides with Republicans; PATRIOT Act Renewal Bill Passes Senate Judiciary Committee Minus Critical Civil Liberties Reforms

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Deeplinks

…the Committee this morning voted to accept seven Republican amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act to remove the few civil liberties protections left in the bill after it was already watered down at last Thursday’s Committee meeting. Surprisingly and disappointingly, most of those amendments were recommended to their Republican sponsors by the Obama Administration. [read full article]

Protester Arrested for Using Twitter During G-20

News to know: Twitter user arrested for using the social broadcast tool during G20 in Pittsburgh, PA. Democracy Now reported this morning in “Twitter Crackdown.” Elliot Madison, New York-based social worker was arrested and later had his home raided for using Twitter to spread information about police actions during the recent G-20 protests in Pittsburgh.

Leahy, Feinstein About-Face on Civil Liberties

Update: “Lawmakers Cave to FBI in Patriot Act Debate” in Wired.com.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee chairman, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced last-minute changes (.pdf) that would strip away some of the privacy protections Leahy had espoused just the week before. The Vermont Democrat said his own, original proposal of last week could jeopardize ongoing terror investigations.

… The Leahy-Feinstein amendment, which is likely to be adopted by the committee and sent to the full Senate next week, does not require the government show a connection between the items sought under a Section 215 warrant and a suspected terrorist or spy.

Read the full article.

The PATRIOT Act in 2009: A Resource Guide

Since the passage of the original PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its revision in 2006, much national debate has centered on the legislation’s threat to privacy, intellectual freedom, and implicit sanction of pervasive racial profiling. As important sections of the PATRIOT Act are scheduled to sunset in December 2009, there is renewed opportunity to challenge unjust government spying on our communities. This guide offers resources to help civic and community leaders find both background and up-to-date information on the reauthorization debate.

What’s included in the guide:

HISTORY & BACKGROUND

• The PATRIOT Act Itself
• Treatises on the Law
• Helpful Articles
• Oversight & Watchdog Reports
• Prior Cases

STAYING CURRENT

• Pending Bills to Reform
• Outstanding Cases
• Useful Websites for Staying Current

Download the 2009 Patriot Act Resource Guide (PDF)
Last updated September 18, 2009 by A. Sonnie

Expanding the Definition of ‘Justice’ in the PATRIOT Act Debates

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. In the coming months the national debate about the PATRIOT Act will heat up once again. Three controversial sections of the Act are scheduled to sunset December 31, 2009. These are Sections 215 and 206 along with the “lone wolf” provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (Sec. 6001). The reauthorization process also presents new opportunities to address FBI rampant use of National Security Letters.*

Rep. Lamar Smith (TX) has already proposed legislation (HR 1467, Safe and Secure America Act) to extend certain sections, as they are currently written, with no reauthorization period for 10 years. Just last Thursday, Sens. Russ Feingold (WI) and Richard Durbin (IL) announced the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act proposing new reforms to both the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. Yet, still, the Obama Administration supports reauthorizing the Act without any added safeguards.

In 2009, the whole of the progressive community must take coordinated action to reverse the PATRIOT Act and reinvigorate public conversation. The debate is currently framed by those who favor extending these controversial sections versus those who seek greater judicial and congressional oversight and more narrowly tailored spying. Given this context, progressive activists and librarians may decide to support civil liberties advocates, such as the ACLU and the American Library Association, in achieving the safeguards proposed by the JUSTICE Act. But, we must do so mindfully while considering the limits of those reforms.

Much of the current debate relies on constitutional arguments about the First and Fourth Amendments. This makes sense in the courts where the judiciary is only obligated to consider interpretations of the Bill of Rights. But this is not the standard on which we should base our mobilizing. More is at stake than free speech and privacy. As librarian Emily Drabinski wrote during the last reauthorization period:

“There are … fundamental limits to a strategy of resistance that is essentially reactive and narrow in focus. While librarians respond quickly and effectively to challenges posed by the Patriot Act, we have little in the way of sustained resistance to systemic forces that undermine information equity and access in less visible but more fundamental ways” (2006).

