tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post5553452866272178842..comments2024-03-23T22:54:58.661-04:00Comments on FBC Jax Watchdogs: Sheriff's Office Issues Training Bulletin on First Amendment Implications of Investigative SubpoenasFBC Jax Watchdoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-19418297539878628642010-12-11T23:18:41.938-05:002010-12-11T23:18:41.938-05:00Anon - in your example if someone is slandering yo...Anon - in your example if someone is slandering you, or your restaurant in your example, you do have a right to try to find their identity. It is through the civil courts, you can do a "John Doe" lawsuit and ask the court to compel ISPs or website owners to reveal the identity of an anonymous person. That anonymous person has the right then to defend their anonymity and the court rules one way of the other.<br /><br />In the course of a criminal investigation, yes, the government can compel ISPs to hand over identities of people. But the government can't go on a fishing expedition, and govt officials can't use their power for non-govt purposes.<br /><br />So yes, the right to anonymous speech is well established, and there are processes in place for the anonymity to be breached in both criminal and civil processes.<br /><br />The govt has to show a compeling govt interest, such as a legitimate criminal investigation, to breach someone's anonymity using their subpoena power.FBC Jax Watchdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-65595747437864768962010-12-11T22:58:25.844-05:002010-12-11T22:58:25.844-05:00All of this "I hate Mac" stuff is just n...All of this "I hate Mac" stuff is just nonsense. After all of this we now understand that Mac had nothing to do with how or why the Dog was uncovered. In fact, apparently the only offense is that Mac suggested that the Dog is sociopath. <br /><br />If I get this right, Dog is convinced that the first amendment guarantees him some right to remain anonymous. I really do not see how anyone has the right to anonymity if their words harm others. Perhaps the government has no right to intervene unless it is in conjunction with a criminal investigation. <br /><br />It should not be that difficult to find someone's identity if there is a good legitmate reason. For example, if I have a restaurant and someone blogs in the Times-Union that they found something in the food, then, shouldn't I have the right to identify the blogger? Freedom of speech is not free speech. Words can cost others and each person should be held to account for their words. People should be careful when putting words out publicly. You have the responsibility to make sure that your words are true and, moreover, that you can prove your words. Even if your words are the truth, you need witnesses and if you can't back it up then you are just as liable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-84955286554000965082010-12-11T09:58:48.040-05:002010-12-11T09:58:48.040-05:00"What Brunson didn't realize was he himse..."What Brunson didn't realize was he himself stirred up a hornet's nest that continues to sting the testimony of the church even to this day on December 11, 2011."<br /><br />December 11, 2010 9:41 AM<br /><br />CORRECTION: Even to this day on 12/11/10!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-88318375135972619882010-12-11T09:41:53.595-05:002010-12-11T09:41:53.595-05:00If anyone believes Mac Brunson was not a front run...If anyone believes Mac Brunson was not a front runner in this case is a fool - but most everyone in the congregation knows of the personal friendship between the Brunson family & all those involved in this case - they are a tight bunch.<br /><br />I believe he did say "leave him along" knowing full well his good friends would go full steam to bring the Watchdog down. What Brunson didn't realize was he himself stirred up a hornet's nest that continues to sting the testimony of the church even to this day on December 11, 2011.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-60315650145887359022010-12-10T13:52:02.633-05:002010-12-10T13:52:02.633-05:00For Mac's eternal life sake I hope that what h...For Mac's eternal life sake I hope that what he said was true. But it is hard to believe that they operated against his wishes or that he knew nothing about it even after the fact. <br /><br />Maybe Mac is not the leader folks think he is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-40436155660174799142010-12-10T11:24:11.304-05:002010-12-10T11:24:11.304-05:00Again, I want to clarify....the testimony in depos...Again, I want to clarify....the testimony in deposition was that Mac Brunson had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to issue trespass papers against me or my wife. In fact, Brunson said under oath that he told the discipline committee to "leave him alone". He didn't want them to do anything to me, he said. They went against the wishes of the pastor, apparently.<br /><br />In fact, when my attorney slid across the table to Mac a copy of the letter from the discipline committee that had my "16 sins" and trespass papers for me and my wife, Mac said he had never seen it before. The first time he ever saw the November 2008 letter delivered to my home, was more than 1 1/2 years later when he my lawyer showed it to him during deposition. Go figure.FBC Jax Watchdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-85902984861908185622010-12-10T08:15:39.070-05:002010-12-10T08:15:39.070-05:00"What am I missing here?"
