...only outlaws will speak freely
sean | 01 March, 2007 20:35
From the news of 2/28/2007, three separate articles from separate news sources for consideration:
“That’s so Gay” Saying at Center of Court Fight
http://www.firstcoastnews.com:80/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=76944
Suit filed in swearing casehttp://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/communities/costamesa_newport/article_1593951.php
City Council approves banning the “N-word”http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5078270
In the first article, at issue is the phrase “that’s so gay”, which was used in a playground (!) altercation. The court case seeks to determine when regular insults “cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out.”
In the second article, a Californian college student was arrested at the airport for using the word “fuck” when children were nearby.
The third article describes the efforts of none less than the New York City Council to pass a measure symbolically banning the use of the word “nigger”. The bill is a non-binding measure calling for New Yorkers to stop using the word. Of what use is a non-binding legal measure?
In all of these instances, don’t we as a people have better things (ending war, famine, for example) to be occupying our time, courts and resources with than language which might be deemed offensive? Do we really need to get the government involved in this?
Apparently the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” has been scientifically disproved. Of course, it now falls to the various local governments to stamp out this hateful speech. Where will this lead? Maybe we will need to enforce public mouth out-washings with soap? Perhaps the IRS can set up individual swear-jar funds to be added to our personal tax accounts? Of course this is absurd; there is no practical way to legislate the use of language.
In the second article, the author quotes an expert in constitutional law who states “freedom of speech does not cover obscenities”.
Oh really? Why shouldn’t it? What kind of “harm” does this “hate speech” do anyway? What sorts of studies have been published on the effects of obscene or offensive language? Imagine a child who is raised never hearing the words “fuck”, or “faggot”, or “nigger”. What advantage could this give them over a child who grows up hearing these words? Could such a child still grow up to be bigoted and filled with hate? Could the child who hears and understands these words still grow up to become tolerant and humane? Of course the answer to these questions is yes. So what are we so preoccupied with? Increasing the taboo associated with these words will only increase the force of their seemingly magical powers. Let’s grow up and stop worrying about the specific words of “hate speech”, and start looking at what the real problem is: the actual hatred such speech stems from.
Posted in Legal . Comment: (3). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Coulple nabs cop, charged with stalking!
cn | 19 February, 2007 18:35
Well, it seems that if you wish to keep tabs on the police, you'd better be prepared to defend yourself. In this land of 'freedom' it can be quite dangerous to stand up to what you believe to be corruption in any part of the government, let alone the men with guns. A couple in Georgia found this out when they set up a radar detector on their property and recorded a cop speeding past their house at 17mph over the speed limit (from the Daily Tribune News):
Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.
The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.
The thing is, too many people believe the police are the final upholders of what's good and right and allow the police to be the final word in all things without standing up for - and often without even knowing - what their rights are...which can be a major problem when those supposedly upholding our rights (the police) don't know what they are either...
originally found via boingboing.net
Posted in Legal, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Nashville Mayor Stands Up for True American Values
cn | 14 February, 2007 10:58
The Nashville, TN Metro Council passed (23-14) a bill that would require all government communication to be in English - which to me basically amounts to a vote for exclusion. Not only are open immigration and willing assistance to those who can not easily communicate with English-speakers a great boost for the growth and prosperity of our country, but it also exemplifies what I believe the true core values that the foundation of our country was built on: acceptance, equality, and humanity. Lucky for the side of freedom, the Nashville mayor took a similar stand (from cnn.com):
Even supporters acknowledged that the bill to make English the official language of Nashville was mostly a symbolic slap at illegal immigration.
But even that was too much for Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell. He vetoed the measure, saying it was unconstitutional, unnecessary and mean-spirited.
...Purcell said his legal staff had advised him the measure violated the U.S. and state constitutions, and likely legal challenges would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend -- "for no good reason."
..."If this ordinance becomes law, Nashville will become a less safe, less friendly and less successful city," Purcell said. "And as mayor, I cannot allow that to happen."
