It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Santa Fe Police Arrest Attorney For Comments he Made In An Internet Chat-Room

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 04:34 PM
Santa Fe Police Arrest Attorney For Comments he Made In An Internet Chat-Room

A St. Johns College Library visit by a former public defender was abruptly interrupted February 13 when city police officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer terminal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, police station for questioning by Secret Service agents from Albuquerque. Andrew J. OConner, 40, who was released about five hours later, said in the February 16 Santa Fe New Mexican, Im going to sue the Secret Service, Santa Fe Police, St. Johns, and everybody involved in this whole thing.
According to OConnor, the agents accused him of making threatening remarks about President George W. Bush in an Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the library with a woman who was wearing a No war with Iraq button, OConnor recalled saying that Bush is out of control, but that Im allowed to say all that. There is this thing called freedom of speech. He also speculated that the FBI might have been observing him because of his one-time involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder, Colorado.

Earlier on the same day OConnor was questioned, officials at St. Johnsas well as at the College of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Community Collegeissued warnings to students and faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of suspicious people on campus within the past four weeks.

Concern about threats to individual privacy under the USA Patriot Act has prompted New Mexico legislators in both houses to propose resolutions urging state police not to help federal agents infringe on civil rights. The resolutions also encourage libraries to post prominent signage warning patrons that their library records are subject to federal scrutiny without their permission or knowledge.

posted on Feb, 27 2003 @ 05:07 PM
This is the start. We are losing our rights and freedom. An article today also talked of 12 individuals (americans) that had taken Bin Laden's training in the past. The FBI is going to arrest them, though they've done nothing.

Hello? Is anyone else concerned?

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 12:19 PM
Here, come arrest me FBI I offer myself up. I think that George Walker Bush, Forty Third President of the United States of America is doing a horrible job as President. If I were not non-violent then I would be a serious threat to national security. Fortunately for Bush I will not continue the trend of what happens to Presidents elected on a year ending in a zero. Nevertheless I am in support of any revolution to remove the current administration. He is ruining America and I will not put up with it!

So, come on, arrest me for exercising free speech!


posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 10:34 PM
Makes me wonder why those agencies seem to be more loyal to the man in the Office than they are to the People they're *supposed* to be serving with their jobs?...

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 10:48 PM
I guess I posted this statement on the wrong thread....

The police state cometh....

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 01:08 AM
I find it sad, that a country that most of the world found to be the core of freedom, has become what it claims to fight against.
I grew up in europe and America has always been the land of the free, and the place where you could become all that you want to be.
It now looks like those day's are over.
I am still wondering what the h**l happened when Bush got elected

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 04:20 AM
xaos, Ronnie Reagan stopped the know the zeros business.

posted on Mar, 1 2003 @ 11:13 PM
Diva, can you post a link to the article.

I along with most of yall, was concerned with these freedom robbing laws enacted in the name of safety.

It will not be long before the grand data base starts (legally) with the homeland security act, so they can query the data base and get lots of names that fit,.

We are defenseless against this, and as stated, the services follow the orders of madmen, instead of following the judgement of protecting americans.

I fear how far this will go, little by little, till all the kinks are ironed out, then, they will boldly tread openly where no one in our nation has walked before, Upon our liberties and freedoms

Thanks for the post.

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 12:08 AM
I received that info. from a news reporter friend of mine in Connecticut who is notorious for not including links. However, I'll write back to him & ask for his link...thanks!!!

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 03:03 AM
Got it:

This is pretty damn scary...
I can't remember how many times i have seen people post "Bush is nuts", or something like that, on the message boards I am active on...

[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Zion Mainframe]

posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 09:21 PM
Thanks for the post, it is scary,

Does anyone else but me feel this might get way out of hand as time proceeds.?

If so , how are we(as individuals) going to handle this,
I fear it will be like the IRS, until they come after you, you just kinda go along,,until it builds to a proportion that will become unmanageable. And eventually bites you in the ____, well , you know.

posted on Mar, 4 2003 @ 09:45 PM
Well , I guess anyone on this site can be next.

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 08:02 PM
PITTSBURGH -- Messages about public figures in Internet chat rooms are akin to anonymous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and their authors should have the same right to keep their identities secret, advocates told Pennsylvania's highest court.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a number of Internet companies have lined up to protect the identity of a person who alleged in a political online chat room that a state court judge behaved unethically.

The groups argue the Internet is the equivalent of the anonymous sheets patriots once nailed to trees and courthouse doors to criticize the English monarchy before America declared independence. Paine's influential pamphlet, "Common Sense," came out in January 1776.

Attorneys for Superior Court Judge Jane Ore Melvin say the chat-room message, insinuating she illegally lobbied then-Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to a vacant spot on the Allegheny County bench, was defamatory.

Her defamation lawsuit is pending while her lawyers try to get America Online to disclose the identity of the author. The appeal argued before the state Supreme Court on Monday was from an appeals court ruling that said the author must be identified.

There was no indication when a ruling will come from the Supreme Court.

