| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Illinois Social Media Law, Conservative News, Chicago & National Politics
Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label #law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #law. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2016
#Justice Dep’t Official Warns Russia of ‘Consequences’ for #Cyber-Spying !
Monday, July 11, 2016
#MUSLIMS LOSE - #FREEDOM WINS ! #TERROR #OBAMA #USA
Major North American Islamic Figure With Long-Standing Terrorist Group Connections Loses Huge Libel Lawsuit In Canada In Big Victory For Free Speech
When lady justice comes, sometimes it is by a path one might not expect.
Dr. Ingrid Mattson a convert to Islam and former President of the Islamic Society of North America, has lost a major libel lawsuit in Canada. What makes this so significant for me is that I was one of her students:
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, former longstanding senior functionary of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), launched her proceeding – judged meritless by The Lawfare Project – against David B. Harris, a lawyer and one of Canada’s leading terrorism experts. But Harris, a recent witness before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee, never relented in his refusal to withdraw a public characterization of Mattson as “radical,” nor would he offer apologies, damages, or costs. This forced Mattson, likely fearing what a full legal-disclosure process would reveal, to give up all her demands. In a stunning reversal, and despite her claim of grave reputational damage, Mattson recently agreed to have the Superior Court of Ontario dismiss her own suit.…Dr. Mattson was the Islamic Society of North America’s president when her organization was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the successfulHoly Land Foundationprosecution, which involved allegations of the funding of Hamas, the U.S.- and Canadian-designated terrorist organization. Although neither Mattson nor ISNA were charged in the matter, Mattson’s extensive, longstanding connections with disturbing Islamist individuals and entities, like ISNA and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), have been a source of dismay for counter-terrorism specialists and moderate Muslims alike. Mattson occupies the radical-funded London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies at Huron University College (HUC), Ontario, an affiliate of the University of Western Ontario. Both the creation of the Chair, and Mattson’s appointment to it, caused an uproar.
I studied at Hartford Seminary and graduated in 2010 with my MA in Islamic Studies. Dr. Mattson was a professor while I was there, and she was one of the schools “star” professors there, presiding over the Muslim World journal and the schools MacDonald Center for Islamic Studies.
The MacDonald Center was named in honor of Duncan Black MacDonald, a Scottish Presbytarian minister who brought the discipline of Islamic Studies to Hartford Seminary during the late 19th century and during his tenure transformed the school into both the first school to specialize in Islamic Studies in the USA as well as to make it the center for Protestant missions to the Middle East (the Catholic missions went through one of the religious orders, such as the Franciscans or the Dominicans). That the Muslim World journal was founded in 1911 by the Protestant Rev. Samuel M. Zwemer, who was a prolific writer, scholar, and missionary to Muslims whose zeal for the Gospel was as strong as his eloquent and pointed disdain for Islam and its perverse founder. As you can see, the irony of Dr. Mattson’s position was sickening. Here was a Muslim woman – and Catholic apostate, I add- who was given charge and presided over the continual and fundamental transformation of Hartford Seminary as a school for Protestant missions to the Muslim world and the Journal as the intellectual arm of that same school into a school that would send out Muslim missionaries to convert Christians with the Journal now serving the cause of propagating Islam.
Protestantism was always regarded by the Catholic Church as a heresy. As the great saints and many writers have pointed out, Islam is merely a Christian heresy but a very advanced and indeed the final perfection of that same heresy. Thus one must logically conclude on this reasoning that Protestantism is an early form of Islamization, and in this sense Hartford Seminary had fully completed its journey full heresy unto apostasy from the very same faith it was created to propagate, and the whole journey only took 100 years.
