<story><title>Unsealed Filing Shows DOJ Misled Appeals Court About NSL Gag Orders</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/unsealed-filing-shows-doj-misled-appeals-court-about-national-security-letter-gag</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>r0h1n</author><text>Provisions in the law the gag participants from even talking about a violation of their rights are particularly insidious. Sure, they&amp;#x27;re Kafka-esque, but they also affect the poor, small and marginalized disproportionately.&lt;p&gt;What is a small business or private citizen to do if they cannot even talk about how they&amp;#x27;re being wronged against? How will they solicit the support of others? How will they use the free media&amp;#x2F;press (meant to be a bulwark against injustice) to publicize their cause?&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t isolated to just the NSA&amp;#x2F;FBI&amp;#x2F;DoJ, or the US alone. Ag-gag laws [1], &amp;quot;super injunctions&amp;quot; [2] and &amp;quot;secret trials&amp;quot; [3] are all examples of this dangerous trend.&lt;p&gt;[1] - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/agriculture-gag-laws-press-freedom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;commentisfree&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;jun&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;agricul...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lawteacher.net/human-rights/essays/super-injunction-used-to-gag-investigative.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.lawteacher.net&amp;#x2F;human-rights&amp;#x2F;essays&amp;#x2F;super-injuncti...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[3] - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27806814&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;uk-27806814&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Unsealed Filing Shows DOJ Misled Appeals Court About NSL Gag Orders</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/unsealed-filing-shows-doj-misled-appeals-court-about-national-security-letter-gag</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>toufka</author><text>The argument was an odd one to begin with.  The government argued that it was not stifling speech because you could say, &amp;quot;I have received between 0 and 249 NSLs, and here&amp;#x27;s what I think about NSLs...&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;You could not, however say, &amp;quot;I have received between 0 and 249 NSLs and here&amp;#x27;s what I think about NSLs (and I should know because I got one)...&lt;p&gt;If it&amp;#x27;s not true that someone can complain about NSLs generically, then there is an odd position where one can comment on facts or opinions about NSLs precisely until one actually has experience to support facts or opinions about NSLs.</text></comment>