Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Communications Politics Your Rights Online

Using the Open Records Law To Intimidate Critics 369

Posted by Soulskill
from the in-the-case-of-letter-v-spirit dept.
Layzej writes "On March 15, Professor Bill Cronon posted his first blog. The subject was the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council in influencing recent legislation in Wisconsin and across the country. Less than two days later, his university received a communication formally requesting under the state's Open Records Law copies of all emails he sent or received pertaining to matters raised in the blog. Remarkably, the request was sent to the university's legal office by Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, with no effort to obscure the political motivations behind it. In a recent editorial, the New York Times notes that demanding copies of e-mails and other documents is the latest technique used politically to silence critics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using the Open Records Law To Intimidate Critics

Comments Filter:
  • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @08:22AM (#35629026) Homepage Journal

    It's not just Republicans doing this.

    Look at HuffPo's website: http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ [huffingtonpost.com]

    Type in the address of your neighbor, see what political groups they contribute to. They used this to pull a list of Prop 8 contributors in California, to intimidate them.

    I could make some sort of argument about anonymity and free speech, I guess, but apparently these things only matter when it's the other guys doing these acts.

    • by Burz (138833) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @11:04AM (#35629824) Journal

      This has absolutely no relation to the subject at hand. The person who runs the blog isn't a public official or state employee.

      Also the link you posted doesn't single out any one type of political group. It could be used by conservatives too.

      Lastly, the laws protecting the emails and the political donation info of private citizens are very different.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @11:08AM (#35629844)
      So...the Democrats, a pro-corporate capitalist party, and the Republicans, a pro-corporate capitalist party, both engage in these tactics. Perhaps we should revisit the idea of voting for some other party?
      • by ajs (35943)

        Yes we should, and the correct way to do that is to embrace a voting system that doesn't foster a two-party system [wikipedia.org]. There are a number rated voting systems [wikipedia.org] including my personal favorite, approval voting. Approval voting is the simplest way to replace plurality. All that's needed is a ballot with check-boxes, and instead of voting for one candidate, you vote for all candidates that you approve of for the job.

        There are also a number of different ways of determining the outcome of the vote, but just changing

        • by berzerke (319205) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @01:27PM (#35630978) Homepage

          There are also a number of different ways of determining the outcome of the vote, but just changing the balloting process would undermine the lock that the two-party system has in the U.S.

          Which is why it won't happen. The one thing democrats and republicans will work together on is to stop anything that would enable the rise of a third (or more) party. They will use every legal trick, and probably more than few illegal ones, to stop this.

          The only way this is going to change is for the american voters to wake up and start voting in mass for third party and independent candidates, especially the ones with little campaign funding. That campaign funding comes with some serious strings attached...

          • by Thoguth (203384)

            There are also a number of different ways of determining the outcome of the vote, but just changing the balloting process would undermine the lock that the two-party system has in the U.S.

            Which is why it won't happen. The one thing democrats and republicans will work together on is to stop anything that would enable the rise of a third (or more) party. They will use every legal trick, and probably more than few illegal ones, to stop this.

            The only way this is going to change is for the american voters to wake up and start voting in mass for third party and independent candidates, especially the ones with little campaign funding. That campaign funding comes with some serious strings attached...

            I hate to say it, but this is why it's never going to change. As the advertising industry has known for years, and as Coca-Cola bases its business model on, changing the minds of the masses is simply a matter of spending enough money.

            As long as people consume entertainment that they don't pay for (such as television, radio, and most websites for that matter) people are going to consume advertising, opening a portion of their minds to the highest bidder. As long as people freely offer their minds to the high

        • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday March 27, 2011 @06:53PM (#35633020) Journal

          Changing the voting system would require a huge overhaul of the election process in America. And the two major parties would never, ever do anything to help facilitate that. So, in the meantime, STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS. It doesn't even matter what "third" party you vote for, but stop wasting your vote on the two big ones.

