How about some GOOD news on some Judicial fronts?

(Full release here - http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005017 ) :

(I'm not including U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker and Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's recent decisions and rulings, because if you're following this at all - and you <I>should</I> be - you already know about them).

"California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech on the Internet

San Francisco - In what is a victory for free speech on the Internet, the California Supreme Court ruled today that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable for putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else. In doing so, the Court overruled an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal.

Today's ruling affirms that blogs, websites, listservs, and ISPs like Yahoo!, as well as individuals like defendant Ilena Rosenthal, are protected under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

"By reaffirming that Congress intended to grant protection under Section 230 to those who provide a forum for the views of others, the Court has ensured that the Internet will remain a vibrant forum for debate and the free exchange of ideas," said Ann Brick, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. "Any other ruling would have inevitably made speech on the Internet less free." "

=========================================

(Main story with further links here - http://epic.org/ ) :

"Federal Appeals Court Finds that Police Lacked Probable Cause for DNA Warrant

In a challenge to a dragnet search in which the DNA samples of more than 600 individuals were collected by the Baton Rouge police department, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court and held that the DNA search warrant lacked probable cause. The Court rejected the government's claim that it should consider a vague FBI profile to support the warrant application. EPIC submitted a "friend of the court" brief pdf arguing that warrantless, suspicionless DNA dragnets are unconstitutional and ineffective. For more information, see EPIC's pages on Kohler v. Englade and Genetic Privacy. (Nov. 21)

and this (same source):

"Warrantless DNA Collection Unconstitutional, Says Minnesota Appeals Court

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has struck down a state law authorizing the warrantless, automatic collection of DNA samples from people charged with but not convicted of crimes, calling the law unconstitutional. "[T]he privacy interest of a person who has been charged but not convicted is not outweighed by the state's interest in collecting and analyzing a DNA sample," the court said. The Minnesota case is similar to a case under review in the Fifth Circuit, Kohler v. Englade, in which EPIC submitted a "friend of the court" brief (pdf) arguing that warrantless, suspicionless DNA dragnets are unconstitutional and ineffective. For more information, see EPIC's pages on Kohler v. Englade and Genetic Privacy. (Nov. 21) "

and in the meanwhile, five more organizations filed "friend of the court" briefs in the ACLU's challenge to the NSA's illegal wiretapping:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/27472prs20061121.html

=====================================================

And for those thinking that the government <I>isn't</I> tracking everyone, how about perusing this for awhile to educate yourself?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/27468prs20061121.html and read http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/index.html (and the links for each branch - Pentagon, NSA, FBI & JTTF - therefrom). Pete

(Read the whole article here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,232605,00.html ) :

"Federal Judge Rules Bush's Post-Sept. 11 Terror Order Unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.

Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/29/mayfield.suit/index.html

"U.S. to pay $2M, apologize for false terror arrest

PORTLAND, Oregon (CNN) -- The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday it is paying $2 million and apologizing to an Oregon lawyer wrongly accused of being involved with the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain.

Brandon Mayfield was arrested in Portland on a material witness warrant in May 2004, less than two months after the bombings.

According to an FBI affidavit at the time, his fingerprint was identified as being on a blue plastic bag containing detonators found in a van used by the bombers.

The FBI's fingerprint identification was wrong, however, and Mayfield was released several days later.
........

The written apology reads:

"The United States of America apologizes to Mr. Brandon Mayfield and his family for the suffering caused by the FBI's misidentification of Mr. Mayfield's fingerprint and the resulting investigation of Mr. Mayfield, including his arrest as a material witness in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the execution of search warrants and other court orders in the Mayfield family home and in Mr. Mayfield's law office." "

=============================================

Always nice to know that at least sometimes the government does the right thing. Pete