From U.S. News & World Report:

A doctors’ group and an organization that advocates for the interest of the inner-city poor have joined forced to sue the Obama administration, charging that its abortive effort to collect criticisms made by those opposed to President Obama’s plan to change the U.S. health care system infringed on their First Amendment rights.

In a complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education said the White House had attempted to “unlawfully” collect information on protected political speech when it asked Obamacare supporters to report any negative comments about the proposal to a U.S. government email address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

The specific effort, which was launched on August 4 as part of the White House’s “rapid response” Health Insurance Reform Reality Check, was quickly abandoned after members of Congress raised questions about it. Nevertheless, say the two groups filing suit, the information collection effort continues under another name and is part of an “unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information” on the exercise of free speech, which “continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity.”

“My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the ‘fishy’ request,” said Kathryn Serkes, AAPS’ Director of Policy and Public Affairs. “We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?”

In the suit, the groups are demanding the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.

Background reading if you are interested. Oldest post first:

Bush Vs. Obama – Wiretapping Terrorists Vs. Spying on Citizens: Major Upate

Is Obama Or Executive Branch In Violation Of The Privacy Act of 1974?

Obama White House Violating Governement Website Rules – Domain Could Be Suspended

White House Spy Program Violates .Gov Domain Guidelines And Privacy Act of 1974 – Updates And Who To Contact

White House Using New Web Site To Spread Lies About ObamaCare. White House Still Collecting Data And What You Can Do About It – New Petition From ACLJ. New Site Still Violates .Gov Guidelines

Obama Could Be In Trouble: ACLJ Legal Analysis of White House Flag Program

Obama’s Legal Troubles Starting To Grow. Citizen Spy Program – Public Relations Nightmare? And How The Heck Did I Get I Get An Email From David Axelrod? Screenshot Included.

In other news and opinion:

Gadhafi’s camping trip is a bloody outrage

Hey, maybe someone should “claw back” Pay Czar’s big pay!

Honduras offers return, but not office

Great moments in union representation

Will there be a “Wellstone effect” in Kennedy remembrances?

The American Center for Law and Justice released its analysis of the White House dissident data collection program where the White House asks citizens to spy on each other and turn in any fishy emails or “casual conversations” that contradict or otherwise expose the lies coming from the White House and its political allies concerning ObamaCare. Here are some of the high points (any emphasis is mine):

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. . . . [I]t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (citation omitted).

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have used their freedom of speech to express their viewpoints on important social issues of their day. While the venues have evolved over time—from soapbox oratories on the village green to blogs and email blasts—the First Amendment’s protection of issue advocacy has remained robust. Citizen participation in town hall meetings and similar events to discuss social issues and
legislative proposals pre-dates our Nation’s founding and continues to the present day. When such meetings are opened up for citizen questions or comments, members of the public should feel free to ask difficult questions and make their opinions known. This form of non-disruptive participation in the government decision-making process is fully protected by the First Amendment. “There is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).

“[I]nteractive communication concerning political change”—such as citizen feedback at a town hall meeting—is “core political speech” for which the First Amendment’s protection is “at its zenith.” See Buckley v. Am. Const. Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 186-87 (1999) (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422, 425 (1988)). Americans have the freedom to speak out for or against legislative proposals or other government action at town hall meetings and elsewhere without fear of retribution or surveillance by the government. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights . . . was to take government off the backs of people.” Schneider v. Smith, 390 U.S. 17, 25 (1968).

The White House’s invitation to the public encouraging citizens to report “fishy” speech opposing the President’s health care policies is an egregious form of viewpoint-based government surveillance of private political speech.

Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order “to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)).

The Supreme Court has observed:

“Historically the struggle for freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue of the scope of the search and seizure power.” History abundantly documents the tendency of Government—however benevolent and benign its motives—to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. . . .The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. at 313-14 (citation omitted).

The Court has noted in cases involving national security concerns that the President and other Executive Branch officials must act in a manner consistent with the First Amendment:

Implicit in the term “national defense” is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the
subversion of one of those liberties—the freedom of association—which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967). The White House’s justification for engaging
in a surveillance program of private expression is much weaker in this situation because, unlike
the President’s interest in the protection of our national security, his interest in intimidating or
monitoring his critics is not compelling.

The First Amendment provides broad protection for citizen issue advocacy at town hall meetings and in various forms of grassroots issue advocacy. The White House’s ill-advised citizen surveillance program runs counter to the core principles upon which this country was founded and raises serious constitutional concerns. President Obama should rescind and withdraw Mr. Phillips’s program and assure the public that the White House welcomes a healthy, robust debate on the President’s health care reform policies.

Looks like the courts don’t agree with Nancy Pelosi’s comment that town hall meeting protesters are un-American. Sorry Nancy, you lose on that one. Stupid move, by the way, but I offer my thanks for your assistance is really whipping up the opposition. We couldn’t have done it without you.

And from the above analysis, it looks quite clear to me that Obama is treading on thin ice. In my opinion, the actions of Obama, Macon Phillips, and White House lawyers are unconstitutional and possibly even criminal. Words like disbarment and impeachment come to mind. Watergate and its repercussions come to mind. I don’t think this is over by a long shot and may very well be Obama’s biggest mistake to date.

Sign the ACLJ petition to demand a retractionhere.

TO: President of the United States, Barack Obama

As a concerned citizen, I respectfully demand that your Administration rescind the troubling citizen-reporting program recently set forth by your White House Director of New Media.

Creating a program that requests individuals to report on their neighbors, co-workers, family members, and friends who express personal opinions in opposition to your policy choices is not the way to encourage “openness” and “transparency.” It is tantamount to policing ideas. Such a program will only stifle free and open debate among the citizens of this great country.

This nation was founded on a belief in the necessity of free and open discourse on the important policy and political issues of our day. Your program is counter to these core principles and raises serious concern among the American people. We respectfully, yet urgently, request that the program be withdrawn and that you preserve and protect the First Amendment rights of the citizens of America.

In other news and opinion:

Tracking Terrorists on the Internet: Bad
Tracking American Citizens on the Internet: Good

Fishism alert. The White House is reversing a nine-year-old policy forbidding the use of tracking cookies on those who visit federal websites.

Even the ACLU is alarmed.

The liberals must really have a green thumb. Their proclivity for planting is amazing: Figures… Dems Are Now Planting Fake Doctors at Town Hall Meetings . The stench of desperation is starting to overwhelm me. Such a blatant violation of the First Amendment could very take down the Obama presidency. Talk about Waterloo.

Is there a Woodward and Bernstein team ready to take this on? Pulitzer Prize anyone?

Feds to tour Michigan prison where Gitmo detainees could go

Selective outrage of the MSM

Billie Jean King: Obama’s distortions are “cute”

Mr. Postman – The Obamacare Remix

Rasmussen: Toomey leading Specter by double digits after townhalls; Obama approval at 47%

From Glenn Reynolds:

SALENA ZITO: Rasmussen poll: Toomey crushing Specter, Sestak.

UPDATE: Obama at record low: “Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.”

Geez, I wonder why?

Breaking: Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision. Not impressed really as the Senate Finance Committee bill is a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. Don’t buy the co-operatives are a good compromise argument. To really kill the bill in the Senate, see here.

Harry Reid: Town-hall protesters are “evil-mongers”. Quick, someone call George Romero. I can see it now: Night of the Living Scary Mean Republicans. Spooooky.

Health care town halls will press on, could get heated. Ya think?!