This means, fundamentally, we must address the fact that the PATRIOT Act was born in the context of neoliberalism. Its foundation was laid long before September 11, 2001. So, as we consider a shared platform for public education, grassroots actions and Washington lobbying efforts, activists and progressive librarians should frame our concerns and solutions within the frameworks of human rights and global justice. This requires some deeper vision and deeper collaboration than we have attempted.

To start, a global justice vision of intellectual freedom has at its heart a practice of active solidarity with the communities (both domestic and international) most impacted by the War on Terror, including immigrants to the U.S. regardless of their citizenship status. Our demands must include an end to racial profiling and directly challenge attacks on dissent and political speech — such attacks were recently embodied by “homegrown terrorism” legislation (H.R.1955, S.1959, 110th), which passed the House by a vote of 404–6. The bill never became law, but we can expect to see similar legislation again.

A global justice vision of intellectual freedom draws connections between privacy erosion, the growing prison system, preemptive wars and the repression of global social movements. It has at its core a commitment to the abolition of torture, indefinite detainment, secret wiretaps and other forms of government surveillance. It means overturning the PATRIOT Act, not simply reforming it. We must not lend truth to the idea that safety and human rights are at odds.

Further, the library profession, in particular, needs to achieve broader coalition than we have in the past. Section 215 (dubbed “the library provision”) is a threat to more than just library patron privacy. While the library community mobilized quickly to challenge Section 215 and succeeded in winning important changes during the last reauthorization, the revisions do not go far enough. Warrants issued under Section 215 remain a danger to community organizing groups, charities, service providers, international aid organizations and, especially, groups working with communities of color and immigrants. Section 215’s expiration provides a critical opportunity for libraries to work in coalition with other impacted groups.

What do I propose? By joining with public interest, human rights, media reform, racial justice and grassroots global justice groups, the library community might help bring these policies into greater focus. At least one example in the right direction includes the joint proposals made by contributors to the document Liberty and Security: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress. Their collaborative effort to address broad information policy issues is an example to follow. I hope to post more community-based examples to this blog as the reauthorization debate gains momentum.

The 111^th Congress will make a number of important decisions over the new few months. The level of heat in those debates should be determined by the strength and coordination of our local-to-national organizing. With December 31 just around the corner, it’s time to light the match.

*NOTE: According to DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General, the FBI issued 192,499 National Security Letter requests between 2003-2006 alone. All but 3 of these NSL recipients are unknown because PATRIOT Act § 505 stipulates nondisclosure, or a gag order. We do know that San Francisco’s Internet Archive (IA) received one of these NSLs. The FBI ordered IA to turn over transactional records including the name, address, email headers, length of service, and activity logs for specific users. IA fought the request and gag in court. Details came to light in mid-2008. We should not miss the opportunity to build on the momentum of well-publicized NSL abuse.

Recommended Reading and References

Drabinski, E. (2006, Winter). Librarians and the Patriot Act. Radical Teacher. Retrieved from, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_77/ai_n27098778/

Gorham-Oscilowski, U., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). National Security Letters, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Constitution: The tensions between national security and civil rights. Government Information Quarterly, 25(4), 625-644.

Mart, S. N. (2008, March 12). The chains of the Constitution and legal process in the library: A post-Patriot Reauthorization Act assessment. [Unpublished working paper]. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Social Science Research Network at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105448. UPDATED VERSION AVAILABLE: 33 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 435 (2008).

Office of the Inspector General. (2007a, March). A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Security Letters. [NSL Audit Report]. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf.

Office of the Inspector General. (2007b, March). A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of Section 215 Orders for Business Records. [Section 215 Audit Report]. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0703a/final.pdf

Philadelphia Libraries Saved

Update on my previous post about Philadelphia library closures:

On September 17th legislators in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania voted to save the Philadelphia Free Library system along with jobs for 3,000 city workers. Thousands of letters and phone calls poured in from PA voters, library users and advocates across the nation after it was announced all 54 library branches would close October 2nd.

The Senate vote was 32 to 17 in favor of House Bill 1828, which temporarily increases local sales tax and defers city pension contributions to remedy a $700-million budget shortfall. If the bill hadn’t passed other critical city services would have been reduced including trash collection, court operations and the fire department. According to the Senate roll call, all democrats supported the bill. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans opposed and 41% supported.