An understand..."What am I missing here?"<br /><br />An understanding of the 1st Amendment.<br /><br />Mac is a public personality. He chose it and wanted it. He has spent his career making himself known to the public. His public words can be analyzed and critiqued anonymously without fear of reprisal. Are his words from the pulpit public or not?<br /><br />Mac does not agree. He does not want his public words critiqued. So, he tried to stop it. And by trying to do that, he spits on our constitution.<br /><br />Of course, we could also discuss his unChristian response to his words being analyzed on a blog. In fact, if he would have ignored this blog, it probably would have fizzled out.<br /><br />I am wondering if Jeff has considered Mac's "Biblical" response? AFter all, Mac is a paid professional Christian. Shouldn't he know better? But Jeff is not concerned with that. What paid professional Christians do is always right according to guys like Jeff. (probably in paid ministry himself)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-1126987431140199362010-12-09T19:43:43.479-05:002010-12-09T19:43:43.479-05:00If your comments are damaging and depriving others...If your comments are damaging and depriving others of their liberty, then what right do you have to remain anonymous?<br /><br />If someone makes false, unfounded, or unproveable statements that cause another damage, should they remain anonymous?<br /><br />I am confused. I thought the issue was how the Dog was uncovered. It seems to me that Brunson, or anyone, has the right to face their accusers.<br /><br />It looks like the sherriff is not stoping investigators from checking out people who are suspected of misconduct just because they might be acquainted.<br /><br />What am I missing here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-63658399573603833192010-12-09T19:24:00.596-05:002010-12-09T19:24:00.596-05:00Anon. Dec. 9, 8:32 AM must have been poking fun at...Anon. Dec. 9, 8:32 AM must have been poking fun at the absurdity of some of the past posts. He/she could not be serious? If they were, a new standard for hypocrisy has been set.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-13286738326731501742010-12-09T19:17:57.852-05:002010-12-09T19:17:57.852-05:00Jeff, hate to break the news to you but much of th...Jeff, hate to break the news to you but much of the Bible was written by "anonymous" persons. Biblical scholars continue to discuss the authorship of most of the New Testament.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-60328024453979423472010-12-09T17:47:38.280-05:002010-12-09T17:47:38.280-05:00You think anon 8:32 was serious? I took it as to...You think anon 8:32 was serious? I took it as tongue in cheek.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-49515592592840487072010-12-09T16:37:10.952-05:002010-12-09T16:37:10.952-05:00"I'm being inquisitive, and not accusativ..."I'm being inquisitive, and not accusative, have you examined the scriptures to discern whether or not a Christian has a Biblical/Spiritual/Moral right to make anonymous charges?"<br /><br />You think the author of Hebrews was anonymous because they were afraid of the Pharisees?<br /><br />Where is the passage that says it is wrong?<br /><br />I bet Jeff is either a pastor or a wannabe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-45008712808659671952010-12-09T14:44:26.040-05:002010-12-09T14:44:26.040-05:00Dog, just curious, what happened to det. Hinson? a...Dog, just curious, what happened to det. Hinson? as he penalized, in any way? I think dismissal from law enforcement would have been appropriate. Too many time law enforcement officers think they are the "law".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-51254612881952036662010-12-09T13:48:19.551-05:002010-12-09T13:48:19.551-05:00Good to see a politician take a step in the direct...Good to see a politician take a step in the direction of freedom and sanity, for once.<br /><br />I almost laughed out loud at the anonymous commenter who blasted you for being anonymous.<br /><br />It is my sincerest hope that businesses and governments will realize that it is sometimes morally prerogative to defy orders - no matter what the cost - that come from evil men.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14534440335233511829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-24351338156617989832010-12-09T11:13:28.708-05:002010-12-09T11:13:28.708-05:00Praise God for giving courage and persistence to W...Praise God for giving courage and persistence to Watchdog to pursue this case so some good will come out of it. My observation is that "hubris" has descended on politicians and law enforcement operatives after 9/11 to run roughshod over first amendment rights. Case in point the current controversy over the leaks. At this point I am fairly certain that politicians in both parties would not know what first amendment is if it came and bit them in their behind.Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09728392311602332613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-29675537662840474712010-12-09T09:46:31.076-05:002010-12-09T09:46:31.076-05:00Tom,
I make no argument against the legal right t...Tom,<br /><br />I make no argument against the legal right to blog anonymously. <br /><br />I'm being inquisitive, and not accusative, have you examined the scriptures to discern whether or not a Christian has a Biblical/Spiritual/Moral right to make anonymous charges?<br /><br />Just asking?<br /><br />JeffJeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-4326001842280744932010-12-09T09:17:22.001-05:002010-12-09T09:17:22.001-05:00You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a m...You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a man and come out in the OPEN!!!<br /><br />December 9, 2010 8:32 AM<br /><br />BWAHAHA.<br /><br />"Anonymous" says you have no right to be anonymous. "Anonymous" claims real men use their names. The irony is so delicious. <br /><br />They are not a bright lot, are they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-47896764578588664802010-12-09T09:14:55.246-05:002010-12-09T09:14:55.246-05:00You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a m...You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a man and come out in the OPEN!!!<br /><br />December 9, 2010 8:32 AM<br /><br />Aren't we glad the authors of the Federalist Papers were allowed to publish anonymously. I guess they were not real men. (wink)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-72884404627513665782010-12-09T09:13:26.383-05:002010-12-09T09:13:26.383-05:00Strange it took a lawsuit to teach government law ...Strange it took a lawsuit to teach government law enforcement officials about 1st Amendment rights of individuals.<br /><br />Wonder what else they need to be trained on when it comes to our rights?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-45552873331894772162010-12-09T08:54:46.589-05:002010-12-09T08:54:46.589-05:00Anon 8:32: don't argue with me, brother. Take...Anon 8:32: don't argue with me, brother. Take it up wit da Constitution and da Supreme Court.FBC Jax Watchdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-30233126139867211492010-12-09T08:50:30.776-05:002010-12-09T08:50:30.776-05:008:32 AM
If you think that, why not be a man yourse...8:32 AM<br />If you think that, why not be a man yourself and come out in the open instead of covering up under Anonymous ??? :>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-57266397049990155152010-12-09T08:32:16.155-05:002010-12-09T08:32:16.155-05:00You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a ...You have absolutely NO RIGHT for anonymity! Be a man and come out in the OPEN!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com