Monthly Archives: August 2011

Wednesday august 31st 2011 ( had to call the police again… someone in my home harddrive all wrong with all my blog info.. hummm coudl it be the harassing people on the phone from yesterday?

i cant believe how far these horrible  people.. and theives will go… I jsut had to call the police again..  its now 1:19pm an  i am waiting for them to show….

the harassing phone caller…. the mean bullies… who threatened  me and wanted my blog off.. and wanted my life damaged…  they want my life.. including my condo.my businesses and my friends and even my family…  including even  my intellectual property…. my   thoughts that i write down… i told  the person on the phone who was harassing me…  yesterday  that  …… she couldn’t  take away my ability to think  to have  my own thoughts written down .. to be able to publish my own words… my own thoughts… 

i had someone on the phone  tell me not to badmouth her or her two sisters.. as if she was me one of  my two sisters????  my two  sisters???? the identity  thief from 2002? who the hell are  these  people? these criminals?

well as i was even writing this .. there was an automatic close off for my blog writing…  account… it has to be a very knowledgeable person with computer hacking skills…  and no morals.. no values.. and able to  break and enter.. 

this is what i don’t understand…
 1. the  screen of  my computer went from a large full screen picture to a small  minuet picture..
 2.  it will not go to windows… so i may have to reboot the entire hard drive   again losing all my information…. including  all the blog entries i was saving on windows 2010 trial…
3.  i lock the locks for my front door and the wrong key opened the door not he key i used last night to lock the door….
4.  i heard someone upstairs early this morning..  an no one is supposed to be in that condo at this point  in time…  the last time i saw anyone  visiting there was one of the sons and that was a t least a month ago…
5. the location of my computer said pine ridge when i had changed it to naples… last night on both computers…  
6. this is the most freaky bit of information.. that the den window  ( for the past three days… the lock on the window  was in the half way position…when  i had locked it all the way….   
7   some of the paper in the  printer was in the  finished  printing  tray… you know  as if it had gone through  the printer… 
8. when trying to type in the administrative password  to start windows….it was not working…


I called and spoke to officer  or deputy Kerkland #3286  she was sending the police at 12:59pm she told me not to touch anything and hopefully they would  find  some evidence. 

Officer Hurley came his badge number is: # 2308 he didn’t think anything had happened and didn’t file a report.

i went online with the one good laptop hat was working and tried to download the  Microsoft trial version of 2010… i had saved it with the  full product key… but his version saved on my external hard drive didn’t have the full product key so i cant download.. i thought maybe nota problem.. tried to call teh microsoft of fice… to get teh correct product key.. butt then i realized that not one of the letters i had written and saved on my external harddrive was on my hard drive .. the letter i had written to capitol one.. the letter i had even been wroking on writing  lat night… is not on my exterenal harddrive.. then no letters to  any of the creditcopmanies. no letters to litton loan servicing… nothing that i had saved from this blog.. nothing i had avedand even dowwnloaded aboutfreedomof speech about anyof the einformtin from my blog fromteh florida statutes…
that means it is not only somme ne wh ohad tampered wth my  computer.. but someone had tampered with myexternal harddrive… so something DID happedn…. and has been happening sinc ethe stupid girl andtheidenitytheft in 2002!HELP!!!!!!!


Why cant you peropleeleave me alone… go destroy someone else life. this is not fun..  this is not a game.. forsome lady in pine ridge to steal myidentity..or soee frompalm beach to steal myidenity… or  this is criminal…

 ths is mylife.. go away…

Tuesday August 30th 2011 @11:00pm ( letter to capitol one with additonal information)


To whom it may concern:                                                                                 August 25th 2011 @ 6:27pm


My name is Mary Jean Ziska.  I am writing today to dispute charges on my credit report concerning a     Capital One Master Card Account.   I have reports from all three credit agencies.  I found two capitol one credit cards with almost the exact account numbers started at the exact same time. (See details below)


Capitol one credit card: #1:  529107263924xxxx opened:   12/2006 balance of $3003.00.  Fraudulent account I only had one account and it was supposed to have been paid in full in 2006 as noted in the other capitol one credit card.  Police report for identity theft # T1000181/state attorney reference report number:  11-00021030.                                                                                                                                                                              


 Capitol one credit card: #2:  5291072272237xxxx opened:  12/2006 balance of $0.   I believe this was the accurate account.  I only had one account and it was supposed to have been paid in full in 2006 as noted in the Capitol one credit card report.  Police report for identity theft# T1000181/ State Attorney Reference incident report number:  11-00021030.  


