If the hyper-classified CIA recognizes the need for an internal review of its pre-clearance process, why doesn't the State Department? If the military can co-exist without pre-clearance restraints on blogs, why can't State?
The dozens of veterans who tossed their medals in Chicago earlier this week deserve to have their protest recorded. Theirs was an act of valor and courage which was arguably equal if not greater to the deeds which earned them those medals in the first place.
Republicans in the New York state government are attempting to pass a law that would ban anonymous comments online. Even if they actually passed the act, once it arrived in a federal court it would be tossed out in a "New York minute" (as they say).
While the media landscape has changed, our First Amendment rights haven't. Freedom of the press is more important, not less, when anyone with a mobile phone and an Internet connection can act as a journalist.
Asserting his First Amendment right to take photos of police action in public, Van Kuyk refused the officers' request for him to stop taking the photos, but the officers arrested him and charged him with obstruction, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct.
If there is going to be a judicial order against tweeting or texting during a trial, it would have to depend upon a neutral justification -- some objective reason to curb this new mode of communicating. It does not appear that judges or the media have given that a lot of thought.
Under new leadership, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 122 is going back to being the "Crusaders," complete with an insignia of a crusader shield with a big red cross on it and a crusader knight as its mascot.
As an admitted outsider, to both this area of the world and this way of thinking, I confess that it's difficult to fully appreciate the graciousness of tradition when it is in such proximity to economic inequality and neglect.