David Loy of ACLU says San Marcos school raising funds illegally

San Diego ACLU legal director David Loy objects to a religious organization involved in raising money in public schools in San Marcos Unified School District. (See story below.)

I share Mr. Loy's concern about the charity for two reasons.

First, I don't like a charity that has the goal of merely passing out meals in Africa, without addressing underlying economic problems.  I would urge citizens of San Marcos to give to Oxfam rather than this charity.

Oxfam teaches people how to fish rather than giving them a fish to eat.  They create better economic conditions, giving jobs to parents rather than meals to children.  They let the parents feed their own kids with the money they make.

The San Marcos charity simply serves meals to kids.

Well, actually, I suspect that's not all they do.  Which brings me to my second criticism: the violation of the First Amendment.

Second, I suspect that the charity is serving meals for a limited time because it wants to give religious training to kids.  After they're converted, the charity's goals have been achieved, and the feeding of the kids is no longer a priority.

I can understand that Mr. Loy would be worried about the slippery slopes that surround enterprises like this one, but if he's going to worry about the dangers of everyday activities that threaten the First Amendment, he should worry first about his own actions quashing free speech.  Why should he hold San Marcos Middle School to such an exacting standard when he is so lax about the First Amendment in other situations?

ACLU says San Marcos school raising funds illegally

By Pat Maio 

SDUT

Dec. 8, 2014

San Marcos Middle School may be breaking state law by raising money with a religious group to feed children in East Africa, according to the San Diego and Imperial counties chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The school is partnering with a local nonprofit called Friends and Family Community Connection, with the support of Illinois-based Kids Around the World, to raise $3,500 to provide 14,000 meals for children in Tanzania..


David Loy's interesting history regarding free speech and open government

 ACLU legal director David Loy didn't want the First Amendment to be enforced in an anti-free speech lawsuit against this website, perhaps because of loyalty to someone he worked with.  But I doubt that Mr. Loy was involved in an effort to deface a California Court of Appeal opinion on the website Leagle.com.  The Aug. 5, 2014 opinion, which stated that I am allowed by the Constitution to mention the names of attorneys who work for schools, was seriously defaced.  I sent the following message to Leagle.com on December 8, 2014:

Who defaced this decision?  This page was perfectly legible for several years after the 2011 decision.   On December 8, 2014, I find that a large amount of the decision has been overwritten, making it indecipherable.  Was this page hacked, or does Leagle.com want it to be largely unreadable?

10 minutes later Leagle.com had fixed the defaced Stutz v. Larkins page.

Here is part of the hacked Leagle.com page:

On December 8, 2014 I was reading David Loy's biography on the San Diego ACLU website, and I was struck by the irony of his claims to fame.  Freedom of speech?  Open government and public disclosure? 

David Loy was indeed chosen as a Top Attorney in 2009 and 2010, but I suspect the reason was NOT that he defended free speech, but that he crafted a couple of agreements with schools regarding student speech.

Those agreements generated some nice media attention for Mr. Loy.  But what was he doing behind the scenes?

He was pressuring me to remove the names of public entity attorneys from my website.  He wrote to me telling me that I must remove every mention of certain public attorneys he had worked with!

The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr. Loy that I must remove those names.  See story in Voice of San Diego.

The Stutz v. Larkins decision on the Leagle website was largely unreadable for some time in 2014. It was fixed on Dec. 8, 2014.

Here's the decision that somebody didn't want you to see.  Clearly, David Loy didn't want this case to be heard by the Court of Appeal, so I assume he wasn't happy with the decision.

So how does David Loy get off claiming to be an expert in free speech and a champion of sunshine in government?  He most certainly is NOT a supporter of transparency in public entities, as shown by his efforts to silence public discussion of public attorneys.

Legal Director, David Loy
After graduating law school, Loy clerked for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked as a staff attorney with Office of the Appellate Defender in New York City and public defender and civil rights attorney in Spokane, Washington before joining the ACLU in 2006. He previously served on the Southern District Lawyer Representative Committee and the board of California Appellate Defense Counsel. Loy was named one of San Diego’s Top Attorneys 2009 and 2010 by San Diego Daily Transcript. He supervises all legal advocacy at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and has particular expertise in freedom of speech and religion, open government and public disclosure, police misconduct, and constitutional criminal procedure. Loy has a law degree from Northwestern and a B.A. from Brown, and is licensed to practice in California and New York (with inactive licenses in Illinois and Washington).
--from ACLU website 

Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts

Update: The joy didn't last too long. Google has gone back to keeping my blogs out of its Google Alerts system. Somebody with clout must have got to them again. But the good news is that there's a great alternative: Talkwalker.


