Copyright Infringement Claim Filed By Sandy Hook Charity Kingpin
Memory Hole Blog | September 22, 2015
On September 17 MHB reported on a copyright infringement claim filed with Facebook by an anonymous party against the “Sandy Hook Hoax” Fb page alleging ownership of the Lenie Urbina/Avielle Richman photographs. The copyright claimant has been revealed in the emails below as one Thomas Bittman, co-founder of the lucrative “Sandy Hook Promise” charity. The 501(c)3 has been a key proponent of gun control and mental health protocols that it argues will curb mass shootings, while pulling on the heartstrings of America to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in the wake of the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook massacre event.
What’s significant here is whether Bittman actually holds the copyright to the images in question, and if he’s not just prompting Facebook to abuse the entire DMCA process intended to address legitimate copyright claims. If so, Bittman has likely committed perjury and is subject to being sued for filing a false copyright infringement claim. “If you send a cease-and-desist letter to an infringer,” under DMCA,
there is a risk that the infringer may file a lawsuit in the infringer’s jurisdiction naming you as a defendant and seeking a declaratory judgment that your copyright is invalid. One recent court decision found that the sending of a single cease-and-desist letter into the state was enough to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in that state.
If you send a DMCA takedown notice that is both false and meant in bad faith (such as to harass, or doesn’t state a real claim), you have committed perjury. Though unlikely, if the party you sent the takedown notice to decided to pursue this in court, you could face all of the consequences that your state imposes on people who lie in court.
Most MHB readers will likely agree that such legal action against parties that have sought to terrorize the US citizenry and enrich themselves on an entirely dubious incident is richly deserved. We do hope Mr. Anthony Mead pursues this matter to the fullest extent provided by law.
Students and Regents Demand University of California Adopt Unconstitutional Policy
By Sarah McLaughlin | Foundation for Individual Rights in Education | September 18, 2015
Yesterday, the University of California Board of Regents held an open meeting allowing students, faculty, members of the UC community, and other interested parties to share their thoughts on UC’s proposed Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.
The statement came about after the UC Regents decided not to adopt the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism. Free speech advocates pointed out that a public university’s adoption of this definition as policy would raise serious First Amendment concerns and chill protected speech, including criticism of Israel’s government.
Earlier this week, FIRE’s Will Creeley explained that while the Statement of Principles Against Intolerance doesn’t include the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, it still impermissibly chills speech by telling students that certain viewpoints don’t belong at their university, encouraging them to report such views, and promising a “prompt” and “effective” institutional response. Will told the Associated Press yesterday that the policy, if implemented, would create “a kind of race to the bottom, sooner or later, by public universities punishing students or faculty for a particular viewpoint.”
Given the First Amendment concerns over both proposed policies, that this open meeting was held on Constitution Day was fitting. Many speakers at yesterday’s meeting agreed that the new proposed policy was a bad idea—but, unfortunately, for a different reason: they want UC to draft a policy that is even more hostile to speech.
The suggestions put forth and the demands made during the meeting were alarming. Despite having only one minute to share their thoughts, plenty of speakers managed to find time to demand that UC violate its students’ speech rights and ignore its obligations under the First Amendment. (Note: The following may include minor transcription errors.)
Comments from the UC Campus Community
Gary Fouse, an adjunct at UC Irvine, claimed that UC’s current proposed statement against intolerance is “useless” without the incorporation of the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism:
The Israeli-Palestinian debate has led to an atmosphere where many Jewish students who support Israel are often spending their college years in a climate of intimidation, not just from Pro-Palestinian students but in many cases from professors in the classroom. The problem is not neo-Nazis or skinheads. Rather, it is the pro-Palestinian lobby such as the Students for Justice in Palestine, BDS promoters and other faculty allies. Each year these groups invite speakers to campus, some of whom cross the line from legitimate criticism of Israel to attacking Jews as people.
But it’s not up to public university officials to decide what criticism of a foreign government is legitimate or forbidden, and, in turn, to demand everyone at the university abide by their perceptions of “legitimate criticism.” The idea of a public institution doing so should trouble anyone who believes in the fundamental importance of the right to dissent. In fact, President Obama made similar arguments this week at a town hall meeting when he said “I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view,” and that silencing arguments we oppose is “not the way we learn.”