Philadelphia: Stop Library Closures

Repost from About.com: Cities & Towns:

When Mayor Michael Nutter suggested slashing funds from the city budget late last year by closing 11 of Philadelphia’s 54 libraries, waves of shock and outrage rippled through the city. Now, as state budget negotiations continue to drag on in Harrisburg, the entire Philadelphia library system is threatened. The Free Library has posted an announcement on its website stating that “without the necessary budgetary legislation by the State Legislature in Harrisburg,” Philadelphia will be forced to close all of its libraries – including the main branch – on October 2nd. Earlier today the Inquirer further reported that “layoff notices could go out on Friday if the Legislature does not approve the city’s request for a temporary sales-tax hike and a two-year deferral of payments into the pension fund.”

The Free Library is encouraging Philadelphians to contact their elected officials and ask them to help keep the libraries open.

News & Resources on Gov’t Wiretapping

A year to the day since Pres. Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 expanding government wiretapping powers, five major government agencies have now released a report on the controversial issue. I’ve aggregated a few pieces of background information along with the report itself, civil liberties commentary and reports on related intelligence legislation. Links below.

In the News This Week

Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps
LA Times, July 11, 2009

The Report

Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program

Offices of Inspectors General, July 10, 2009

Analysis of the Report by the ACLU

Analysis from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who will argue a case in district court this week on the issue of NSA wiretapping of U.S. residents through communication provider AT&T (Jewel v. NSA).

Background

Privacy: An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping
Library of Congress, 2008

Warrantless Wiretaps: A Guide to the Debate
National Public Radio, 2006

Related Reports

Annual Wiretap Reports from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Each year the U.S Courts must submit a full report to Congress on all wiretaps for the prior year (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2519). These reports include analysis and outcomes resulting from surveillance efforts.

A Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters: Assessment of Corrective Actions and Examination of NSL Usage in 2006
Dept. of Justice, Office of Inspector General, March 2008

A Review of the FBI’s Use of Section 215 Orders for Business Records in 2006, Special Report, March 2008
Dept. of Justice, Office of Inspector General, March 2008

(These last two reports are updated annually. To stay up to date see the U.S. Department of Justice publications).

Who is Sonia Sotomayor?

This week the media was abuzz with charges that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is racist for a comment she made in 2001. Have it be known, I am not a fan of Sotomayor. But, the debate about her nomination provides yet another high profile pulse check on this country’s completely misdirected analysis of racism.

What is wrong with someone stating that her subject position — as someone who has faced a number of very real hurdles — might imbue her with a responsibility to think more sharply, more deeply, and with more complexity about the social and legal issues of our time? To me, her comment says nothing of being smarter or better; it is an articulation of her personal commitment to acting smarter, and striving for better thinking in lawmaking. She’s saying her experience provides a vantage point from which she might use her power more responsibly. Her comment reflects an ethic of holding oneself to a higher standard, of not forgetting what the world looks like from the other side of the bench.

As I said, I am not convinced she is the best for the court, but you should all decide for yourselves and ignore this nonsense about reverse racism.

The kind librarians at Library of Congress put together these resources for you:

Congressional Documents

These are her two confirmation hearings:

United States.  Congress.  Senate.  Committee on the Judiciary.  Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments, Part 9. Washington: US G.P.O., 1992.  S. Hrg. 102-505, pt. 9.

United States.  Congress.  Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.  Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments, Part 2. Washington: US G.P.O., 1998.  S. Hrg. 105-205, pt. 2.

Cases

According to Lexis, Judge Sotomayor authored 422 opinions when on the bench for the Southern District of New York and 232 opinions with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also wrote 22 concurring opinions and 21 dissents as an appellate judge. Second Circuit opinions are available from the Court’s website (use Sotomayor as a search term).

Click here for more articles, web resources and more on Sotomayor.

Legislation to Watch: H.R. 1476 and 1800

Last month, two important pieces of legislation were proposed in the House.

• The Safe and Secure America Act, H.R. 1467, was introduced on March 12, 2009 by Sen. Lamar Smith (R-TX). The bill proposes a 10-year extension on “roving” wiretap powers and government access to library patron records. These provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are scheduled to sunset this December. Rather than revise the constitutionally questionable sections, this bill would extend them (and the much contested FISA Amendments) until December 31, 2019. Stay up to date: Track H.R. 1467 here.