I'm not blacklisted anymore! Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts.

And who is responsible for this free speech victory? The FBI, apparently!

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz seems to have convinced Google that my blogs were damaging Stutz' reputation, so about two or three years ago Google banned my blogs from its Google Alerts.

Except for a couple of blips, Google has been nice enough to allow my blogs in its search results, but it wouldn't send out alerts on my posts.

But this morning I got a Google alert regarding one of my blog posts.

Google must have decided that if the FBI is taping the conversations of a Stutz law firm lawyer, then the public has a right to the information I have about the law firm.

This morning they sent out alerts on this post: Dan Shinoff meeting with Manuel Paul and Loreto Romero was secretly taped as part of FBI investigation re San Ysidro School District

But the question remains, how much other information is being kept from the public by Internet companies whose lawyers want to please big law firms who complain about people like me?

Should private companies control what we can see on the Internet? Net Neutrality Goes on Trial: Verizon v. FCC

Do Internet providers have the right to control whose voice can be heard? Ironically, they risk becoming responsible for porn and other illegal activities on the Internet if they start controlling access.

Net Neutrality Goes on Trial: A Guide to Verizon v. FCC
By Joshua Brustein
Bloomberg Business Week
September 09, 2013

A federal court will take up a major challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to regulate the Internet today, with oral arguments in the dispute between the U.S. government and Verizon Communications (V) over the validity of an order that set regulations on net neutrality. The decision by the three-judge panel could very well reshape the economics of the Internet, the way it is regulated by the federal government, and the stature of the FCC itself.

The case is a major step in a years-long battle over the idea that Internet providers should not be able to play favorites among the different types of traffic passing through their networks, dubbed net neutrality in debates over the years. The FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order (PDF) set out rules guiding Internet providers, and Verizon quickly challenged on constitutional grounds and over claims that the FCC lacked the authority.

It’s about how powerful the FCC should be: People who have been following the case say that most of the action will happen in the debate over whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet. This is also where the stakes are highest. Three years ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—the same court that is hearing the case on Monday—ruled that the commission hadn’t proven it had such legal power in a case brought by Comcast (CMCSA). This led to the Open Internet Order, and a major question before the judges today is why this case should be any different.

The FCC’s main argument is that it has the authority to do things to speed up the development of a better telecommunication system, a responsibility the government has used to enact rules that will keep Internet providers from choking off innovations brought about by content makers and other companies that don’t own the infrastructure of the Internet. FCC supporters also argue that if Verizon can charge companies for better access on crowded networks, the company actually has an incentive to keep broadband capacity down. Verizon argues that more regulations are hardly the way to bring about speedier innovations.

If the judges aren’t persuaded by the FCC, it could have an impact far beyond net neutrality. The commission is taking on all kinds of Internet-related issues—like privacy, fraudulent billing, and universal broadband access. Stripped of its authority to pursue any of this, the government would be losing a fair chunk of its overall power. “This is not a narrow question about net neutrality, it’s a much broader question about the FCC’s relevance,” says Gigi B. Sohn, the head of the advocacy group Public Knowledge.

On the other hand, the judges may be reluctant simply to grant the FCC power to regulate the Internet, according to Dave Kaut, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. “It wouldn’t be surprising if they push the FCC on the limits,” he said. “I don’t think they’re going to give the FCC carte blanche.”

It’s about the first amendment: Among Verizon’s arguments against the Open Internet Order is the contention that it violates the company’s rights under the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. Appealing to the First Amendment is particularly novel. Verizon is arguing, in a nutshell, that part of its role as an Internet provider is to pick and choose the services it wants to provide. These are editorial decisions, the company says, and should be protected as free speech. This irritates proponents of net neutrality, who see themselves as trying to guarantee that companies like Verizon don’t themselves squash free speech by squeezing the services passing through its wires.

Verizon doesn’t have many examples of how it has used its editorial judgment in its Internet-service business. The free speech argument could also open the company to liabilities that it currently avoids by claiming to be a neutral conduit for information—a common justification invoked to protect Internet companies from responsibility for illicit material found on their networks. If Verizon claims to be the editor of its Internet service, couldn’t it be held responsible for copyright violations and other illegal content it allows its customers to access?

Former Glaxo Lawyer Indicted

I don't think our Judge Judith Hayes of San Diego is going to be happy about this. The Justice Department has indicted a lawyer, Lauren C. Stevens of Durham, N.C.. Hayes doesn't even want lawyers to be criticized on the Internet, much less indicted for concealing evidence and obstructing justice.