I enjoyed my time at Hartford Seminary, but it was not without difficulty. I was not liked by many professors on account of my views (as I have articulated through my articles here on Shoebat.com), and sometimes I found myself in situations where I was not just regarded as an outcast, but also in potential physical harm from the Muslim students with little to no support from the school, save for a few people. I eventually wrote about my experience for the Academic Questions Journal, which is put out by National Review, where I detailed my experiences. One of those experiences I had involved Dr. Mattson, who I had as professor for a class on reading ancient Islamic texts:
I realized that my beliefs were strongly different from those of the majority of HS students and professors, but I did not fully internalize the extent of it until two incidents occurred in early 2009. It began when I sent a private email to a blogger friend in which I mentioned Dr. Ingrid Mattson, then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a professor I had for a class. My email referred to recent events in the news surrounding Dr. Mattson, ISNA, and its indictment by the federal government over terrorism charges.What happened next I did not expect. My friend published my email online, with neither my knowledge nor my consent. I was not aware of this until I was asked to come to the office of the dean of students. The dean presented me with the email’s text, and I was immediately accused of racism, bigotry, and spreading hatred of Muslims, none of which is true. I maintained my composure, but internally I was furious, because this was the same faculty member to whom I had made appeals after being harassed and discriminated against by fellow students who were Muslim and by professors because of my differing beliefs and opinions. When I asked the dean if he, Dr. Mattson, and I could meet to discuss these accusations, I was told that she was “uncomfortable discussing them with me,” and that no meeting would be possible. I was permanently barred from the MacDonald Center for Islamic Studies and told not to contact Dr. Mattson.A few weeks after this incident I submitted for review my original master’s thesis, written on the concept of human dignity in Islamic theology. My advisor at the time was a Jewish professor known for his work in interfaith relations with Muslims. About a week later he called and asked to meet with me at the seminary. He began our meeting by repeatedly asking me if I “hate Muslims,” “feel angry towards Muslims,” am “uncomfortable with Islam,” and many other questions. All the questions had the underlying theme of attempting to link my disagreement with Islamic theology in my thesis to a personal hatred of Muslims. I repeatedly explained to him that I do not hate Muslims, and that my views on Islam are borne out of Islamic theological teachings, not personal experience. After two hours of discussion, he returned my thesis to me, looked me in the eye, and said that he could not accept it and that “the Muslims will not accept it.” I asked him to explain his statement, and he told me that I made “the Muslims feel uncomfortable”—although he would not specify who “the Muslims” were.
This incident happened back in 2009. If it were not for the efforts of a current professor and personal friend (whose name I shall not mention) who came to my assistance, it is probable that I would have been expelled for the “crime” of “insulting Islam.”
I remember thinking how ironic this was in light of the fact that I was threatened with bodily harm, I was told that I was the problem. How I saw Muslims of different sects threaten each other with physical harm in class and it was never spoken again, reminiscent of the memory hole from George Orwell’s dystopic novel 1984. How Muslim students openly discriminated against non-Muslim students in how they spoke to and treated them, and not only was it never discussed, but the veneer of “peace” and “tolerance” was promoted at all cost. How Hartford Seminary hired a professor who is still employed there who ‘conincidentally’ translated a 14th century Islamic writing on the merits of murdering monks right after the murder of six Catholic Trappist monks in 1996 at Tibhirine, Algeria, and who also has an open, virulent, and brutally condescending view of Christianity and Christians as well as less-than-orthodox Muslims (I know well, because I had this professor for a class and he and I clashed on more than one occasion over this).
Dr. Mattson’s involvement in Islamic affairs at Hartford Seminary and what was discussed in the article was only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg,” since I had come to know her from personal experience. While what I say solely comes from my experiences alone with her, I recall that it was fascinating to see how deep her ties are in the Muslim community, much more so than is discussed, into many different things and in different ways. Some of these included with businesses, mosques,persons, education, politics, international as well as local incidents. Even so, there is likely still far more which has yet to be revealed.
I am glad to see this, and not because of my experience, but because she is an active, living threat to the existence of the Western world. The only institute she belongs in, in my opinion, is the local penitentiary for treason in the name of Islam against the very society she was born into and the very God she was taught to worship but later exchanged for Allah.
#FB Sued for 1 BILLION over #TERROR POSTS ! #Obama #FaceBook
Sued for $1b for Alleged Use of Medium for Terror
Updated on
Members of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigade, the armed wing of Hamas, take part in a gathering in Gaza, on Jan. 31, 2016.