 My personal information as reference for my account:   My residence is:  5632 Whisperwood Blvd.   #1601 Naples Florida.   I opened the account in 2002 and had a credit limit of $1000.00. When I recently went online and was able to obtain a credit report from Experian,   the interest on the account created a balance of $3003.00.  During that time frame refinancing for my home was completed through a corrupt lawyer David J. Stern and a corrupt broker, Ian Stein.   The broker, Ian stein was in charge of paying the $1000.00 debt.   I believe that he paid the balance to the account:  (52910722722237xxxx).   He did not repay a personal loan I made to him from the refinancing and may have even been involved in the additional fraudulent accounts that were opened at that time period.   There were additional bills he did not take care of before he disappeared, with his office closed, the phones disconnected and leaving no forwarding address to contact him or his company for the purpose of collecting funds or information concerning his fraudulent activities.    


When I first checked one of my credit reports,   I was shocked to see that interest had been accruing on a capitol one account and a total of $3,003.00 was still showing on the credit report.  I was even more shocked to see that interest was past as of July 2011, when I believed the account had been paid in full in 2006. In fact, when I first received my first Experian credit report,   I thought that there had to have been fraud involved, because i had been informed mine account had been paid off in 2006.


 The man who was my broker, Ian Stein was found to be a con-artist and worked for a lawyer David J Stern who was also convicted of being a criminal.  Ian stein stole $3,000.00 from me personally.   I filed police reports for additional fraudulent accounts I found on my credit report occurring within the same time fame.  The police report for additional fraudulent accounts that I believe may have been started by the same group of con-artists is: (#11-21030)/state attorney reference incident report number: 11-00021030.    Until recently I was under the assumption that all my bills (in good faith) had been paid, and accounting for such would be reflected on my credit report.   I trust with this additional information the necessary adjustments will be made to my account and credit report and the fraudulent account will be removed allowing for just one capitol one account that was paid in full in 2006.                             


On August 22nd 2011@ I called the capitol one telephone number of:  800-955-7070 was listed on my Experian dispute form and reached Katrina @ 3:58pm id# ALM290.  I gave her the account number that showed on my Experian account for my Capitol One Master Card of (#  529107263924…)The address  listed is P.O. BOX 30281 Salt Lake City UT 84130 then there were some additional numbers under the account (0344157357).  She asked to access my account by wanting to know the various information I listed in the first paragraph of this letter. The information I gave her was:    my full name, date of birth, address, account number, and the actual number on the actual credit card.   She even wanted to know my social security number but I never give that out…. (Especially over the phone).    She said she couldn’t see my account information so she transferred me to William (id# 32L5) who is supposed to be an account manager in the recovery department.   I began speaking with him at 4:15pm and spoke to him until 4:19pm. (He said he had to hang up due to an earthquake in Virginia? And he had to evacuate the area? I ‘m not sure if that was the correct information or not but he told me to call back tomorrow morning 8 am to discuss the situation with another representative.  He also told me to fax my information to fax number # 888-259-3021 or mail it to P.O. box 30285 Salt Lake City UT 84130 telephone number 800-955-7070.  It is a different address than the one on the Experian account information sheet.  I want to verify which address is correct? 


 I explained  the entire  situation,  but I don’t  think he understood the  legal implications  and  liability  for the balance of the account after 2006.  He mentioned that the account was signed in 2002 and maintained good standing until 2006-2007 which is true.   The situation in 2006 changed.  In 2006 as per the court of collier county (clerk’s case number # 0600117GA:  July 05 2006 a petition for appointment of guardian was issued and to date, the case has still not been resolved.      


 I am putting back together my credit and my life and as of today I am still going through court cases based on this horrid time period of my life!  I am attempting to rectify this situation with Capitol one master Card company, and the credit bureaus by having this fraudulent account removed.  


I still suffer from severe anxiety caused by events as far back as 2003 and am making sure that those responsible are brought to justice; however I am still left with a mess to clean up in my own life, my credit, and in business and personal relationships.  Due to these extenuating circumstances,   I expect all charges to be justly removed from all my credit reports and credit history.  My credit history should reflect only the time period for account #5291072272237.   As for my Capitol One Master Card Account this would be the time period of:  2002- 2006.


I am writing today to rectify the situation and clear my credit of all the injustice that occurred in 2006-2007!


