Disinformation Campaign Proves Effective as Anti-SOPA Strike-Breaker

Two or three days ago, announcements were broadcast on various Media Outlets stating that two bills in the Congress and the Senate, SOPA and PROTECT-IP were effectively “Dead-in-the-Water,” resulting in the cancellation (or extreme reduction) of what would have been an extremely disruptive– and therefore highly dramatic– strike/protest by Major Internet Companies against the proposed legislation.

The fact that no sources were actually named, as well as the coordinated nature of this spurious disinformation campaign, indicates that this legislation, involving a precipitous curtailment of the Civil Liberties in the United States, indicates a scope of political interests far beyond those of the Entertainment Industry.

History shows us that a curtailment of Civil Liberties is never instituted without an eye to a further attack on those same liberties at a later date.

This debate is not over. Expect to hear opponents to these bills caricatured as disgruntled pirates of popular entertainment, 20-somethings living in their mothers’ basements, who want to continue downloading music and movies without having to pay for the privilege.

Expect to read further, and ever more disturbing, developments in the coming months.

View A Legal Analysis of S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act [PDF] from the Congressional Research Service

Wall Street Declares War on America (Yes, this constitutes Conspiracy!)

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admits Cities Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy Movement

Embattled Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, speaking in an interview with the BBC (excerpted on The Takeaway radio program–audio of Quan starts at the 5:30 mark), casually mentioned that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. “I was recently on a conference call with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation. . . .”

Mayor Quan then rambles about how she “spoke with protestors in my city” who professed an interest in “separating from anarchists,” implying that her police action was helping this somehow.

Interestingly, Quan then essentially advocates that occupiers move to private spaces, and specifically cites Zuccotti Park as an example:

In New York City, it’s interesting that the Wall Street movement is actually on a private park, so they’re not, again, in the public domain, and they’re not infringing on the public’s right to use a public park.

Many witnesses to the wave of government crackdowns on numerous #occupy encampments have been wondering aloud if the rapid succession was more than a coincidence; Jean Quan’s casual remark seems to clearly imply that it was.

Might it also be more than a coincidence that this succession of police raids started after President Obama left the US for an extended tour of the Pacific Rim?

Nike claims lies about sweathop conditions constitutes “free speech”

by Glen Emerson Morris

A law suit in California may have a profound effect on how businesses defend their business practices in public, especially on the Internet. For those not familiar with the case, Nike is being sued by a California activist named Marc Kasky for violating California’s truth in advertising law. After being thrown out by lower courts, the case has landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court decides the case should be heard, a new legal standard will be set.

The issues in the case are simple, the implications are not. After losing business in the mid-nineties to charges of funding sweatshop conditions overseas, Nike publicly denied there were major problems, and claimed it enforced a “Code of Conduct” that prohibited overseas factories from abusing workers. Nike did not include these denials in its ads, just in press releases and public statements. The law suit claims Nike knowingly lied about working conditions to improve sales, which amounted to advertising, and therefore the denials are subject to the truth in advertising law.

In its defense, Nike denies the charges of sweatshop conditions, but has chosen to try to avoid court completely on the grounds that its press releases and public statements weren’t ads, and therefore weren’t covered by the California truth in advertising law. Instead, Nike claims the denials were made as free speech, and protected by the First Amendment. Under this argument, whether the denials were the truth or lies is irrelevant.

more…