Federal Control of the Web for Purposes of Homeland Security: Threat of Terrorism or Threat of Revolution?

In today's news, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is pushing for federal control of the internet -- just as the FCC is fighting for control of internet service providers.  The Federal Communications Commission just opened comments on whether broadband should be reclassified as a telecommunications system -- and therefore, under the same regulatory control as telephones, etc.  

All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism." 

In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States.  She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."

Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.

Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com

However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com. 

You know Meetup.com.  It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web.  Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com.  I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club. 

This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged.  Some may be Tea Party groups.  Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law. 

Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date.  Think of that.  The local Scrabble club has 34. 

The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide.  Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure. 

Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?

I'm a native of San Antonio.  During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities.  First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico. 

Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers.  Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state.  Nope.  All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days.  If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course). 

So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control?  Is it really the foreign threat?  Or is it an internal one? 

This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us.  Our civil liberties are paramount.  Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours. 

I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you.  I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners. 

We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s.  Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution.  How real is a threat of revolution today?  It's something to ponder. 

Peggy Noonan Compares Obama to Carter, Calls Him "Snakebit"

In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan gives a new perspective on President Obama, "A Snakebit President" -- it's worth the read.

Bob Hope Says It All in "The Ghost Busters"

Abby Sunderland, 16, Lost at Sea While Sailing Around the World Solo - What's the Legal Implication Here?

Teen sailor Abby Sunderland, 16, isn't communicating with anyone -- but her sailboat shouldn't be completely underwater according to her brother, since an alarm for that event hasn't sounded.  Sixteen years old, Abby is determined to circumnavigate the globe alone in Wild Eyes, her sailboat.  (For details on her story, check out the details at SailWorld.com, which includes photos of the sailboat with Abby at the helm.)

Abby turned on emergency beacons before 6AM this morning

However, no one has heard from Abby since early this morning, when Abby was somewhere in the Indian Ocean, closest land being Reunion Island in Madagascar.  She turned on a couple of beacons around dawn. 

Rescue operations are underway.  Boats are headed toward the spot that everyone thinks Abby will be, but they'll need around 40 hours to get there, and seaplanes are also (hopefully) in route. 

Family Updating Her Blog With Rescue News

It's a sailboat that the family reports on Abby's Blog today was built with 5 air-tight bulkheads (which will keep the boat afloat even if there has been major damage). Wild Eyes, moreover, was built to right itself if it were tipped over.

And it may well have tipped over, since Abby already reported that the sails have dunked into the ocean waters twice during rough weather that included 25 - 30 foot high waves. 

The family is updating folk with posts on Abby's Blog - where Abby was posting regularly until this event.  They are asking for prayers and support. 

And I will pray for Abby and her family -- but as a lawyer, especially one that represented children for several years, I gotta wonder. 

Are the parents legally responsible here in the event that Abby has been lost at sea? 

One does have to ask: what the heck is a 16 year old teenage girl doing out there, doing this? No matter her skill level, under the law she is a child. 

Legally, these parents are responsible for whatever happens to their minor child (at least they would be in Texas).  If something happens to Abby, is there criminal liability?

Danger is Danger

Having represented children in the local's Children's Court in abuse and neglect cases - as their attorney ad litem, where Child Protective Services had become involved in the child's situation - my perception of this event may be different than some others.

Most of the kids that came thru Children's Court were from socioeconomic lifestyles that are at the opposite end of the continuum from the way of life that Abby Sutherland's sailing family enjoys. 

However, danger is danger.  Putting your child in a life-threatening, dangerous spot is not acceptable: if you do it intentionally, it's abuse; if you do it unintentionally, it's neglect. 

The opinion of the Backseat Lawyer is this:  no 16 year old teenager should be alone on a sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean no matter how cool they think it is, or no matter how lucrative that adventure might be. 
For updates:  Abby's Blog

Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie

Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)

It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).

Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital

Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.

Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.

What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.

Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.