The first section of the above quote speaks quite volumes for the mindset of what I would consider, more or less, the status quo of government practice - creating an exclusionary bill that would be little more than "a symbolic slap at illegal immigration".
If the media and the government took a big-picture look at not only the implications of closing down immigration, but of what it means - what values we are upholding - by passing and promoting measures such as this, I believe it would create a much more tolerant, safe, and productive mindset with the general public. As it stands, even productive, intelligent, and resourceful people from Canada and Mexico have an extraordinarily hard time working in the United States and, as history shows, nearly all of the greatest contributors to our growth and prosperity in modern history have come from other countries, or their parents have, or their parents' parents have.
If we attract the motivated, the intelligent, the excluded from other countries around the world, we will grow and prosper because those people will create opportunities for all of us. If we shun those same people, it will likely lead only to decline.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
The Leftist GOP
cn | 08 February, 2007 00:53
The blog Individ has a rant - not a conversation or comment, but a full-fledged rant - about the socialist-isation of the Republicans:
The GOP is now part of the Nanny State: A Republican state lawmaker from Texas has filed a bill that would charge parents of public school students with a misdemeanor for failing to attend a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
That's just a light helping of what follows...And that which follows the above clip isn't nearly as liberty-destructive as attempting to force parents to attend parent-teacher conferences. And will forcing attendance force parents to care more about their children or something? Sounds like the same rationale that forcing students to attend classes would somehow create smarter people....
Posted in Legal, Philosophy, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
NOT on CNN: Elections Officials in Ohio Convicted of Rigging 2004 Pres. Election Recount
cn | 01 February, 2007 12:16
Now, I searched CNN.com for this story and the only thing that came up was a link to an outside website called OpEdNews.com, and wasn't able to dig anything up on nytimes.com. This is pulled from Homeland Stupidity:
Two Ohio election officials were convicted last week of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election results.
Cuyahoga County election officials Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer were each convicted of one count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee, a felony, and one count of failure of elections employees to perform their duty, a misdemeanor. The two still work for the county elections board.
Democratic elections are one of the bedrocks of our society. How can the media NOT report on such events? A full recount may not have changed the final result of the election, but the fact that such things are going on AND not brought to the awareness of we the people that I find truly disturbing.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Congress Trying to Silence Grassroots Movements in America?
cn | 21 January, 2007 23:06
Mark Fitzgibbons of GrassrootsFreedoms.com accuses Congress of attempting to track and, as he accuses, silence grassroots movements in the US...
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'
Now, the government can justify this in any way they want, but when it comes down to it, is it right for the government to track any and all major efforts to organize political movemnts? It seems to me to be a conflict of interests and another step towards authoritarianism. I haven't found this reported in any major media outlets yet and holds major First Amendment Rights implications.
There's a piece at hillnews.com about the bill as well citing former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith:
“It’s a disaster, generally, the notion that the government should be checking up on attempts by citizens to communicate with citizens,” Smith said. He argued that lawmakers are seeking the identity of firms paying for constituent calls for purposes of retaliation: “Can you think of any other reason that members of Congress need to know who’s running grassroots ads in their district?”
However, the piece at hillnews.com finishes with this:
As for the [Free Speech C]oalition’s rhetorical combat with Public Citizen, MacCleery characterized the specter of a lawsuit against grassroots rules as an attempt to generate a false opposition to reform.
“It’s almost like they’re flacks,” she added, “like they’re good at creating the appearance of controversy where none exists.”
Both sides have good points, yet when it comes to passing laws with such potentially sweeping effects to one's ability to critique or even oppose the government, we must proceed cautiously and the media must be diligent in its reporting. Otherwise, we as a nation will only move one unimpeded step closer to a police state.