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            Not voting for Republicans or Democrats is a foolish notion and one that is only promoted by Republicans and Democrats because they want you wasting your vote.

            The reality is, not happy with Republicans and Democrats, then pay a lot more bloody attention to what is going on in the primaries. Want a Labour Democrat (one that actually supports the workers) and a Green Republican (a conservatives that actually wants to conserve things), than put them up at the primaries. It is high time to kick the corporati

    • by bryan1945 (301828)

      Oh great, now they'll know that I contributed to the "Cthulhu for President" campaign.

    • by hedwards (940851) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @12:09PM (#35630328)

      Proposition 8 is hardly a valid example. The people have a pretty clear right to know who it is that's funding an unconstitutional measure to rescind rights. It also turned out that the Mormons were abusing their tax exempt status to tinker directly in the election process in a way which normally requires the funds not be tax exempt giving them an unfair advantage over the opposition.

      Here in WA we've had the same argument going on over referendum 71 because they decided that they didn't want to actually be accountable for trying to revoke the civil rights of a minority group.

      In practice, the claims of intimidation have been greatly exaggerated, and represented far less actual intimidation than the groups claiming to be targeted have meted out to others over the years.

  • Suppress and intimidate political distention. Tick that box [wikimedia.org].
  • motivations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @08:40AM (#35629090) Journal

    If you're going to have an open records law then you don't get to make exceptions for political reasons. Otherwise you end up with the inevitable, "It's only OK to request records for a cause advantaging the sufficiently powerful." It's the listener flip side to declaring freedom of speech then listing a million forms of speech which don't really count as speech.

    The role of the professor in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah is irrelevant. Everyone should be able to engage in all these things, and life would be even worse if only certain classes of people are exempted on account of being allowed to "think more freely" than others, or something.

    This means that any open records law must be limited in application to specific people in specific roles which affect the public: legislative, executive or judicial. In particular, those representatives directly elected or those appointed by such representatives should expect to have all their correspondence scrutinised.

    Exceptions may only exist when the exception is required to protect the well-being of a private citizen, and they must exist for only as long as that protection is required. For example, correspondence relating to a police investigation would not be appropriate to reveal until the investigation and any judicial wheel-turning is complete, but should be available for perusal after that unless certain private witnesses need protecting. If the witness-protection justification is used, it must be well documented so that, after the natural death of the witness (or as appropriate), records can be revealed and our descendants can study our performance and learn from it.

    Remember also that, while today we think that we have an impossible mound of bureauratic record-keeping, in 100 years time computer systems may be able to intelligently search and analyse more text than we have ever created.

    Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

    • Re:motivations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OzPeter (195038) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @08:49AM (#35629128)

      Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

      This is a key point, as various politicians in recent years have been caught using non official email accounts for their "official" duties.

      • by slick7 (1703596)

        Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

        This is a key point, as various politicians in recent years have been caught using non official email accounts for their "official" duties.

        That's why the voter has the right to recall any politician who fails to live up to their campaign promises.

      • Re:motivations (Score:5, Insightful)

        by currently_awake (1248758) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @11:36AM (#35630056)
        And nothing was done, no punishment dished out. I would expect the practice to continue.
    • Re:motivations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:07AM (#35629230) Homepage Journal

      The role of the professor in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah is irrelevant.

      Actually it's not. The open records law refers to the email of "government officials". A professor, as an employee of the state is not an "official" any more than the janitor. The law is pretty specific about this, actually. The term "government official" has been discussed in court cases and it refers to university administrators but not professors.

      It's harassment pure and simple, but so far everything the Wisconsin GOP has done has blown up in their faces, and it looks like this will, too. They've got to make hay while the sun shines, because recalls are a-coming their way.

      • Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. The fact that the professor is involved in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah is not what makes him exempt. It is the fact that he is not acting as a government official.

        For example, a government-sponsored think tank is involved in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah, but I think there is a sound argument that its interactions (considering particularly its relationship with any spe

    • Re:motivations (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:24AM (#35629304)

      > Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

      I'm afraid this is not a reliable assumption. I've seen such correspondence working with business partners, cleaning up after other departing partners. People are quite careless about where they keep their illicit documents, fiscal data, passwords, insider trading communications with people outside the company, and correspondence about job candidate evaluations that violate gender and racial and age bias regulations, etc. I was once asked to help retrieve email messages about an employee seeking an internal transfer, where the manager of the other department actually wrote that they did not want to get stuck with the employee's pension bills when they retired, and couldn't the employee be eased out before then. (After retrieving the email, I brought this to the corporate legal counsel: we cooperated to help educate the HR department that this was going on, that this was illegal, and to explain the costs of throwing out your most experienced people by surprise and leaving them _angry_ at you. The manager got released due to this and other issues, the manager's upset about my "unauthorized access" let the employee know what had happened despite my discretion, we wound up acknowledged by the rank and file of our partner's employees as being on _their_ side, and that transfer worked out very well for our partners and for us working with them.)

      But people engaged in such casual corruption are notoriously careless about their record keeping, and their social correspondence can very much provide links to their activities. It can also lead to that nest of political troublemakers who are engaging in unwelcome but legal activity, such as starting a union, planning a skunkworks project, or are being approached by corporate recruiters. People often don't _plan_ to do illegal things. They do them as part of their ordinary lives, and forget (over time) that this is not acceptable behavior, or come to think of it as "how things are done". That's where an outside partner can be very handy, to help remind both partners of how they _should_ be done for reasons of safety, ethics, and profit.

    • by hey! (33014)

      If you're going to have an open records law then you don't get to make exceptions for political reasons.

      But as you yourself point out, you *do* get to make exceptions based on operational or functional reasons. You go on to say:

      Exceptions may only exist when the exception is required to protect the well-being of a private citizen, and they must exist for only as long as that protection is required.

      That's a different kettle of fish. Sometimes, as Dick Cheney pointed out in the brouhaha about his energy advisory committee, officials have to be able to deliberate privately. Cheney wasn't wrong in principle, he was just wrong in application. You have to balance that need with the public need to know who is influencing policy and how. But it's perfectly true that public employees c

    • by TarPitt (217247)

      Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

      And those who believe they are innocent of any wrongdoing will have the most to lose

    • by jo42 (227475)

      Alas, the most corrupt will communicate off the record anyway.

      Just like the Mafia and other organized crime groups have been doing for decades, if not centuries.

    • Re:motivations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajs (35943) <<moc.sja> <ta> <sja>> on Sunday March 27, 2011 @12:07PM (#35630306) Homepage Journal

      If you're going to have an open records law then you don't get to make exceptions for political reasons.

      I don't think that any reasonable rationale for an open records law could possibly justify applying it to a professor who is not otherwise engaged in the mechanism of government. Open records laws exist in order to make transparent the process by which a government governs, and a professor is, by default, not a part of that process.

      The role of the professor in open-minded contemplation / testing ideas / free academic discourse / blah is irrelevant. Everyone should be able to engage in all these things, and life would be even worse if only certain classes of people are exempted on account of being allowed to "think more freely" than others, or something.

      You are missing the point. We don't argue for the exemption of the professor because they should be allowed to think freely. We argue for the exemption because it is their job to think freely. We ask them to explore the body of knowledge and thought that we humans have produced and to distill it for us in the form of research and education. We do not ask them to make laws that bind our citizens. We do not ask them to enact or enforce laws. We do not ask them to adjudicate laws. We do not ask them to carry out any of the roles for which open records laws exist. If the goal of open records laws were to allow us to publicly expose the private communications of everyone who espoused a political thought, then I think we should not limit them to government employees. They should apply universally to every citizen. If that's not the goal, then there's just no justification for this abuse of the system in order to score political points.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Almost all open records act requests are political. They're mostly made by organizations with an agenda.

    • by gd2shoe (747932)
      That's probably true, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is different in scope, rationale, motive, and effect than most. This issue isn't about who made the request, but why.
  • Over-reaction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davide marney (231845) * <davide.marney@ne ... g minus math_god> on Sunday March 27, 2011 @08:56AM (#35629168) Journal

    I don't see anything nefarious about this FOIA request. The author is a public employee, and his emails are public records. Here's the text of the request, in full:

    From: Stephan Thompson [mailto:SThompson@wisgop.org]
    Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:37 PM
    To: Dowling, John
    Subject: Open Records Request

    Dear Mr. Dowling,

    Under Wisconsin open records law, we are requesting copies of the following items:

    Copies of all emails into and out of Prof. William Cronon’s state email account from January 1, 2011 to present which reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell.

    We are making this request under Chapter 19.32 of the Wisconsin state statutes, through the Open Records law. Specifically, we would like to cite the following section of Wis. Stat. 19.32 (2) that defines a public record as “anything recorded or preserved that has been created or is being kept by the agency. This includes tapes, films, charts, photographs, computer printouts, etc.”

    Thank you for your prompt attention, and please make us aware of any costs in advance of preparation of this request.

    Sincerely,

    Stephan Thompson

    If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.

    • Re:Over-reaction (Score:5, Informative)

      by eggoeater (704775) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:14AM (#35629262) Journal
      He is NOT a public employee; he is an employee of a university which (more often than not depending on the state) is a separate legal entity.

      Just because an organization receives government funding does not make them a government agency.
      Also, if what you say were true, then every book written by a professor would be in the public domain.
      • by Edgester (105351)

        Even though universities are separate legal entities, they are owned by the state for the most part. Public universities are still considered part of the state, and are subject to most of the same rules as regular state employees along with a few new ones like FERPA.

      • Re:Over-reaction (Score:5, Informative)

        by Compholio (770966) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @10:55AM (#35629778)

        He is NOT a public employee; he is an employee of a university which (more often than not depending on the state) is a separate legal entity.

        He works for the University of Wisconsin, a public state-owned university. Granted such things can vary by state - but I work for a state university as a graduate research assistant and I know we were warned by legal a while ago that the same thing can happen to us, even as grad students.

    • by c0lo (1497653) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:22AM (#35629298)

      If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.

      A little attention would have been good. Seems rather a case of huge attention and too small of a care

      TFA:

      A number of the emails caught in the net of Mr. Thompson’s open records request are messages between myself and my students. All thus fall within the purview of the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA, sometimes known as the “Buckley Amendment,” named for its author Senator James Buckley—the brother of conservative intellectual William F. Buckley). The Buckley Amendment makes it illegal for colleges or universities to release student records without the permission of those students, [...]

      • by sycodon (149926)

        So then cite the emails, exclude them and send the rest. What the fuck is the big deal? Chilling? Hyperbole.

        If the requester has a problem, they go to court and the judge decides of the Buckley Amendment applies.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          The problem is that it's expensive and time consuming somebody has to go through those emails and determine which ones are subject to disclosure and which ones aren't. The students themselves are not in a position to be able to defend themselves if the determination is made to release them and unless they can charge the person requesting the records for the legal review, it ends up serving as a significant disincentive to engage in free speech practices.

          And as has been mentioned already, this is a professor

    • by russotto (537200)

      If there's anything "chilling" about this request, I sure don't see it. When you write a blog article that is critical of a political party, and get over a half-million hits within days, you should expect a little attention from the people you're poking a stick at.

      If you knew that writing a critical blog article would result in all your correspondence being revealed to those you criticized, you'd be less likely to write it, right? That's the chilling effect.

      Still, if the Open Records Law really makes every

  • by MyNameIsFred (543994) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @08:59AM (#35629184)
    A lesson that I learned a long time ago, keep your work life and home life separate. The attorneys for your workplace will have the company's interest at heart, not yours. Our company has a fairly liberal computer policy. You can use workplace computers for personal use as long as it does not interfere with work or break any laws. Nonetheless, in our ethics training, it was pointed out that if the company is sued, they may be required to give my computer to the other side. And they will. And anything private on it is open to discovery. They advised keep work and home separate. So I have separate email accounts, separate computers, etc. Never let the two mix.
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @12:22PM (#35630422) Homepage

      Professor Cronon did just that. It's not his personal correspondence that's at stake here.

      His problem with the request is twofold:
      1. It was clearly done in retaliation for his writing about the American Legislative Exchange Council, since what the request is looking for is information that could be taken out of context to portray him as a left-wing nutcase on the payroll of the unions that are opposing Scott Walker. He's not at all keen on attempts to create a chilling effect on free speech.

      2. Much of his professional correspondence is expected to be confidential, such as conversations with students, working with colleagues on peer reviews of not-yet-published material, or work on the boards of professional organizations he belongs to. If he were working for a private company, he'd have confidentiality and trade secret laws to help protect that stuff.

  • At my "day job" I occasionally have to respond to congressional inquiries.

    Internally we have many checks and balances on data, computer records, personally identifiable information, etc.

    All of those checks and balances are sumarrily bypassed when it's a congressional inquiry. Often I see all the crap checks and balances being bypassed as cutting through unnecessary red tape and have to have some respect for the ability of a congressman to bypass all that crap.

    Usually in response to such an inquiry
  • how many times before people get the message , if you want privacy, don't do it electronically ? Actually, if you want privacy, write it on a single sheet of rice paper, on a glass sheet, with destatic sizer, in a room with variable lighting to fool cameras, in a dead language known only to you and your intended recipient
  • Why is one instance of a legal request for open records considered bullying and intimidation and the other one not?

    • At issue is the question of whether a professor at a publicly-funded research university is a public employee or not. If you consider them public employees then of course this is completely reasonable. If not, however, it's a frightening attempt at censorship that calls back the actions of McCarthyites in successfully campaigning for the illegal removal of tenured faculty in their ridiculous witch-hunt. Those of us in academia tend to see research universities as independent entities under contract to the S

  • There is a lot of time and effort that goes into fulfilling one of these Open Records requests, someone has to pay for it. I suspect that the vice chancellor of the university will have a little chat Professor Bill Cronon telling him what it cost and suggesting that he doesn't cause such an expense again or else ....
  • Thank Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Timtimes (730036) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:44AM (#35629398) Homepage
    Looks like the professor has been label as an SP (suppressive person), and anything done to ruin him is considered "fair game". Enjoy.
  • Email Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:54AM (#35629428) Homepage

    One of the common mistakes at the heart of the matter:

    "they do involve academic work that typically assumes a significant degree of privacy and confidentiality."

    It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential. SMTP is unencrypted, most cloud services (gmail, hotmail, etc) are automatically reading every email that hits them, and I suspect the federal government either already has or soon will kick email out of the ever narrower sphere of "reasonable expectation of privacy" -- leaving it unprotected by the term "unreasonable" in The Fourth.

    We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so. Now everybody uses postcards, even for their most intimate communications, and powerful entities get to read whatever they want.

    Scarier: Give it a few more years, and I'd wager using encrypted communications will become reasonable cause for search and seizure, or used like removing the battery in a cell phone has been in court cases -- as evidence of foul intent. They won't have taken the freedoms of speech and association, we will have given them away.

    • by winwar (114053)

      "It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential."

      And one of the common mistakes that technical people seem to make is that they assume that technical issues have anything to do with the law. Email is private and confidential because the law says it is when it covers certain issues. Not because of the technology. Encrypted data is still subject to FOIA requests and court orders.

      In any case, I do not understand why anyone thinks that encryption somehow magically m

  • ... doesn't make it right.

    Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin has done an anti-American thing by stifling free speech. No surprise from the state that gave us Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy [wikipedia.org]

  • Scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by node_chomsky (1830014) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @09:56AM (#35629438)

    Apparently the new 'in' thing for fascists is to use the freedom of information act to obtain emails sent by their critics about them. Apparently, academic freedom seems to be dissolving. I don't understand how the freedom of information act can be used to invade the private transactions of professors, but it has happened several times over the last year or so, and has been entirely perpetrated by the increasingly more rabid conservative undertow in this nation, not all conservatives, but a specific group of highly politically (as opposed to socially or morally) motivated people. I had the displeasure of hearing what conservative talk radio sounds like these days while I was driving through the highly conservative '3-corners' region of Missouri (i.e. Limbaugh's homeland), and it is astoundingly racial charged and disturbingly desperate and angry. These people are truly scary, and we really should keep our eyes peeled (as intelligent and reasonable people) for the horrible emerging attitudes in this country. If you asked an average German citizen about their attitudes on putting Jewish people in ovens in 1938, it is likely they would think you were crazy. And if you asked them what National Socialism meant, they would say it had something to do with purity and sexual abstinence, the words like 'Jew' or 'camp' likely would have never come up. No to compare these people to Nazi's, but it illustrates how quickly the most infamous act of hatred in human history can emerge from the consent of a naive population. I guess, ultimately, I am trying to say, that it is our job as being vigilant and morally informed people to see things like McCarthyism and National Socialism before it becomes a problem.

  • This isn't "news" or an example of overreach. The request is completely legal and shouldn't be considered "intimidating" unless he has really done something wrong. Let's not forget that all of Gov. Walker's emails got FOI'd by the AP in a lawsuit too. Not just some, all. If Cronon considers it harrassment for his to be opened, how does he feel about it applied to Gov. Walker? How is the request "thuggish" compared to the intimidating applied by the Unions during and after the recent debate? Or are the
  • It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the university at all. It's part of a larger website that also belongs to him. I'm not going to post the whois record, but it's available for all to see.

    I fail to see what his university has to do with his personal website or his personal emails. By rights, this should go nowhere. If the Republicans somehow succeed, it will be a miscarriage of justice in terms of freedom of speech. Of course Justice has been miscarrying quite a bit lately...

  • Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by benjfowler (239527) on Sunday March 27, 2011 @10:23AM (#35629594)

    We've all of a sudden, had a lot of high-numbered Slashdot users appear with well-written, slick conservative opinions.

    This doesn't seem right -- if anything Slashdot tends to libertarianism with a smattering of liberals.

    Are we being subjected to some kind of conservative dirty trick -- or is it merely rutting season for right wing retards?

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      iirc the HBGary emails did include references to very large astroturfing campaigns and with the Citizens United decision stuff like that can be carried out even more secretively. I have seen it elsewhere like on Fark.com, "new" or even fairly long ago registered but rarely/never posting suddenly being very vocal and very coherent with other similarly activated accounts.
    • I have mod points and was interested in your comment. Having looked over all the comments and UIDs, I must say you are factually incorrect. At the time of the writing of this post, I only found 1 registered commenter with 3 comments with a UID greater than 2 million.

      I am no right wing apologist and believe my comment history will speak for itself.

    • by jav1231 (539129)
      "Smattering of liberals"

      D00d! How new are you?
  • by jav1231 (539129)
    "emanding copies of e-mails and other documents is the latest technique used politically to silence critics"

    Oh and hiring people to fly to another state to sit in the capitol building, yell about stuff many know nothing about (because they were hired), and smell up the place by refusing to leave long enough to bathe isn't another "latest tactic?" And this professor titles his post "Who’s Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere?" So it's okay for him to post "with no ef

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...