Here's what our Judge Hayes had to say on the subject to a woman who criticized a law firm on the Internet:

"Take this law firm off the website...save yourself some trouble. A lawyer does what a lawyer does in every case, and if we had people putting up websites for every lawyer they didn't like we'd have so many websites the Internet would be boggled, if that is something that can happen electronically."
--Court Reporter's transcript April 6, 2009 Dept. 68 San Diego Superior Court

Note to Judge Hayes: The Internet seems to be doing just fine despite the burden of the millions of people who express their views online. What would happen if every victim decided to expose wrongdoing by lawyers? I think the result would be a more reliable justice system in which lawyers turn over evidence instead of hiding it.


November 9, 2010
Former Glaxo Lawyer Indicted
By DUFF WILSON
New York Times

A former vice president and associate general counsel for the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation into illegal drug marketing, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.

The criminal charges are part of the government’s long-promised crackdown on individual executives for their roles in pharmaceutical company cases, which have resulted in billions of dollars in fines and payments by the companies.

Lauren C. Stevens of Durham, N.C., is accused of lying to the Food and Drug Administration in a series of letters in 2003 denying the company had promoted a drug for off-label uses, according to federal prosecutors. She had claimed the company did not have promotional slides the F.D.A. had sought during its investigation, the indictment said...

Google, Verizon net pact has 'many problems' says FCC commish

UPDATE: Google/Verizon plan falls short on network neutrality.

FCC needs to get tough on network neutrality
San Francisco Chronicle
August 8, 2010

There's no way to put a positive spin on the latest news about network neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission has given up its attempt to broker a deal between telephone, cable and Internet companies that would preserve the freedom of the Internet...

The goal is to keep dominant carriers from overcharging for online access. Google and Verizon insist that what they're working on is not a backroom deal for their own benefit but instead a legislative proposal about how Internet content should be managed. All of this may be true - but it still doesn't look right.

Public interest and consumer groups didn't feel like they had much of a say in the commission's discussions, and they surely won't feel like they had much of a say in whatever proposal Google and Verizon bring to the table. This is a huge problem - the future of the Internet belongs to the public, not just a few companies.

The ideal solution would be for Congress to step in and provide a framework for net neutrality - preferably one that keeps the public interest at heart, not the demands of dominant Internet companies and carriers.

Will Facebook win the war against Google and control the Internet?

See also Comcast opposes Internet freedom.

How Facebook Could Organize The Internet
Niraj Chokshi
The Atlantic
Apr 22 2010

Given its scale, Facebook could end up completely transforming the web and may have even won the war against Google. If enough sites buy in, Facebook would have helped set a standard that would usher in a long-awaited, new era, writes Newsweek's Barrett Sheridan:

Computer scientists have long envisioned a Web 3.0, a smarter Internet that understands the difference between objects, people, places, animals, etc. In other words, computers and servers should know that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an object, and in particular it's a film, and in particular a film by Michel Gondry, who is a person. Right now computers see words like "Michel Gondry" only as dumb, meaningless text. Facebook wants to change that--which is great. But it also plans to own that information--which is scary.

Privacy concerns abound and could block Facebook's march to control the web. So could other companies if they refuse to participate. But Facebook's plans are ambitious and, if it succeeds, it could become more than just a social network...

Comcast wins against FCC in effort to control what we see on the Internet

It seems to me that we have too many federal judges who are more loyal to business interests than to the constitution of the United States. Recently the Supreme Court said businesses can spend as much as they want on political ads; now a federal court says owners of cable networks can actually give privileges in exchange for money (or political favors?) as to what information is provided to the public via the Internet.


FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality'
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
April 6, 2010

People use computers at an internet cafe in Wuhan Reuters – People use computers at an internet cafe in Wuhan, Hubei province, January 23, 2010. REUTERS/Stringer
Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
CMCSA 18.76 -0.06
GOOG 568.22 -2.79
T 26.31 0.00
VZ 31.20 -0.26
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – 3 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called "common carrier" networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines...

Iran clamps down on bloggers, and tries to control the Internet

Clamping down on bloggers? This sounds a lot like what's happening in San Diego.


Iran.ir: an ominous sign
by Saeed Kamali Dehghan
guardian.co.uk
4 February 2010

As Iranian protesters gear up online again, the state is clamping down with a new state service replacing foreign email accounts.

Since the disputed election last June, Ahmadinejad's government has sought different ways to further crack down on the internet in Iran. Now, access to almost all reformist websites is blocked, including those of the reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi.

Last week Iran launched a national webmail service via iran.ir, intended to replace free foreign webmail services with a domestic one that is easier to control...

Recently, officials have blocked access to Google Translate, which has provided English to Persian, Persian to English service since June. But, as has happened in China, is filtering Google the next step?...