You can also read a very right-leaning report here. However, I would not call the report balanced in any way, shape, or form, but certainly gives a perspective not covered in the other sources, yet in agreement with the final statement - that this is a dangerous bill.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
We Don't Have Secret Laws in America...Do We?
ben | 16 January, 2007 20:15
It seems that the Supreme Court of the United States of America doesn't think it is a right for Americans to know the actual laws they are forced to follow (or face the punishment), There are laws in place. Many of them we know. Others we can go look up or find someone to look up for us. However, there are apparently some laws which we have know right to know the specifics of, but are in essence forced to follow.
Enter John Gilmore...[text from Homeland Stupidity]:
In 2002, John Gilmore attempted twice to board an airplane without showing government-issued identification and was denied boarding both times. Officials repeatedly refused to show him a law or regulation which required him to show ID, claiming it was sensitive security information, and he went to court.
Now this somewhat baffles me. With the government's penchant for blacking out documentation released to the public, I would think they could come up with enough blackout to leave Mr. Gilmore with at least part of a document that would say something similar to, "Airplane travelers [BLACKOUT BLACKOUT BLACKOUT] must present [BLACKOUT] government issued ID [BLACKOUT BLACKOUT BLACKOUT] to board an airplane." Don't you think?
As it turns out, Homeland Stupidity points out that:
Copies of the security directive in question have been leaked and have been available on the Internet for years. It does not require passengers to show identification, but does require that anyone who does not show identification go through secondary screening and requires special handling procedures for their checked baggage.
Without the actual text of the directive, we can only assume that it is in fact perfectly legitimate to board a plane without an ID so long as you can pass the screenings.
In fact, someone who I know very well has done just such a thing. He lost his license a day or so before his flight home for Christmas a few years back (post- 9/11). He called the airline and the airline told him that it was okay, but he should show up to the airport extra early because he would most definitely be searched, etc. He showed up early. He was searched. His baggage was searched. He boarded the plane without an ID and made it home for Christmas.
Given my friend's experience and that of Mr Gilmore it would seem that Mr. Gilmore might have been denied boarding either for a reason other than not having an ID (ie: he challenged the authority figure, who decided to not let him board - which brings up an issue of power usurping the law, among others) or the person/people that did not allow him to board are ignorant of the actual laws and regulations they are tasked to uphold. Both of these seem to me to be very serious issues.
Michael Hapmton, the writer of the Homeland Stupidity piece, closes aptly:
Gilmore calls secret law “an abomination” and says that it violates his right to due process. But now, with the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear this case, Americans can be subject to secret laws. Didn’t think that sort of thing could happen here? It can now.
Oh, and as the Ninth Circuit said in its decision, “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” You don’t have the right to travel either, according to these people.
The noose tightens.
The final statement of the Ninth Circuit might seem innocuous at first, but leave opens the question of further restrictions, and even, to me, seems to suggest that we are granted the privilege of being able to travel by the good graces of the government. Which in a sense is true. We can't pay to fly on the space shuttle, but we can if we go to Russia. Does that make Russia a freer country than the U.S.? In some sense, perhaps.
27BSroke6 wrote about the Gilmore issue as well:
According to a statement by the Identity Project, which Gilmore heads and funds, " We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public."
Posted in Legal, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
A Victory for Justice and Freedom in the UK
cn | 13 January, 2007 10:04
The government of the UK has decided to make its database of all the laws of the land available FREE for the public to access and use. It would seem to me that having the all the laws of a supposedly free country easily accessible to the pubic would be an obvious state of affairs. It is, of course, not so...perhaps because we do not live in a truly free country.
But the UK is at least taking a step forward. From BBC News:
It is a victory for campaigners who think public sector information should be free for the public to use.
...
Nick Holmes, author of legal blog Binary Law and one of the main campaigners, is delighted by the change of heart.
"The problem is that government departments are selling the data that has been gathered by our taxes. This represents a conflict of interest and it is not a level playing field if the government both holds the data and is able to exploit it commercially," said Mr Holmes.