• The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2009, H.R. 1800, was introduced March 30, 2009, by Rep. Jerrold Nadler. The bill raises the standard needed for the FBI to obtain National Security Letters, and stipulates that NSLs must not be used to spy on U.S. residents based solely on First Amendment activities. See ACLU “Legislation Introduced To Curtail Patriot Act Abuse” (3/30/09), and stay up to date: Track H.R. 1800 here.

Digital TV for the People

Yesterday (April 17th) groups around the country teamed up for a Digital TV National Day of Action. Coordinated by the Media Action Grassroots Network, the multi-city effort is part of a months-long campaign for a more socially responsible transition to DTV (just around the corner on June 12, 2009!).

According to the coalition, “With up to 20 million people, including seniors, low mobility, low income, people of color and rural communities unready for the transition, we must ensure a no cost digital transition in the interest of democracy and the common good, not corporate profits.”

Participating cities included:

Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Louisville
Philadelphia
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Seattle-Tacoma
New York City
San Antonio

For more on the public information access and public space issues at stake, along with photos and stories from the National Day of Action, see the DTV for the People blog.

Video Book Report: Popularizes Hidden History

I am always delighted by research that unearths lesser known histories. So, I was excited to see this community-produced video posted by Alexis Pauline Gumbs on Facebook.

It highlights the work of Sojourners for Truth & Justice in the 1950s, a national Black feminist Marxist-Leninist organization — more than a decade before the women’s lib movement. The video is based on information in the book Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones by Carol Boyce Davies (Duke 2007).

The 3-minute video is a great teaching tool and an example of how students, librarians and community leaders can produce video “book reports” to promote learning and popularize books, ideas and history for a wider audience. Alexis used this video in a locally organized study session on Black feminist history.

Watch here.

You can also read more about Claudia Jones at the blog Black Feminist Mind.

Weigh In on Open Internet Access

The Internet for Everyone Coalition is asking for public input on the importance of universal Internet access. The brief survey asks for public recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission and the Obama Administration.

Free Press explains: “President Obama and Congress have tasked the FCC with developing a national broadband plan by the end of 2009. We want to be sure Washington is committed to finding people-powered solutions to bridge America’s digital divide… By taking the survey, you’re ensuring that people outside of the beltway have a say in America’s national broadband plan. Your top recommendations from the survey will help determine our next steps as Free Press and the InternetforEveryone.org coalition work to shape better Internet policy.”

Take the survey here.

I took it in under 5 minutes.

Amazon Censors LGBTQ Lit

During the last few days, thousands of LGBTQ titles were demoted by Amazon.com including my young adult anthology Revolutionary Voices.

The mega-store removed rankings from titles deemed “adult” — seemingly as part of a sweeping effort to remove erotica. It is unclear what “offending” keywords they used to strip books of their findability but the impacts were extensive. As of tonight many of the rankings have reappeared after massive public response. (Read background here).

But the issue is not resolved. Amazon originally claimed this was a “glitch” in its filtering effort. Today, Feministing.com confirmed that this is untrue, but a result of decentralized tagging for which “no human is responsible.” Regardless, we should keep pressure to find out how Amazon is filtering material, how decisions are made, and what will be done to prevent such “glitches” in intellectual freedom in the future. Let the letter writing continue! Amazon should not get off the hook for this one, and they are not the only major company blocking access to books. Content filtering is an ongoing issue among libraries, bookstores, schools, internet-service-providers, et al.

For Amazon’s contact info see this post from Sunday’s Daily Kos.

UPDATE from Monday 3/13: It’s true that a hacker claimed responsibility. Many are questioning the truth of that explanation as well. No matter the outcome, this incident still illustrates the general need for more transparency among information sellers/providers re: their search functionality and filters. (Last year, the medical database POPLINE blocked all searches for the word “abortion.”)

UPDATE 2: Decent article summing up controversy in New York Times.

For those in the San Jose area, there is a city council meeting on the issue of filtering in the public library next week:
TENTATIVE:
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM [Evening session]
Location: Wing Public Rooms Council Chambers
200 E Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA

April 14: Library Workers Day!