Another commenter, a UC Berkeley alum, pointed out the absurdity of Fouse’s argument:
When I was a student at Berkeley, it was criticizing the US government that wasn’t permitted. In fact, we had to have a free speech movement in 1964 in order to have any political speech on campus. So now apparently criticizing the Israeli government is going to be banned.
As this commenter suggested, it’s noteworthy that students in the UC system have historically fought especially hard for their First Amendment rights—rights that should not be so easily set aside.
A group of UC students made a joint statement together saying that the State Department definition of anti-Semitism is “the only existing definition that is capable of addressing the nuanced hatred that we experienced on our campuses today.” If UC follows the advice of these speakers and a majority of those present at this meeting, it will be adopting a deeply troubling policy.
Another worrisome trend in this meeting was the use of criminal or violent acts as examples of why this policy is needed. Several commenters brought up examples of vandalism, including swastikas drawn on fraternity houses and violence against Jewish students, to justify the adoption of the State Department’s definition. But these actions are criminal—they’re already illegal. Trying to target such acts through this new policy is not only superfluous, but would implicate constitutionally protected political speech in the process.
The Regents Respond
Comments from the Regents themselves were hardly any better.
While Regent John Perez’s acknowledged that the State Department’s definition could potentially limit academic freedom, that was one of the few displays of sound judgment.
The most worrying statements came from Regent Richard C. Blum, whose wife is United States Senator Dianne Feinstein. Blum said earlier in the meeting that “we’ve been too tolerant, too patient about all this for too long,” and continued:
I should add that over the weekend my wife, your senior Senator, and I talked about this issue at length. She wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don’t have the kind of not only statement but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them whatever you want. Students that do the things that have been cited here today probably ought to have a dismissal or a suspension from school. I don’t know how many of you feel strongly that way but my wife does and so do I.
Yes, a UC Regent flatly threatened the university with political consequences if it failed to craft a “tolerance” policy that would punish—and even expel—its violators.
The consequences of this suggestion are grave: If UC adopts the State Department definition of anti-Semitism (or any policy banning criticism or intolerance), and accedes to Blum’s demands, students could potentially face expulsion for any language a person subjectively believes is “intolerant.”
Regent Hadi Makarechian later echoed Blum’s demands, stating:
I just wanted to say that I agree with Regent Blum, that principles are great, rejection of actions are great, but we need to address the punishment. If we don’t have punishment we’re just putting a lot of paper together. We’re just stating a lot of stuff on pieces of paper.
The board concluded the meeting by saying there was more work to be done, and announcing the formation of a working group, led by Regent Eddie Island. Island said he would compose a group of university stakeholders who would work together to craft a policy that addressed concerns about both intolerance and freedom of speech.
We at FIRE believe robust protections for freedom of speech accomplish both goals by providing a platform to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of intolerance in the marketplace of ideas.
Hopefully this working group recognizes that more speech and the hard work of convincing someone they’re wrong are the only real, effective remedies against intolerance. UC students and faculty who value free speech and academic freedom should watch these developments very closely.
At UN, Rouhani Accuses US of Terrorism
Sputnik – 28.09.2015
Hassan Rouhani addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Monday afternoon, discussing matters such as the Hajj pilgrimage disaster and the Iran nuclear deal.
Rouhani made the conclusion that the US and Israel are to blame for regional terrorism.
“We propose that the fight against terrorism be incorporated into a binding international document and no country be allowed to use terrorism for the purpose of intervention into the affairs of another country,” Rouhani said in an address to the UN General Assembly.
Moving to Iran’s relationship with the international community, Rouhani stated that he was “proud” to start a “new chapter” of engagement with the world.
He then praised the Iran nuclear deal and the negotiating partners involved. Rouhani appreciated that the deal was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.
Soldiers Invade Al-Aqsa Mosque, Many Palestinians Injured
IMEMC & Agencies | September 28, 2015
Dozens of Israeli soldiers, police officers and undercover forces, invaded on Monday morning, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem, fired gas bombs and concussion grenades causing many injuries, before forcibly removing the worshipers, and surrounded dozens in the Al-Qibli Mosque
Eyewitnesses said around 150 soldiers and officers invaded the holy site, and started forcing the Palestinians out by firing gas bombs, concussion grenades, rubber-coated steel bullets, and several live rounds.
The soldiers also assaulted many Palestinians with clubs and batons.
The invasion also led to clashes between the invading troops and Palestinians, in the mosque and its courtyards.