Thank you for your kind attention in this matter,


Sincerely,


Mary Jean Ziska                                                                                                                                      5632whisperwood Blvd. #1601                                                                                                                              Naples Florida  34110


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Tuesday August 30th 2011@5:02pm ( internet and freedm of speech info.)


The Internet and Information Society


Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that “the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech”.[43] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[7] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[citation needed] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:[44]



“The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, “indecent” in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . .] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [. . .] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [. . .] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: “What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos.” Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.”[44]


The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the “Information Society” in stating:



“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.”[45]


According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the “commodification of information” as item of information that previously had little or no economic value, have acquired independent economic value in the information age, such as factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.[46]


Freedom of information



Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[47] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[48]


Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.[citation needed]


Internet censorship



The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[49] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the “free flow of information” for what they term “closed societies”.[50] According to the Reporters without Borders (RS “internet enemy list” the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.[51]


A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the “Great Firewall of China” (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[52] Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[53][54]


See also

Tuesday auguest 30th 2011@4:57pm( freedom of speech )


Freedom of speech



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
















































Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.


The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”.[1][2]







Contents

[hide]


The right to freedom of speech and expression


Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[3] England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted ‘freedom of speech in Parliament’ and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[4] The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:



“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”[5]


Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:



“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[6]


Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.[7] Based on John Milton‘s arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:



  • the right to seek information and ideas;

  • the right to receive information and ideas;

  • the right to impart information and ideas.[7]

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[7]


Relationship to other rights


The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech).[7] The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.[8] As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.[8] The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.[7] However, freedom of the press is not necessarily enabling freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle “no money, no voice”.[9]


Origins


Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[10] It is thought that ancient Athens’ democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[11] Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech.[12] In Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century AD.[13][verification needed] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma’mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[14]


Freedom of speech, dissent and truth





First page of John Milton‘s 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in it he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643.




In “Panegyricae orationes septem” (1596) Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship. Van Cuyck argued that Johannes Gutenberg‘s printing press had resulted in a world infected by “pernicious lies.” He singled out the Talmud and the Qu’ran, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.[15]

Before the invention of the printing press a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out and an elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[16] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[17] The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[17] In 1501 Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[16] The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of “bad books” catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which assumed responsibility to control thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others it banned or censored books written by Rene Descartes, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, David Hume, John Locke, Daniel Defoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.[18] While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.[17]





Title page of Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or List of Prohibited Books, (Venice 1564).




This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine‘s Golden Legend (1260) was censored according to the Index Librorum Expurgatorum of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.[19][20]

The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton‘s response to the Parliament of England’s re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers.[21] Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton’s essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license,[22] Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood,[21] stating:



“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[21]


Milton’s defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a Protestant worldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the enlightenment of all people. But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of “harmful” speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.[21]


As the “menace” of printing spread, governments established centralised control mechanism.[23] The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers’ Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the “greate enormities and abuses” of “dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books.” The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.[23]


A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront at the beginning of the discussion the idea of a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton (1608–74) and John Locke (1632–1704). Locke established the individual as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However Lockes ideas evolved primarily around the concept of a mans right to seek salvation for his or her soul, and was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke did not support a universal toleration and freedom of speech, some groups, like atheists, should not be allowed according to his ideas.[24]


By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre Bayle developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers.[25] By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French philosophes like Denis Diderot, Baron d’Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius[26] The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued December 4 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee.[27] However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict in October 7 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.[28]


Milton and Locke emphasised the role of Government to protect these rights and this belief was first enshrined in a durable form in the US Constitution, with the First Amendment adding the guarantee that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that human freedom is good and without it there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.[21] Mill argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the “deep slumber of a decided opinion”. Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.[29]


In Evelyn Beatrice Hall‘s biography of Voltaire, she coined the following phrase to illustrate Voltaire’s beliefs: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”[30] Hall’s quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[31] In the 20th Century Noam Chomsky states that: “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”[32] Professor Lee Bollinger argues that “the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters.” Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see Limitations, below).[33]


Democracy



The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[8] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[34]


Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy “probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies”.[35] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a “safety valve” to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that “The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a moral adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus.” Emerson furthermore maintains that “Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay.”[36]


Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. “Voice and Accountability” within a country, defined as “the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media” is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[37]


Social interaction and community


Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that “by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community.”[38]


Limitations



For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal speech.

