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?!

Just had a long talk with Lee Ellis, policy administrator of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service which assign .Gov domains and creates the guidelines for the use of .Gov domains.

Mr. Ellis was very cordial, mentioning he was up until 9:00 pm last night after being inundated with emails. I would like to extend many thanks to my readers who emailed me after contacting Mr. Ellis. Your words of support were encouraging. Don’t letup and keep sending those emails, but please be very cordial as Mr. Ellis is a very likable gentleman. Mr. Ellis will be the person who will re-write the guidelines if necessary.

Mr. Ellis informed me the legal office of the GSA Federal Acquisition Services (FAS) has been contacted. The White House site will not be taken down, which should come as no surprise due to its importance in providing vital information to the public. However, the use of the whitehouse.gov blog is in violation of the guidelines.

The White House may be asked to either remove the offending material of put up a disclaimer which states the site in question violates .gov second level domain guidelines by allowing for campaign content – in this case the campaign to pass health care legislation. Mr. Ellis is not a lawyer and I have not yet received a reply email from him, which I requested during our interview. However keep your eyes on the site dotgov.gov website, which is the GSA FAS official website for any announcements. Again, keep up the pressure.

To understand the structure involved here, the federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Vivek Kundra has authority over all other CIOs. I could not find any contact information for Vivek Kundra, so if anyone can dig this up and place it in the comments, I will add it to the post.

I did a little digging and found the current White House CIO is Macon Philips. I don’t have a phone number, so if anyone out there does, again please provide it in the comment section. It took a lot of research, but I was finally able to find an email for Macon Philips – macon@who.eop.gov. Still looking for a phone number.

Macon Philips, the man behind whitehouse.gov and the website calling for the turning in of citizens is also known as the White House Director Of New Media:

The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading “disinformation” about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, according to Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are examining the plan’s possible implementation.

On Monday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips posted a note on the White House web site complaining of “disinformation about health insurance reform.” “These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation,” Phillips wrote. “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

In a letter to Obama Tuesday, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wrote that, given Phillips’ request, “it is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House.” Cornyn warned the president that “these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.”

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn continued. “I urge you to cease this program immediately.”

In the article above Byron York goes on to state the Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to the White House. However, others disagree, including Renowned attorney David T. Hardy:

The Administration has asked that anyone who gets an email or “see[s] something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy” report it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Evan Coyne Malone suggests the request may be illegal under the Privacy Act and the Dept of Justice’s statement about its purpose.

As a recovering bureaucrat, I can point to a much, much, bigger illegality under that Act.

5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency

“(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;”

Persons posting to the web or sending emails are exercising First Amendment rights. I can’t see how gathering this information is expressly authorized by statute, nor within the scope of an LE activity. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

{Plus, 552a(e) generally requires that agencies collecting information about individuals into a records system, upon establishment or change to that system, publish in the Federal Register a detailed description of that records system, maintain appropriate security, etc.)

I’d say there are glaring Privacy Act violations here. And the penalties, per §552a(i) include fines of up to $5,000, not only for gathering forbidden data, but for disclosing it or maintaining an undisclosed system.

Use this post for an plan to disseminate this information to as wide an audience as possible. Action is what is needed right now. Inundate Macon Phillip’s email with your concerns about the improper use of the the whitehouse.gov website. Send this information to your Senators and Representatives.

Continue to send Mr. Ellis emails and just ask they be forwarded to the legal team so he can go about doing his job. Mr. Ellis is not responsible for any of this fiasco so treat him with respect as he treated me. I now understand more about CIOs, the GSA, and domain name guidelines than I ever thought I would. I applaud Mr. Ellis in his assistance in educating me on the structure of his organization and understand his reticence in providing details he is not authorized to provide.

Related:

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

ACLJ Petition On White House Spy Program – Also Senator John Cornyn Joins Jay Sekulow Tomorrow

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

In other news and opinion:

Who’s behind the Internet Snitch Brigade.

SEIU and the “persuasion of power;” Update: St. Louis thuggery on tape

Mel “Shamnesty” Martinez steps down

RAW VIDEO!!…..TEA PARTY PROTESTERS ATTACKED– 1 Black Conservative Seriously Hurt in St. Louis!… 6 Arrested Including SEIU Members. This is what happens with the President of the United States calls on his supporters to “punch back twice as hard”. Still think Obama is good for this country? One commenter states:

An important line was crossed last night. Violence in American politics isn’t anything new. Union violence isn’t anything new. Union violence in American politics isn’t anything new. What IS new is violence against ordinary protesting citizens carried out by union stormtroopers EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT BY and CONDONED by the governing political party and the President of the United States.

.

More here.

I say as far as Obama and the liberals in Congress go, as soon as we can – get rid of the bums. You could replace them with self-flushing toilets and get the same amount of utilitarian use.

Questions for your health care town hall: Sec. 421. This is what happens when you read the bill.