The Israeli attack caused fires at the main entrance of the al-Qibli mosque, but local firefighters, working for the Islamic Waqf Department, managed to contain it before it spread.
Many residents were injured, and received treatment by Palestinian medics, in the Mosque’s clinic.
The army also used special tools to remove wooden doors and windows of the Al-Qibli Mosque, and hurled several concussion grenades into it.
In addition, soldiers stationed at the gates leading to Al-Aqsa, prevented dozens of worshipers from entering the mosque’s courtyards, especially through Bab Hatta and the Chain Gate.
The soldiers then assaulted many Palestinians, and started pushing them away.
The removal of the worshipers was carried out while dozens of Israeli fanatics gathered nearby, and marched into the mosque’s courtyards under heaving army and police accompaniment.
90,000 Palestinians arrested by Israel since 2000
Palestine Information Center – September 28, 2015
RAMALLAH – Israeli occupation forces have arrested over 90,000 Palestinians since the start of Al-Aqsa Intifada on September 28th, 2000, the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs said on Sunday.
Such arrests targeted all categories of Palestinian society, including injured civilians, sick persons, girls, children, MPs, lawmakers, and the elderly, the documentation department at the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs reported.
The Palestinian arrestees included 12,000 children below the age of 18 and 1,200 women, four among whom gave birth to newborns in Israeli lock-ups.
The commission added that there are 200 children and 25 women still behind Israeli bars.
According to the report, the Israeli occupation arrested more than 65 lawmakers and ministers over the same period.
The Israeli occupation authorities issued 25,000 new or renewed administrative sentences against the Palestinian detainees. 480 inmates are still held administratively in Israeli jails.
At least 83 Palestinian detainees died of harsh torture and preplanned medical neglect in Israeli jails since 2000. Dozens of others died shortly after they were released as they succumbed to diseases they caught while jailed.
The Palestinian detainees suffered all kinds of torture and maltreatment during their arrest period, the group further documented.
National Archives Accused of Illegally Classifying Details of CIA Torture Program
By Steve Straehley | AllGov | September 28, 2015
Details of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture program have been unlawfully kept from public view, according to a complaint filed with the National Archives.
OpenTheGovernment.org listed in a complaint (pdf) five areas of concern that have been classified or redacted from the version of the Senate’s torture report executive summary, released in December 2014.
“Secrecy regarding ‘black sites’ and torture has played a major role in ensuring that no CIA personnel could be prosecuted for torture, war crimes, destruction of evidence, or other relevant federal crimes. It has ensured that civil courts were closed to victims of torture, indefinitely delayed trials of the accused perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, and put the United States in breach of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture,” according to the complaint, signed by OpenTheGovernment national security fellow Katherine Hawkins.
The five areas of concern are:
–The pseudonyms and titles, and in some cases the names, of CIA officials and contractors implicated in the torture program. Some of those redacted names included those of lawyers involved in crafting the agency’s torture policy.
–The names of countries that hosted torture sites, even though some of those countries’ governments have acknowledged this and even paid compensation to those tortured.
–Detainees’ description of their own torture. Details about torture sites, dates of transfer between prisons and descriptions of those inflicting the torture have been kept secret.
–Details of the CIA’s torturing of detainees in Iraq. Information about this torture, including the death of a detainee, has been reported by the news media.
–The seizure and transfer of detainees to foreign countries to facilitate torture. Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Jordan were among the places that hosted torture facilities.
“The Executive Order on national security classification formally forbids agencies from classifying information, or failing to declassify information, in order to ‘conceal violations of law,’ ‘prevent embarrassment,’ or ‘prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection.’ It also forbids classification of any information unless ‘the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States government,’” Hawkins wrote.
To Learn More:
OpenTheGovernment.org Challenges Ongoing Classification of the CIA Torture Program (OpenTheGovernment.org)
Wrongful Classification of Information Regarding CIA torture, in Violation of Executive Order 13526 (Katherine Hawkins, OpenTheGovernment.org) (pdf)
CIA Refuses for Fifth Time to Help Poland’s Investigation of Torture Carried Out by…CIA (by Noel Brinkerhoff and Steve Straehley, AllGov )
New Republican Senate Intelligence Chairman Wants to Bury CIA Torture Reports (by Noel Brinkerhoff and Steve Straehley, AllGov )