AFSCME supports 20,000 library workers nationwide

Tuesday April 14th, 2009 is National Library Workers Day! In honor of library employees and their unions, AFSCME hung this lovely banner outside their DC office. It reads “Library Workers Make America Happen.” Library workers with our patrons and communities, indeed, make things happen…

Love your libraries.
Love your librarians.
Love your community.
Love your unions.

See more info and news from AFSCME Library Workers here.

New African Activist Archive at MSU

The African Activist Archive Project is preserving records and memories of activism in the United States to support the struggles of African peoples against colonialism, apartheid, and social injustice from the 1950s through the 1990s.

The Project is building an online “people’s archive”including video, photos, written and oral history, documents and artifacts such a buttons and posters. According to the website, “The U.S. African solidarity movement was racially diverse and was a significant part of the broad struggle against racism in the United States. The movement involved many types of organizations across the country, and this project seeks to document as many organizations as possible that participated in activist work in solidarity with African people’s struggles. The geographic focus of activism in the collection is Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe; however, this focus is not exclusive.

This movement offers important lessons about popular organizing for social justice. The anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s-1994, in particular, was unprecedented. Campaigns by community activists, students, faculty, churches, unions, and city, county, and state legislators led to divestment from U.S. companies doing business in South Africa and culminated in passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that changed U.S. foreign policy over President Reagan’s veto.”

The archive invites anyone who can help document additional campaigns and organizations to contribute to the website or donate materials to a physical archive.

Get started by browsing here.

FISA Court: Privacy Rights Less Important Than Gov Info Gathering

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping
Washington Post, By Del Quentin Wilber and R. Jeffrey Smith

Excerpt: …The ruling, which was issued in August but not made public until now, responded to an unnamed telecommunications firm’s complaint that the Bush administration in 2007 improperly demanded information on its clients, violating constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The company complied with the demand while the case was pending.

In its opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled that national security interests outweighed the privacy rights of those targeted, affirming what amounts to a constitutional exception for matters involving government interests “of the highest order of magnitude.”

Read more.

View (heavily redacted) FISA Court ruling here. [PDF] download

Eric Holder Supports Warrantless Wiretaps, Defends PATRIOT Act

In yesterday’s hearing, attorney general nominee Eric Holder made it clear he intends to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and reiterated his support for FISA’s Protect American Act, which permits warrantless wiretapping.

Under Eric Holder, ‘War on Terror’ Would Still Define the DOJ

Alternet, By Liliana Segura, January 16, 2009

Excerpt: …Holder’s responses to the question of warrantless wiretapping gave even less to be optimistic about. “There are certain things that a president has the constitutional right that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon,” Mr. Holder said, stressing that wiretapping had proven to be a critical intelligence tool. Like Obama, he said he supported the immunity provisions for telecoms as provided for by the Protect America Act of 2007….

Coincidentally, Eric Holder’s confirmation hearing came on the same day that a federal intelligence court released an unprecedented ruling — made last August — that validated the Protect America Act. As Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times: “the decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans.”

New Journal Looks at Media Reform v. Media Justice

The International Journal of Communication has a new issue critically engaging with the media reform movement (Vol. 3, 2009). It is edited by Dan Berger and C. Riley Snorton, both radical scholars at University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication.

As a new movement (just over 10 years in the making), media reformers have adopted a centrist lobbying strategy to influence national media and telecommunications rulemaking. While national, this focus on media regulation and D.C. politics makes for a narrow coalition. Berger and Snorton along with Makani Themba-Nixon are just a few of those discussing alternative strategies, notably the work of grassroots media justice organizers who are rooted in social movements led by marginalized communities. As Themba-Nixon writes, “for many activists working for racial and gender justice, addressing the way media content defames and denigrates their constituencies is a central part of their media change agenda” — one that the media reform movement has deliberately sidestepped in favor of bipartisanship.

For radical librarians, issues of national and local information policy along with conversations about equity of access that directly address structural injustice overlap a great deal with the vision and principles of media justice. This journal edition presents a critical history of media reform by Berger and Snorton with responses from four scholars including Themba-Nixon, Robert McChesney, Richard Collins and Peter Dahlgren.