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[39] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the “harm principle” or the “offense principle”, for example in the case of pornography or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[40]





Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.[41]

In “On Liberty” (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.”[40] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[40]


In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the “offence principle”, arguing that Mill’s harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote “It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end.”[42] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[42] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[40] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[40]


The Internet and Information Society


Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that “the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech”.[43] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[7] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[citation needed] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:[44]



“The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, “indecent” in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . .] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [. . .] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [. . .] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: “What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos.” Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.”[44]


The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the “Information Society” in stating:



“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.”[45]


According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the “commodification of information” as item of information that previously had little or no economic value, have acquired independent economic value in the information age, such as factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.[46]


Freedom of information



Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[47] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[48]


Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.[citation needed]


Internet censorship



The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[49] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the “free flow of information” for what they term “closed societies”.[50] According to the Reporters without Borders (RS “internet enemy list” the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.[51]


A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the “Great Firewall of China” (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[52] Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[53][54]


See also


Tuesday Augut 30th 2011@2:02pm can’t reach my attorney…

Still can’t call my attorney….. Help!  JOHN T. CARDILLO  239-774-2229  violation of my rights… wait.. I was able to get through… and spoke with  to cherri… his assistant..while i was talkiing to her …. I had a call from the legal department…. of comcast… and silly me….lost the  phone call…  i jsut called back.. and since this webste is not through comcast… i was jsut todl my mike that they will not  disrupt my comcast service becaus eeof a third party websiet.. so i have to goan see that  through  my  3rd party povider… this website cannot be harmed… and my blog can stay as is… allowing  for  teh first admendent… and freedom of speech to actually  be upheld! Yea… to AMERICA and teh coonsitution fo teh united states of America! ( of cuse i also love eurpoe.. and australia… and tons of other travel places.. but fro today.. i am soo gald t be american and allowed to have the freedom of speech…    

Tuesday August 30th 2011 ( justic edid nt win today.. but bullies did.. what a shame…freedom of speech… wehr is freedom of speech?)

Well i am sad to report that I jsut got a phone call  from  a bully representing her self eslf as my mother… nothng like my mother by the way.. more interested in her business and in her babysitters and and in the bully who tresspassed and harmed my life.. than in me… she claims she is trying to protect herself….  did nt  want any  informaitn about any lawyers on my blog or website… didn’t want me to sue any swear words… didn’t want me to say anthing i wanted… and sur eas hell didn t want to helme repair all the damage that stupid idenity thieves..and bullies and tresspassing girls from ohio state did to my life…  

she /he treatened to have my entire website and blog removed.. what a bully… (and it sounded like he/she was eating… .. it thnk the exact words were … she is not gogni to let me say anythngmean about her sisters….( HUH??? ) if she is talking aobu tany of  my real mom’s aunts… i dont mention them in the blog.. if she is talking about  my sisters maura and mattie… then     i am teh real sister… the  original mary jean ziska.. I was the real live human bing.. the real blood sibling.. and sister  who lived with them in saudi arabia.. and went to boarding school  with them… and   college with them who had apartments with them…. who went to movies..and shopping and  loved them… and  they loved me…I  know my family really loved me… they would never have hurt me in a million years..let alone try to take away my famly… my idenity.. and my happiness or my life… 

I was told that I need to take out all referene to any of my  mother’s information…  that I needed to remove all traces of my  sisters… .. and of my family … that I needed to take out all swear words.. and needed to never mention karen kahel… or  what she did to my life.. that i needed to  remove all mention of laywers… of any police who have helped me… that I  am to remove any addresses…. 

Istn this AMERICA<<< sont i have some right s under the first admendment? How is a girl who bullied me allowd to get away with bulling me…..  but whe ni try to let eh world know who an dhwo heey armed mylife.. i amd supposed to be quiet.. shut up and  let anyone do anythng they wanted to me?  and i knw  in my heart.. it is not my famly…. not the same mom who took me to the ritz for my birthday… or who sent me lovely cards.. or who just  last week we laughed at movies… and she came over and even brought cookies…   how in GOD”S name can this be the same person who just called and threatened me…????? 

its liek the same womena who waned new rate sheets cerated on my mm’s business.. but wtihout my mom’s name.. I told my mom to not be liable for anything with the busness  she could  turn the buiensss into an  llc…but her brand  is  in part her name.. and her busienss… is known by everyone  because of her… she started it in 1990…. i stated helping in:   1995-1996!  