Photographer: Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images
- Damages sought for families of 5 American victims of attacks
- Facebook says it doesn’t comment to press on legal proceedings
Lawyers filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging it allowed the Palestinian militant Hamas group to use it as a medium to carry out attacks that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem.
“Facebook has knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas in the form of Facebook’s online social network platform and communication services,” making it liable for the violence against the five Americans, according to the lawsuit sent to Bloomberg by the office of the Israeli lawyer on the case, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.
“Simply put, Hamas uses Facebook as a tool for engaging in terrorism,” it said.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., European Union and Israel. The suit said the group used Facebook to share operational and tactical information with members and followers, posting notices of upcoming demonstrations, road closures, Israeli military actions and instructions to operatives to carry out the attacks.
In an e-mailed statement, Facebook said it doesn’t comment on legal proceedings to the press. Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas leader, said by phone that “suing Facebook clearly shows the American policy of fighting freedom of the press and expression” and is evidence of U.S. prejudice against the group and “its just cause.”
The suit was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 10. Plaintiffs include the families of Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel, a 16-year-old abducted and murdered in June 2014 after hitching a ride in the West Bank, and 3-year-old Chaya Braun, whose stroller was struck intentionally by a Palestinian driver in October 2014 at a train station in Jerusalem.
In February 2015, a jury at the same court concluded that the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization aided in six attacks on Americans in Israel more than a decade ago, and ordered them to pay $218.5 million to the victims and their families. The damages were tripled under a U.S. anti-terrorism law.
The Palestinian bodies claimed they weren’t responsible for the unapproved acts of low-level employees who participated in the attacks.
Before it's h
Friday, June 10, 2016
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
The Potential Pitfalls of Professional #Social #Media Sites
Jenny S. Kim, Corporate Counsel
As the universe of one’s online “friends” inevitably expands to include coworkers, supervisors, clients and business prospects, the savvy business professional has quickly learned the dangers of sharing too much personal information via social media. We likely all know by now that a picture of you in your bathing suit holding an umbrella drink in each hand may not be the image you want to share with all of your social media contacts. What most people usually don’t worry about, however, are the statements and information shared on so-called professional social media sites, such as LinkedIn.
By the very nature of these types of sites, users feel comfortable that what is shared and posted in their profiles, such as professional bios and descriptions of past and current work responsibilities, is safe, even wise, to disclose and publicize. Some may even embellish their credentials or professional skills in order to raise their professional status or secure a new position. However, a court decision in Illinois that was issued in February gives us all a healthy reminder that users need to be very conscious and deliberate about any and all information shared via social media, even on professional social media sites. Once the information is “out there,” it can potentially be used against you in unexpected ways, as was the case in Federal Trade Commission, et. al. v. Advocate Health Care Network, et. al.
By way of background, in this case the FTC is seeking to prevent the defendants, two Chicago-area hospitals, from merging. In the run-up to filing suit against the defendants, the FTC accumulated highly confidential information from the defendants’ competitors, including strategic business plans, market and competitive assessments, forecasts and pricing lists. When the defendants sought copies of these materials from the FTC, the third-party competitors intervened to prevent disclosure, including to the defendants’ designated in-house counsel. In response, the defendants argued that access should be granted to their respective in-house counsel because, as explained in sworn declarations submitted by each attorney, neither designated in-house attorney is involved in executive level or competitive decision-making.
In order to confirm the veracity of the statements the in-house attorneys made in their declarations, counsel for the competitors did not seek to depose the attorneys or conduct any other, more traditional, forms of discovery. Rather, they turned to social media. As the court noted, the competitors’ lawyers “did what any careful contemporary lawyer would do – they turned to social media to see whether there was information that might bear on the assertions in the Declarations. And, lo and behold, the LinkedIn profiles of [the designated in-house attorneys] told a very different story than that in their Declaration.” Because their LinkedIn profiles “publicly boasted” that their work responsibilities include “development of strategy” in a variety of competitive areas, and “strategic and business planning,” the court found that, in conflict with the sworn statements made in their declarations, the in-house attorneys are indeed involved in business decisions, and, therefore, were not entitled access to the competitors’ highly confidential information. As the court noted, no one can dispute “the authenticity of these postings.”
