You wouldn’t think handling a notebook or a camera could be a hazardous line of work. But according to the latest global Press Freedom Index, abuse and oppression of reporters has made journalism an increasingly risky job in many countries. The past year has even left a notable taint on the U.S. press, despite the country’s mythos as a beacon of free expression.

Remember how worked up conservatives used to get over China’s charging the families of executed prisoners (political and otherwise) for the cost of the bullets used to kill them?

Funny how the killing of free speech in America doesn’t seem to bother them at all.

BART spokesperson Linton Johnson held a press conference to address the need to disrupt communications in advance of a lawful, peaceable assembly.

He spoke of a US Supreme Court case from 1969 that he said supported BART’s right to do so. Indeed, there could be no other case that Mr. Johnson was referring to besides Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the 1969 case that said that prior restraints upon seditious speech were valid in such narrow circumstances that the government must prove that the seditious speech was going to cause an “imminent lawless action” before a restraint on speech could stand.

No case following Brandenburg has ever held speech to constitute an “imminent lawless action.” BART, as judge, jury and executioner of free speech, is the sole body to reach that conclusion.

Israel passed a law punishing people who advocate for a boycott of the settlements. The law is definitely not only a blow to freedom of speech in Israel but also another act of repression against Palestinian solidarity activism in Israel.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime & Terrorism, chaired by GOP Representative James Sensenbrunner, is holding a hearing on the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act” at 10 am ET. The bill might seem like something that would be free from debate, as we all should agree children do not deserve to be subjected to pornography. But, the legislation includes a “data retention” requirement that should fuel debate over rights to privacy

While at Netroots Nation 2011, I had the privilege of speaking to Lieutenant Dan Choi, who served in the US Army infantry, went to war in Iraq and graduated from West Point with a degree in Arabic.

Choi was kicked out of the military under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) about one year ago. At Netroots Nation, Choi celebrated his one year “anniversary or birthday” as a civilian. He also noted that despite DADT being repealed there are still soldiers getting kicked out of the military for being gay.

If a memo instituting new security reviews, explicitly written in response to WikiLeaks, institutes a policy of reviewing contacts with the media, doesn’t that suggest they consider WikiLeaks to be media?

If you support Wikileaks, if you support transparency, accountability, or even just basic free speech, you should not be playing into the government’s semantic game that presents itself as a victim, and Wikileaks as an attacker. As someone who engages in journalism, as someone who engages in activism and dissent, I don’t want these things re-defined as an attack on the state.

I am not an insurgent, and neither are you. Until we realize that, until we understand the difference between journalism and war, then the government will continue to claim it’s acting in self defense.

Stop giving the government an excuse for repression. Stop calling Wikileaks “warfare”.

Those of us who oppose the right-wing encroachment on a woman’s right to choose are told quadrennially that we simply must vote for the Democratic choice for President. This is the only way to ensure that the Supreme Court doesn’t continue to chip away at women’s reproductive rights. So why is Barack Obama choosing someone like Elena Kagan?

Constance isn’t the first student to face discrimination at Itawamba Agricultural High School. Just before Constance spoke out about the discriminatory prom criteria, another student was forced to leave town.