Lawyer Frank Shoemaker will soon be the proud owner of a new license plate that shows his support for the legalization of marijuana. According to reports the ACLU threatened to sue the state of Nebraska on Shoemaker’s behalf if they did not approve his request for a license plate that read “NE 420.”

The state first turned down the request because they said it promoted “illegal drug use” and carried with it other “negative associations.”

420 of course refers to the pop cultural reference for “marijuana” and is celebrated on April 20 of each year thanks to the unofficial National Pot Smoking Day. The NE meanwhile is the abbreviation for Nebraska where Shoemaker hopes to make marijuana growing and use legal.

With his license plate in hand Shoemaker’s next hopeful victory is a petition he is currently circulating that will place a measure to legalize marijuana on the upcoming voters ballot.

Speaking about his motives Frank Shoemaker says:

“All I ever wanted was to work with fellow Nebraskans in the democratic process,” and “No one should have to fear government censorship for his political views.”

In the meantime governmental control over marijuana and other drug laws have created headaches for California pot shops despite the fact that a recent study has shown that 50% of American’s want marijuana legalized. Hopefully the federal government doesn’t swoop in and confiscate his car or perhaps just his bumbper, after all they love to rule over state marijuana laws with an iron grip lately.

Do you think threats of a lawsuit were really necessary over something as silly as the “NE 420″ license plate request?

[Image via ShutterStock.com]

Nebraska Approves Marijuana License Plate Following ACLU Threats is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s bad enough that some employers spy on their employees Facebook activity, but one Maryland state employer has went too far and the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting back.

Robert Collins, a nursing student and officer at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services took a leave of absence after his mother passed away and upon his return he was told he could only be reinstated if he handed over his Facebook password, a standard procedure that had been put in place during his absence.

In a taped interview Collins revealed:

“My personal communications, my personal posts, my personal pictures, looking at my personally identifiable information, where my religious beliefs, my political beliefs, my sexuality — all of these things are possibly disclosed on this page,” adding, “It’s absolute total invasion and overreach.”

While Collins’ employer may believe creating such a procedure is fair, it’s in direct violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act which specifically states that no one, including an employer can access a persons stored electronic communications without that persons permission, permission which can not be coerced out of the person, for example by refusing to reinstate their employment until they give into those demands.

In a statement regarding the issue the Maryland ACLU stated:

“If allowed to continue, this practice would permit the government to review wall postings, e-mail communications, and photographs posted privately by the friends and family of job applicants and employees undergoing recertification.”

Here’s Collins being interviewed about this egregious violation of his personal rights:

State Employer Demands Employees Facebook Password, ACLU In An Uproar is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Memphis Police Department has filed a subpoena asking AOL to provide them the identity of the person or people behind the MPD Enforcer 2.0 blog, which is apparently hosted on AOL’s servers. The blog takes a critical look at the police department, in particular its leaders.

“It has been a common practice for the administration to cover up political incidents in an attempt to climb the ladder of power within the department,” the latest post, written Wednesday, reads.

The blog has evidently become quite popular with police and the general public alike. Though the police department has not given a specific reason for why it wants the bloggers’ identities — currently known only as the alias “Dirk Diggler” — its request has gotten both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center fired up.

“We are quite interested in preserving the anonymity of the bloggers,” ACLU Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg told the Memphis Commercial Appeal. “Anonymous speech has long been protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The bloggers say they’ve hired the Public Citizen Litigation Group to represent them in the case. AOL, however, has lost a similar battle to protect users’ identities before: In 2001, a Japanese electronics company demanded the name of a user it said had posted “false, defamatory and otherwise unlawful messages” on a message board. Despite AOL’s efforts to keep the information private, a Virginia Supreme Court ruled in the other company’s favor.

Bloggers’ Protection Being Put to the Test is a post from: The Inquisitr