Whether the descriptions of their work responsibilities in their profiles were accurate or not, the point here is that the court gave more weight to the attorneys’ LinkedIn postings than it did to their sworn statements. Let this serve as a reminder to social media users to be cautious about what you post and publicize, including on professional social media sites. A careful review of your LinkedIn profile can ensure that all posts about professional skills, credentials and experience are not only accurate, but also what you are comfortable being bound by someday in a court of law.
Read more: http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202756610110/The-Potential-Pitfalls-of-Professional-Social-Media-Sites#ixzz47i22d02X
Monday, May 02, 2016
Using #FREESPEECH in a #SOCIALMEDIA age @SM
Posted: Sunday, May 1, 2016 9:25 pm
MERCEDES — Posting on the Internet is like shouting at the top of your lungs in a crowded hallway for everyone to hear.
So keep in mind, just because you have the freedom of expression and are protected by the First Amendment to say what you want, that doesn’t mean you can’t get into trouble for saying it.
“It’s like writing a letter to the entire world,” said David Donaldson, a media law lecturer for the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism. “You’re responsible for what you do. That’s what people need to realize.”
In the history of the United States and the First Amendment, social media like Facebook and Twitter are relatively new platforms of expression.
In general, Americans have been voicing their opinions forever. Now the Internet and social media are giving more people access to broad audiences to express their views.
In the past 10 years, the number of people on social networks and reading blogs has increased dramatically. Today, 65 percent of adults use social networking sites — nearly a tenfold jump in the past decade, according to the Pew Research Center.
Experts remind those users there can be a risk in what they’re posting. In some cases, posts have landed people in jail or facing penalties worth thousands and even millions of dollars for what they’re writing.
For example, there was a case at Mercedes High School in January when authorities said a senior fired off a Tweet to a classmate suggesting his friend shoot up the school and that he would help. He might have been playing around, but the authorities took it seriously.
The students were plucked out of the classroom soon after authorities red-flagged their Tweets as threatening. They were in first period class in different classrooms Tweeting and by the end of the school day, they were on their way to jail for what was deemed as a terroristic threat on the social network.
A student was holding up two AK-47 assault rifles in his Twitter profile. Those Tweets landed both of the boys in the county jail with bonds set at $250,000. They also were expelled from school.
“People don’t get to joke any more; this stuff is serious,” Donaldson said. “Whether or not they actually had the intent, that would make them responsible for that kind of activity.”
Another example of free speech sending someone to court is that of Brownsville blogger Juan Montoya. Brownsville City Attorney Mark Sossi is suing Montoya for $10 million alleging defamation of character.
Sossi contends that on Feb. 11, 2015, Montoya published a blog on his site in which Montoya “negligently and maliciously published false, defamatory statements” about Sossi.
Sossi is suing for damages up to $10 million for severe emotional distress, past and future mental anguish, loss of his reputation and the loss of any earnings sustained in the past and the loss of reduction of earning capacity in the future, court records show.
Montoya said he was using his First Amendment right to report true information.
Montoya has been producing information about the city of Brownsville on his blog since 2009.
“He did what I said he did,” Montoya said. “We’re going to prevail in this because what he did was true, and I was in pursuit of my First Amendment rights trying to find the truth to inform, like the press.”
Donaldson, who was not commenting on this case, said in general, people need to keep in mind the rule of thumb: people need to know that when they post, they need to be confident the information is true.
Donaldson said bloggers are held to the same standard of responsibility as a news reporter.
“If they are going to report on a situation, they can’t report falsehoods,” Donaldson said. “If they published something that’s false and defamatory and they have taken no effort to try and confirm the truth of it, they can run into trouble.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)