so to anyone who has been reading this blog .. who believed in justice.. in hopes and dreams coming true  …..    who thoguth allthngs wer possible and the good and right wins agains evil… iam sorryto  say… today it did not… today i belive money and  those who use it for ther own selfish gains and means…… who bully and that is how hey get results.. today  as teh olio state girl   wh tresspasd and lied and  cheated ..  who bullied and harassed… todayas in eh day she bullied me to tears.. i guess the rights of the constitiution sotn win… but girslwho screw powerful boys who have money who are maybe in the mafia.. or threaten to kill my mother… they are alloed t do whatever tehy want .. and hurt anyone they want ..  and no justice is  availale… what a shame… 

I had the police come to see if they could  do anythng about  the internet … the people on the other end of the  line…  ( who are nothing like my mother or  my family… )  the threats.. and  actions  with which they  threaten me…. 

I also called about 4 diferent numbers for comcast    

Tuesday August 30th 2011 @ 1:19pm ( freedom of speech )


Freedom of speech in the United States



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words,[1] as well as harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, commercial speech such as advertising, and time, place and manner restrictions.


Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.


Flag desecration has continually, albeit controversially, been protected by the First Amendment, despite state laws to the contrary. A Constitutional Amendment has been introduced to contravene the First Amendment’s protection on flag burning, but it has failed to acquire the requisite enactment by all the states.


Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.

Tuesday August 30th 2011( comcast legal department information)


  Home  |  SafeHouse Support  |  Post / Search Jobs  |  Privacy  |  Contact Us 
 
 
 
Search Databases 
Nationwide Records
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
All Other States
Law Enforcement News
Investigative Resources
Terrorist Photographs
Administrative
Software
Post / Search Job Opportunities 
Single Word Search 


  Search All Articles News Blogs Pages


 — All Categories — Nationwide Records – New York – New Jersey – Investigative Resources     – N.Y. Law Enforcement Agencies     – Information Sources     – Social Networking Sites     – Federal Law Enforcement Agencies – Law Enforcement News – Administrative – Software – Connecticut – Pennsylvania – All Other States – Terrorist Photographs – Post / Search Job Opportunities


 Exact Phrase Search 


   Other Sources
 
Article Options
 Email to Friend
 Print Article
 Add to Favorites
 Add to ‘Articles to Read’
Popular Links
U.S. Federal Prison Inmate Registry / Locator
Verizon Wireless Emergency Assistance
New York City Parking Violations Bureau
New Jersey Professional License Verification
New York State Prison Inmate Registry
You Tube
Amtrak Police Department
Verizon Emergency Assistance (Landlines Only)
New York State Department Of Finance And Taxation
Social Security Cards
No popular articles found.
 
 
 
   
 Custom Search  »  Home  »  Investigative Resources  » 
Information Sources  »  Comcast Legal Compliance
Comcast Legal Compliance
By Administrator – CriminalDivision.Com | Published  12/17/2007 |
Information Sources | Unrated 
 
Contact Information


Legal Compliance (Subpoena, Search Warrant, Court Order):


Comcast’s Legal Response Center has two groups which handle legal compliance. The Legal Demands Center – Data located in Moorestown, New Jersey is responsible for matters involving Comcast High Speed Internet. The Legal Demands Center – Voice and Video located in Greenwood Village, Colorado is responsible for matters involving Comcast’s telephone services (Comcast Digital Voice, Comcast Digital Phone) and television service (Comcast Digital Cable).


Comcast uses CT Corporation (866-401-8252) as a registered agent to support the submission of legal requests. If your legal request must be served in your state of origin contact CT Corporation’s local office for submission or the Legal Response Center for a list of CT Corporation’s offices. If you may serve legal process outside of your state of origin, Comcast prefers service of legal requests via facsimile (see contact information below) to the extent allowed by state or federal law.


Legal Demands Center – Data:


650 Centerton Road
Moorestown, NJ 08057


Hours of Operation:


8:30AM – 5:00PM Eastern Time


Telephone: (856) 317-7272
Service of Process Fax: (856) 317-7319


Legal Demands Center – Voice and Video:


5800 S Quebec Street


Greenwood Village, CO 80111


Hours of Operation:


8:00AM – 5:00PM Mountain Time


Monday – Friday


Telephone: (800) 871-6298
Service of Process Fax: (720) 267-2794


 


 


 


 


 
 
Copyright © 2011 Criminal Division – Investigative Resources | Free Background Checks . All rights reserved.
The CriminalDivision.Com web site is a service of MajorCase.Com LLC
 
 
 

Tuesday August 30th 2011@7:05am ( report T11000185 to police-hackers and bullies threats via email and onthe phone to interupt my internet service and my blog because these crooks don’t want to be caught!