According to boingbiong.net, it is generally more challenging to find a full database of US laws and often an expensive subscription to a commercial database is required, though a boingboing reader sent them a list of a few places that grant free access to certain law databases, though they don't appear to be fully comprehensive.
Posted in Legal, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Sen. Sununu of NH Fighting the Good Fight vs. the FCC
cn | 12 January, 2007 21:35
Senator John Sununu, a Republican from NH - home of the liberty-loving Free State Project - is taking on the FCC and it's desire to severely restrict the freedom of companies to develop all kinds of technology that could be used for any kind of digital purposes.
Basically, TV and movie studios and recording companies want all companies that produce electronic devices that play their products to include technology that would read a broadcast flag - which could effectively prevent home-users from, say, copying the music from their iPod to a CD or copy a DVD movie onto their own personal computer or their TiVo recorded show onto a DVD, even if it's just for home use. I in fact back up all my digitally purchased music on CDs so if my hard drive crashes, I still have all the music that I legally purchased.
These movie, TV, and music companies want the FCC to actually force electronics manufacturers to create all their technology with that recognize and comply to these broadcast flags via legislation.
John Sununu takes exception to the FCCs attempts to climb into the pocket of the entertainment industry (from arstechnica.com):
Sununu's bill will attempt to rein in the FCC and prevent it from reviving the broadcast flag without Congressional authorization to do so. "The FCC seems to be under the belief that it should occasionally impose technology mandates," Sununu said in a statement. "These misguided requirements distort the marketplace by forcing industry to adopt agency-blessed solutions rather than allow innovative and competitive approaches to develop. We have seen this happen with the proposed video flag, and interest groups are pushing for an audio flag mandate as well. Whether well-intentioned or not, the FCC has no business interfering in private industry to satisfy select special interests or to impose its own views."
Go New Hampshire! While you're at it, Senator Sununu, why not try reviving the spirit of America just a little and dismantle the FCC entirely?
Posted in Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Forget Checks and Balances, Give Them Power!
cn | 05 January, 2007 16:09
Hit and Run points to an AP article that shows how:
as inspectors general in the federal government get better at exposing waste, fraud and ineptitude within their respective agencies, they tend to lose influence, the tools they need to investigate, or the elimination of their offices.
Check out the full AP article here. Very very bad. If you care about liberty and personal freedom at least...which it seems many people do not...so maybe it just doesn't matter...but I think it does.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
"We can't tell you how the Grand Canyon was created becasue someone might get mad..."
cn | 04 January, 2007 16:00
In a story that's been all over the blogshpere (this from thinkprogress.org)...
Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park.”
This is really just disturbing. The inference here is that if a small group of people threatens this organization enough, the organization (in this case the National Park) will fold. I am, of course, assuming that GCNP would prefer to at least tell the public that visits how the Grand Canyon might have been formed if we assume the scientific hypothesis. But they don't even do that. Why not present both sides, both opinions - the religious and the scientific. I would prefer to just see the scientific in this situation, but I can see the value of both. Yet here it seems that the religion-pushers would rather quash all opposing viewpoints and the world seems to be full of people too afraid to stand up to them or at least people who will demand a dialog.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics, Science, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(1). Permalink
Cool List of Banned Items in NYC!
cn | 04 January, 2007 15:34
So, as we move towards authoritarianism Reason Magazine's blog, Hit and Run, published a list of items the NYC city council tried to ban (originally published in the New York Post). The list included:
* Trans-fats.
* Aluminum baseball bats.
* Foie gras.
* New fast-food restaurants (but only in poor neighborhoods).
* Cell phones in upscale restaurants.
* The sale of pork products made in a processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., because of a unionization dispute.
* Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.
Sweet job NYC city councilpeople. How to fight against freedom.
Posted in Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Fighting for the Right to...Display a Picture of Myself with a Sword in My Yearbook
cn | 03 January, 2007 10:39
Patrick Agin is a senior at Portsmouth High School in Rhode Island and a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism which is a medieval reenactment group. He wants his picture in the school yearbook to be a photo of him in suit of chainmail holding a sword. The school has some kind of zero-tolerance policy on violence which includes carrying/displaying weapons of any kind.