Lower courts in four other states -- New Jersey, Washington, California, Virginia -- have ruled that extreme caution should be used when deciding whether to reveal the identity of Internet users. Similar suits are pending in numerous states, according to the ACLU.

One of Melvin's attorneys, Robert Lampl, argued that although the Internet is a new mode of communication, it should not free individuals to slander public officials.

But Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the ACLU, told the high court that forcing service providers to divulge the identity of chat-room users, who often use pseudonyms, would create a chilling environment and inhibit frank discussion, especially about the government.

"We are not saying that there should be complete immunity from suit whenever someone says something anonymous on the Internet," Beeson said. "We are only arguing that, especially when it's a public official that is criticized -- that public official has to show that she actually suffered some harm from the statement before she can proceed to unmask the speaker."

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the bar for proving harm to a public official is considerably higher than for others.

Experts say it will be difficult for the judge, who was recently endorsed by the state Republican Party to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, to prove she suffered harm.

"When you have speech about a public official, it's going to get the highest level of First Amendment protection and in this case in particular," said Robert Richards, a professor of communications and law at Penn State University.

"Courts that have dealt with this issue recently have recognized the Internet as one of the broadest vehicles of speech yet and that it deserves a high degree of protection."

Beeson said political dissenters in the 21st century have the same fears of reprisal, and the same need to remain anonymous, as the pamphleteers of the pre-Revolutionary era.

"Just like the founders of this country did and they did it for a very good reason," Beeson said. "They wanted to be able to criticize the government and not suffer retaliation."

Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was "humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her."

"Public officials have to withstand criticism, sometimes brutal," Lampl said. "What they don't have to withstand is falsehood."

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 08:05 PM
Cant we say what we think anymore? Here is the link to above story, seems it will just get worse.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 03:53 AM
I guess that alot of people have forgotten what happened on 9/11.

Everyone seemed to miss the fact that this lawyer had a "one time" involvement in a Pro-Palestian movement.

I personally don't like the fact that the actions of a terrorist group has cause the U.S. to become scared and economically challenged. (That's what I tell my 401K). In response to 9/11, I do give our government credit for doing what they have done to rat-out those people that they should. People need to see that our country is not as safe as we had all hoped. I cannot see how people believe that the government is wrong in trying to protect the mass population.

Fortunately, we have a court system to enact laws and give compensation when and where it is due.
Unfortunately, this lawyer will probably get a few million when it is totally undeserved.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 04:40 AM
This is a very interesting post.

When Bush declared "You are with us or against us"none of us understood just how literal this would be.There has,since 9/11,been a concerted effort on behalf of the US Administration to group everyone into one of those two groups.
Slowly the USA is isolating itself more and more as it places individuals,groups,and even countries into the "Against Camp".If countries,that border Iraq or sit in the UN,NATO,EU do not do exactly what the USA wants then they are placed in the "Against Camp"and face aggressive consequences.Then why should we be surprised that individuals will suffer.
This policy is dangerous.When the most minor disagreement can make you an enemy then the USA will end up with a lot of enemies both domestically and internationally.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51 If so , how are we(as individuals) going to handle this

The answer is obvious...We, as *individuals*, can do nothing. The People must be made aware of how crooked the card-dealers are in the government & unite into a *massive* group to tell them that they're all *fired* (They are *employees* of the American People, after all) & the government will be restructured to fall in line with the Constitution. As long as *any* part of the Constitution still stands up in court, we *do* have to Right to do so; Even more than that, as American Citizens, we have the *duty* to do so. A true patriot will carry out this duty to the Nation...Not follow the half-baked orders that come out of *individuals* in the Administration that defy our Nation.

The biggest problems I can see with getting the Reformation started is to get the public Aware...Then comes the Organization needed to carry it out. Like most other people caught in the bureaucractic trap that was set to *make* people into disorganized individuals, I lack the resources needed to get the ball rolling.

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 10:35 PM
firstly, check out my thread, entitled "freedom aint what it used to be." There are options that dont require extreme measures, just awareness. As for how to spread awareness? Well, we have plenty of people on here who at least agree in principal on the issue, and I'm sure they all know others who dont use this board that also feel the same. So the first step is to link all these people, into a community of those who want to see some things change. Then we are no longer individuals who are unhappy with things, we are an organization who can implement a plan to raise awareness. Once these people are linked, plans can be formed, and action be taken. Sure, its a bit risky, with how things are in the government these days, but all I am talkng is free speech, nothing more. Once awareness is raised, the will of the people can take form, whatever it may be.

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 10:39 PM
Did I mention the possibility of an otherwise innocent ATS member having his or her life ruined by being branded a "threat" by some a$$hole making minimum wage, simply for speaking thier mind?

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 08:21 PM
I guess I'm with the against camp ... YEE HAA !!!


While alot of us lack the resources individually, a whole group of us has enough to get the ball rolling. We can do this, and we will.

Government official reading this,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is all.

PS. Oh wait ... Thanx for your involvment in ruining our nation, both internationally, and as a nation itself.

Ok ... Time to get back to work in fixing the USA!!!

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in