BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Electronic Frontier Foundation Helps BlogaBarbara

It is likely just a matter of time before you will be seeing this issue in the news as it is now part of the public record. Although I am partial to not saying anything about this as to not affect the outcome in any way, I'd rather you hear it from me than Google Alerts. I didn't mention it before or during the recent hearing for the same reason.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has assisted me in responding to a subpoena made by Ampersand to Google related to my identity and anyone who made comments on BlogaBarbara on September 11, 2006. I don't plan on saying anything more about this at this time -- other than I didn't make the comment, have no idea who did and have a right to anonymity. You can see what the EFF says about it in their Deep Links blog.

25 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like The Wendy is playing a life-sized game of Whack-A-Mole with anyone who opposes her exemplary management style and tact. But just like at Chuckie Cheese, the quicker you keep whacking the moles, the faster they pop up in greater numbers. Then you lose.

1/18/2007 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I was going to stand up for the right to blog [and the 1st amend], I would join the EFF, buy the tee-shirts, and have my company add them to the charity giving list available for donation matching; these would be nice things to do. Do I do what's right or fear the mighty legal sword of the ampersand? What say you?

1/18/2007 11:53 PM  
Blogger cookie jill said...

Keep up the great blogging, "Sara"

1/19/2007 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, the subpoena is no longer enforceable since it was not enforced in connection with the NLRB hearing, or even mentioned at the hearing. The record is closed, and the vengeful News-Press did not even ask if it could keep the record open in order to pursue this subpoena, so there is no reason Google has to respond to it, and every reason for Google to keep the status quo as it is.

1/19/2007 6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting that.

Anonymity, both of bloggers and of commenters, such as I, is essential for a free and open exchange of ideas - as distinct from personalities.

It's also essential as a way of protecting against the overweening power of government and also of those individuals and corporations, such as McCaw, who use (or can use) their wealth and power to oppress ...and silence.

What has Santa Barbara come to that the once-award-winning newspaper that so bravely fought the John Birch Society should now be a tool of oppressionm trying to suppress speech freedom!

Sad, sad, sad - for the community and for journalism.

Stand firm SdlG and thanks to the E.F.F. and to you.

1/19/2007 7:24 AM  
Anonymous worker bee said...

McCaw - here we've got a woman more concerned with whale freedom than people freedom.

Free Willy, Not Speech!

Maybe McCaw is operating under some strange Deep Sea Kingdom Constitution that governs marine beasts. You're on dry land, McCaw. Snap out of it.

1/19/2007 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curious who the so-called "community leaders", who attempted to dialogue with Wendy, are. Maybe they are leaders in their own minds and we need a group of bonafides...the type of people who when you hear their name you immediately think yeah, that makes sense. People who are above petty partisan politics but who understand the politics of business and the business of politics. The late Don Gevirtz is someone who fits that descripton in my opinion. Don was a Democrat but nobody would accuse him of being a knee-jerk and nobody would doubt his business and/or political accumen.

As long as this dispute remains between Wendy and a bunch of knee-jerks and other Liberal Democrat Party activists, with a history of championing every Left-wing cause that comes down the pike, there is little chance of anything happening to undo this gordian knot.

1/19/2007 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just curious, did anyone at Google respond to the subpoena, such as to say they would protect any information they may have access to concerning SDLG's identity? Has Google, in other cases, turned over information?

1/19/2007 9:34 AM  
Anonymous harping said...

RE: "I'm curious who the so-called "community leaders", who attempted to dialogue with Wendy, are." As I recall, several months ago a bunch of local clergypeople of all faiths got together & wrote a heartfelt plea, in the form of an open letter addressed to Wendy, that they tried to place in the N-P as a paid advertisement. The N-P refused to run it so they ran it in the Indy instead. I think the only response they received was a nasty letter from one of her lawyers. Does anyone still have a copy of the exchange?

1/19/2007 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara,
I find this to be a very disturbing pattern by the paper. Whether you agree or disagree with the points of view on your blog there is no doubt that it provides a rich forum for community discussion. I believe, and I think most people who honestly assess the motivations here would agree, that the paper is trying to chill speech it doesn't like.
When you look at it in the context of all the intimidating letters and lawsuits pumped out by the newspaper in the last half year, you've got to ask yourself just what are the principals upon which this paper is operating? What does the News-Press owner believe is the purpose of the newspaper?

1/19/2007 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A group of key business leaders -- far from being left-leaning-knee-jerk-liberals -- also got together and asked for a meeting. Even a small slice of their experience and advice would have been of great value to McCaw as matters played out. It has been one avoidable blunder after another for her. Their request for an appointment to meet with the owner and co-publisher of their daily paper was rejected.

After seeing clergy turned down (and even attacked later in editorials) and business leaders rejected, community leaders of all stripes gave up on the possibility of rationale dialogue and offers of assistance. McCaw and her boyfriend are determined to go it alone, wherever that may lead them. McCaw since made it clear in the New York Times this week that she views threatening letters from her lawyers "as a form of dialogue.” The notion thus arose that living within a "billionaire's bubble" during most of her adult life has left the owner without the people skills and experience necessary to manage competently.

1/19/2007 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has become obvious that Wendy only surrounds herself with "yes" men who only say yes to bill her for the time.
Wendy has made such a fool of herself in this community.

1/19/2007 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: "A group of key business leaders -- far from being left-leaning-knee-jerk-liberals -- also got together and asked for a meeting."

Yeah? Ok, which key business leaders are we talking about?

1/19/2007 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are the "community leaders" or "key business leaders" that demanded to meet with McCaw?

1/19/2007 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a bunch of knee-jerks and other Liberal Democrat Party activists, with a history of championing every Left-wing cause that comes down the pike".

Hey anon 9:01 a.m. and 5:22 p.m, what the heck are *you* talking about? Can *you* step the you-know-what up and provide some names of all these sinister activists trying to bring down noble Queen Wendy and Baron Von Cheeseburger?

It is so easy and so utterly wrongheaded to equate the debacle at the NP as some left vs right-wing conflict, liberal vs. conservative conflict. It wasn't knee-jerk liberalism that precipitated the mass exodus of NP staffers, and as far as I know there was no call for unionization prior to Wendy making life miserable for everyone (except Travis and Yolanda) who works/worked at the paper.

So Anon, lets have more facts and less sloganeering, mmmkay?

1/19/2007 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd challenge anyone to come up with a list of business leaders who are credible to the workers and union, community and NP management, and can also get Wendy (or authorized representatives) to actually sit down for a constructive discussion. I am firmly and thoroughly convinced that Wendy has no interest in that dialogue, that she thinks she can outlast and outlawyer everyone and everyone will eventually go on to other things, and she will overpower her employees or win a war of attrition against them. She is going to find herself sorely disappointed, however, because the employees, the community and the union are not going away.

1/19/2007 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These continual questions of doubt for what can be found in prior news articles is reading like another discovery by buckshot to find people to attack with frivolous lawsuits.

The Independent has a search function at its web site. Use it, Agnes.

1/19/2007 9:37 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

Sara - what about an Anti-SLAPP suit on your behalf?

SLAPP Definition:

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, in which a corporation or developer sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative. SLAPP suits typically involve the environment--for example, local residents who are petitioning to change zoning laws to prevent a real estate development might be sued in a SLAPP suit for interference with the developer's business interests. Many states have "anti-SLAPP suit" statutes that protect citizens' rights to free speech and to petition the government.

dd

1/20/2007 10:25 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

I appreciate everyone's support and am glad that BlogaBarbara remains open for business. I should be able to give an update on the efforts of the EFF on our behalf in the next couple of days. Right now, I'm interested in keeping our community forum alive and well. Free speech -- whether I, you or anyone else likes what anyone else has to say -- is my intention right now.

1/20/2007 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a faithful reader, Sara, and I would donate to your legal fund without knowing who you were. I'll send you the money I used to spend on a newspaper subscription. You and your contemporaries have done more to inform and engage the community than any other medium out there.

1/20/2007 11:46 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Thanks 11:46 AM -- I put a link below the archives on the left column. I'd wholeheartedly support anything you would like to donate to them...they are good people fighting the good fight.

1/20/2007 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hope i'm the first, and not the last, to donate. Thanks, Sara.
11:46

1/20/2007 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kind of odd that Ampersand would be interested in this blog as the people at Ampersand claim not to be familiar or even read your blog. Maybe they are not telling the truth? I personally saw saw the comment which upset them, I did not think it was anything special, just one mans thoughts... but so it seems they are grasping for straws... opps i mean basil.

1/20/2007 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Cannon Presidio said...

just curious, why no link or mention of blogabarbara on the EFF blog post? mentions only Sara -- is it some legal reason? just scratchin' my head...

but anyway, EXCELLENT news and three cheers for EFF!

1/20/2007 11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curious who the so-called "community leaders", who attempted to dialogue with Wendy, are.

Ah, so you're ignorant.

As long as this dispute remains between Wendy and a bunch of knee-jerks and other Liberal Democrat Party activists, with a history of championing every Left-wing cause that comes down the pike, there is little chance of anything happening to undo this gordian knot.

And you're a right wing liberal-basher. Gee, what a surprise.

1/30/2007 12:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home