So Agin decided to sue. And the ACLU took up the fight with him. This battle in and of itself is unspectacular and I think both sides have a point, Agin on the side of freedom of expression and the school district on the side of upholding a rule with good intent, however well-executed it may or may not be (I don't have enough data to really comment on it).
The issue is that the administrators seem to be trying to strongarm Agin and force him through dishonest means to abandon his fight (from the blog Newport 9):
Portsmouth High Principal Robert Littlefield has apparently given no explanation for the earlier, erroneous cutoff date for the yearbook pictures. If I were a cynical person, I would guess that the explanation is that Littlefield pulled the Monday deadline out of his ass in order to pressure Agin into giving in. After all, Littlefield came right out and said that if the printing didn't begin by Monday the school would either be forced to pay a penalty for missing the deadline or delay the arrival of yearbooks until after the end of the year or after graduation, and then went on bemoan the fact that if that happened it would be all Agin's fault for not meekly going along with Littlefield's diktat.
Soon after this conflict began the principal had said that the deadline for pictures was around December 18th, but it later came out that the publishing deadline is actually February 28th...What does it mean that we're living in a society where a kid tries to fight for his rights through the channels made available to him by the law of our country and an adult in a position of power, because he or she wants something done his or her way and no other, will use any means necessary to get what they want rather than uphold both the student and the spirit of the structure of our law and allow due process to run its course? What kind of values will this type of educational experience build in the world?
Again, it is not the conflict itself that is a problem and I don't support either side as being more right or more ethical or anything, but rather it is the steps that the administration seem to be going through in order to get their way that is the problem...
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
War, Peace, and Mindfulness
ben | 02 January, 2007 15:01
I came across a very interesting post on Magical Thinking, a blog about "States of Mind, Ways of Being". The post is titled 'Understanding War and Peace'. Here's an excerpt:
That is why it is important to understand yourself, your conditioning, your upbringing, the way you are educated; because, the government, the whole system, is your own projection. The world is you, the world is not separate from you; the world with its problems is projected out of your responses, out of your reactions, so the solution does not lie in creating further reactions.
There can be a solution only when there is action which is not reaction, and that can come into being only when you understand the whole process of response to stimuli both from outside and inside, which means that you understand the structure of your own being from which society is created.
...
Peace is a state of being in which all conflicts and all problems have ceased; it is not a theory, not an ideal to be achieved after ten incarnations, ten years or ten days.
As long as the mind has not understood its own activity, it will create more misery; and the understanding of the mind is the beginning of peace.
and it cites being pulled from: Jiddu Krishnamurti, 5th Public Talk, Bombay, March 12, 1950
The entire post is absolutely amazing. Read it. Here.
Posted in Legal . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
The FCC vs. the First Amendment
ben | 01 January, 2007 14:28
Jeff Jarvis pulled an excellent excerpt from a Wall Street Journal report about a hearing in federal court with the FCC facing off against Fox. Here's an excerpt from the WSJ report:
“This seems to be a scheme that depends on what you [the FCC] think instead of having objective criteria,” said Judge Rosemary Pooler, part of the appeals-court panel. “Are you just telling the networks … to make some sort of cockamamie claim and they’ll survive?”
Judge Pooler kept Mr. Miller on the defensive throughout his half-hour long argument, telling him he seemed to contradict himself over whether broadcasters can claim virtually anything has news value. Later, she asked why the FCC had cited a need to protect children from profanities when it had cited no studies finding children were injured by them, but yet had never sought to penalize broadcasters for violence in programs when many studies show they do injure children. [bold added by CN]
Oh praise the Lord that the judge asked the final question! In my opinion, these issues raised by the Judge in this case are far more pressing issues to the survival of the US than the issues of profanity and nudity in broadcasting.
Posted in Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink