CIVIL LIBERTIES

CORPORADOS USING ABUSIVE LAW SUITS TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH

MOLLY IVINS - SLAPP suits (for "strategic lawsuits against public
participation") are a serious menace to free speech. The latest example
is a real prize: The Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has
already spent $10 million defending itself against a lawsuit filed by
Isuzu Motors Ltd. because, eight years earlier, Consumer Reports rated
the Isuzu Trooper "not acceptable" for safety reasons. And the case has
not yet reached trial.

And that is the real menace of SLAPP suits. It's not that corporations
win them, but that they cost critics so much money that the critics are
silenced -- and so is everyone else who even thinks about raising some
question about a corporate product or practice.

Isuzu claims that CU's reports are "not scientific or credible," but the
company's internal memos state that the "lawsuit is a PR tool" and "when
attacked, CU will probably shut up." According to a study by two
University of Denver law professors, "Americans by the thousands are
being sued, simply for exercising the right to speak out on public
issues, such as health and safety."

New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Cobella told PR Watch in
Madison, Wis.: "The longer the litigation can be stretched out ... the
closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. Those who lack the financial
resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the
difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being
brought to their knees to settle. ... Short of a gun to the head, a
greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.".
. .

Some examples of SLAPP suits from PR Watch:

In Las Vegas, a local doctor was sued for his allegation that a city
hospital violated the state's cost-containment law.

In Baltimore, members of a community group faced a $252 million lawsuit
after circulating a letter questioning the property-buying practices of
a local housing developer.

In West Virginia, an environmental activist was sued for $200,000 for
criticizing a coal-mining company for activities that were poisoning a
local river.

In Pennsylvania, a farmer was sued after testifying to his township
supervisors that a low-flying helicopter owned by a local landfill
operator caused a stampede that killed several of his cows.

In Washington state, a homeowner found that she couldn't get a mortgage
because her real-estate company had failed to pay taxes owed on her
house. She uncovered hundreds of similar cases, and the company was
forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes. In
retaliation, it sued the woman for slander and dragged her through six
years of legal harassment before a jury found her innocent.

In Missouri, a high-school English teacher was sued for $1 million after
complaining to a weekly newspaper that an incinerator burning hospital
waste was a health hazard.

http://www.alternet.org/story/24293/

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

"FREEDOM WALK' REQUIRES SUBMISSION OF PERSONAL DATA TO PENTAGON

ERIN CASSIN, NEW STANDARD - The current registration policy in place for
an upcoming September 11 commemorative walk organized by the Pentagon
has some privacy rights advocates questioning its consistency with the
stated theme of celebrating "freedom." By way of an online form,
registrants must submit personal information such as name, general age,
mailing address, phone number and email address in order to participate
in the controversial event, known as the America Supports You Freedom
Walk.

The Walk is billed as a march to "remember the victims of Sept. 11,
2001, to honor U.S. troops and veterans, and to highlight the value of
freedom." The event will start at the Pentagon and end at the National
Mall in Washington, DC.

"I think it is an abomination that a federal government agency would
require registration for a public gathering," said Beth Givens, director
of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a California-based organization that
advocates on behalf of consumers. "In my mind, this impinges on the
First Amendment right of free assembly."

According to Pentagon spokesperson Lieutenant Commander Greg Hicks, the
Freedom Walk registration form was originally designed with the
intention of charging participants a fee to defray event costs. The
Department of Defense, which has an annual budget well in excess of $400
billion, has since decided to make Freedom Walk a free event.

After repeated inquiries from The New Standard about the purpose of
collecting personal details, Hicks said DOD "will be removing the boxes
[on the form] that ask for personal data." As of press time, the
registration website is still requiring participants to enter all
information required by the original form. Hicks said he is not sure
how many people have already signed up using the online form.

Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center stated her
concern about the Freedom Walk website's lack of clarity as to who is
organizing the event and why registration information is being
collected. "What really bothers me is that there is no privacy
statement," said the associate director of the Washington, DC-based
research organization. "It's important for people to understand what
they are signing up for and who is collecting the information and how it
is going to be used. You know, knowledge is power."

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2246

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

TV STATION REFUSES ANTI-WAR AD

AP - A Utah television station is refusing to air an anti-war ad
featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil
outside President Bush's Texas ranch. The ad began airing on other area
stations Saturday, two days before Bush was scheduled to speak in Salt
Lake City to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
However, a national sales representative for KTVX, a local ABC
affiliate, rejected the ad in an e-mail to media buyers, writing that it
was an "inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City.". . .


In a statement Saturday evening explaining its decision, KTVX said that
after viewing the ad, local managers found the content "could very well
be offensive to our community in Utah, which has contributed more than
its fair share of fighting soldiers and suffered significant loss of
life in this Iraq war."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-20-bush-ad_x.htm?csp=34