 


















Badge Image This incident has been reported to the
Collier County Sheriff’s Office
and is pending approval
Collier County Sheriff’s Office
3319 Tamiami Trail East, Bldg. J
Naples, FL 34112
239-774-4434




clear img








































































General Information
Incident Type Harassing Phone Call
Temporary Report Number T11000185
Report Date 08/30/2011 07:03 AM
clear img
Reporting Person Information
Name ziska, mary jean
Home Address 5632 whispewood blvd. Boulevard, 1601, naples, FL 34110, US
Home Phone 561-283-7505
Email whatabtmary@yahoo.com
Employer Name self -emplyed
Work Address 5632 whisperwood Boulevard, 1601, naples, FL 34110, US
Work Phone 561-283-7505
Race White/hispanic
Sex Female
DOB 07/07/1966
Driver License No Z200590667470
Licensing State FL
clear img
Incident Information
Incident Location 5632 whisperwood Boulevard, 1601, naples, FL 34110
Incident Time (start) 08/30/2011 06:30 AM
Incident Time (end) 08/30/2011 06:30 AM
Location Type Apartment/condo
Incident Description I woke up early this morning to file this report. I received 3 emails from email address naplesmarion@aol.com yesterday threatening to turn off my Comcast cable for my internet and stop my blog www,mysearchforjustice.com if i did not remove the bog from my website. This is a violation of my first amendment rights and i believe that the person who sent the emails and the threats are using cyber bulling to harass me and prevent me from telling the truth about a bully karen kahel and and a man who threaten to kill my mother, Gerard Ahler. The email address is my mother’s email but she does not have security on her wireless service and also has three renters living in her bottom apartments. The emails contained attachments containing Comcast information and my mother is 74 years old and does not know how to create an attachment on an email. This incident was started when i used my magic jack phone to call he cell phone this past weekend. The person on the cell phone was rude and acted nothing like my mother so I called her house. I had three hang ups on her land line in her home when no one was supposed to be there. I called the police only to get a bunch of young kids trying to pretend they were the sheriff’s office. these same young kids, I believe are the same people who are threatening to harm me and my internet service and have probably been the same bullies for years. I need your help to stop these people from harming my life, hacking into my phone service, or my internet service or my website. I woke early because their threats scare me as I’m sure they have intended them to scare and threaten me. Bullies never change. I am trying to clear up my credit report as i found out that and have been a victim of identity theft since 2002 and need the internet to work and complete the process with the credit bureaus. Sine they actually committed a felony by impersonating the police,I believe they think they are above the law.PleaseHelp!




clear img
















clear img
clear img Print This Report clear img
clear img
clear img









clear img
clear img Close Window clear img
clear img

Tuesday August 30th 2011@7:32pm ( entry sent to police from online report)

I woke up early this morning to file this report. I received 3 emails from email address naplesmarion@aol.com yesterday threatening to turn off my Comcast cable for my internet and stop my blog www,mysearchforjustice.com if i did not remove the bog from my website. This is a violation of my first amendment rights and i believe that the person who sent the emails and the threats are using cyber bulling to harass me and prevent me from telling the truth about a bully karen kahel and and a man who threaten to kill my mother, Gerard Ahler. The email address is my mother’s email but she does not have security on her wireless service and also has three renters living in her bottom apartments. The emails contained attachments containing Comcast information and my mother is 74 years old and does not know how to create an attachment on an email. This incident was started when i used my magic jack phone to call he cell phone this past weekend. The person on the cell phone was rude and acted nothing like my mother so I called her house. I had three hang ups on her land line in her home when no one was supposed to be there. I called the police only to get a bunch of young kids trying to pretend they were the sheriff’s office. these same young kids, I believe are the same people who are threatening to harm me and my internet service and have probably been the same bullies for years. I need your help to stop these people from harming my life, hacking into my phone service, or my internet service or my website. I woke early because their threats scare me as I’m sure they have intended them to scare and threaten me. Bullies never change. I am trying to clear up my credit report as i found out that and have been a victim of identity theft since 2002 and need the internet to work and complete the process with the credit bureaus. Sine they actually committed a felony by impersonating the police,I believe they think they are above the law.PleaseHelp!