Just Because We Can, Does That Mean We Should?

[walk in the woods]

 

I can't see that happening. French culture and constitution values freedom of speech far more than any other country I can think of.

 

I was just going to comment on the irony of France arresting people for speech the week after they declared that free speech is so important but the quote was just seredipitous timing.

 

 

There was an AP story yesterday that justified the anti-semetic laws in France on the history of WWII. That's all well and good but ultimately the people of France in this case, and in all western democracies in general, are choosing winners and losers in the regulated speech market place. That may be ok as well, but, when anti-semetic speech is outlawed and anti-Islamic speech is celebrated, one can see how 10% of the population might be angry. That in no way justifies the response.

 

Interestingly, at least to me, there was another story about a conservative MP in London calling for government access to telecom records. It sounded similar to me to what our friends at the NSA are currently doing. I'd be interested to hear thoughts from our friends in the UK.

 

Regardless, our reaction to these kinds of attacks are the greatest indicator of the strength of our democracies and adherence to our values. We failed in the US after 9/11 and it appears our friends in France are traversing the same path (or maybe we're following them, hard to tell these days).

[packsaddle]

Evidently, THE POPE thinks the answer is 'no'.

[qwazse]

I guess here's an original answer to the OP: (Colossians 4:6) "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." I'm not exactly sure what St. Paul intended by "salt" but it probably wasn't what my SM called "salty speech". Regardless, it's a reasonable model for "a scout is clean." And it came from a guy under house arrest for his public declarations. I'm not saying I know exactly what pen strokes allow a cartoon to become "grace, seasoned with salt", but I kinda suspect that we all have a sense of what we should allow ourselves. Even so, that's not gonna keep someone from being killed over what they say ... Nero had a quite visceral answer for what Paul and his lackeys said ... but what was said eventually won over an empire.

[Cambridgeskip]

There was an AP story yesterday that justified the anti-semetic laws in France on the history of WWII. That's all well and good but ultimately the people of France in this case' date=' and in all western democracies in general, are choosing winners and losers in the regulated speech market place. That may be ok as well, but, when anti-semetic speech is outlawed and anti-Islamic speech is celebrated, one can see how 10% of the population might be angry. That in no way justifies the response. Interestingly, at least to me, there was another story about a conservative MP in London calling for government access to telecom records. It sounded similar to me to what our friends at the NSA are currently doing. I'd be interested to hear thoughts from our friends in the UK. Regardless, our reaction to these kinds of attacks are the greatest indicator of the strength of our democracies and adherence to our values. We failed in the US after 9/11 and it appears our friends in France are traversing the same path (or maybe we're following them, hard to tell these days).[/quote'] I'm away for the weekend with the lovely Mrs Cambridgeskip so will comment when I get back. See yah then!

[Cambridgeskip]

 

There was an AP story yesterday that justified the anti-semetic laws in France on the history of WWII. That's all well and good but ultimately the people of France in this case, and in all western democracies in general, are choosing winners and losers in the regulated speech market place. That may be ok as well, but, when anti-semetic speech is outlawed and anti-Islamic speech is celebrated, one can see how 10% of the population might be angry. That in no way justifies the response.

 

Interestingly, at least to me, there was another story about a conservative MP in London calling for government access to telecom records. It sounded similar to me to what our friends at the NSA are currently doing. I'd be interested to hear thoughts from our friends in the UK.

 

Regardless, our reaction to these kinds of attacks are the greatest indicator of the strength of our democracies and adherence to our values. We failed in the US after 9/11 and it appears our friends in France are traversing the same path (or maybe we're following them, hard to tell these days).

 

 

So I said I would comment further. Actually I'm going to chose not to. This is clearly a politically controversial issue and I am senior enough within the UK civil service that to publically comment either way would probably not be a wise move as I meant to remain impartial in a public setting.

 

It was a great weekend away by the way. If any of you visit the UK I can recommend Newcastle as a wonderful city to visit

[packsaddle]

CSkip, I'll respond in that case. Dcsimmons, you left me hanging with that post. I'm not disagreeing. Rather I'm curious as to what you think success after 9/11 would have been for the USA?

Also, I'm not sure what you're saying about the NSA (disparaging remarks about NSA deleted, heh, heh, just kidding guys) Have a nice day.

[walk in the woods]

I had to think about this based on the way you phrased the question. It's easier to point out where we went wrong with the internal surveillance stuff in the USA Patriot Act, warrant-less wire tapping, NSA data collection on citizens, etc. What's worse to me is the number of citizens who said things like "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." To me that's tantamount to "show me your papers." We let, and to a lesser extent continue to let, fear control our actions.

 

~~Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

The biggest thing we did right was getting everything running again, markets were up and running in a week, air travel, people going to jobs, etc. I think you can argue about the relative success of the OEF/OIF. I have no issues with putting troops on the ground in OEF, we can argue about OIF. I had just returned from the Gulf when one of Sadam's pilots put two Exocets into the side of the USS Stark so I don't have much sympathy for him.

 

The mistake the U.S. makes with these kinds of operations today, and probably since VN, is we go into them thinking about an exit strategy instead of going into these conflicts thinking about destroying our enemy. I think approaching armed conflict thinking about exit strategies makes it way too easy to commit troops to bad situations.

[TAHAWK]

The warrantless internal surveillance of telecommunications has gone on since the 1960s. I worked for what was and now is AT&T, and I'm not guessing. I reviewed the renewal orders from the feds. A high percentage of all calls were and are computer-scanned for certain words and word patterns and kicked out for human review if they qualified. Say "fertilizer," "kerosine," and "Allah" in the same conversation. Not hard to find the information' although you have to look for it. The media pretty much ignore it. Try "Echelon" or "Operation Shamrock." Started in the punch card era and zips along much faster in the current computer age.

 

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Admirable, but it leaves open who decides what "essential" and "little" mean. Part of civilization is giving up liberty for security and order. Consider the entire concept of "crime."

[walk in the woods]

I should also add to my earlier post of the things we failed at after 9/11 is the whole torture, extreme extradition, black site, CIA stuff. I think Sen. Feinstein had purely political reasons for releasing her report but it was needed and the government doesn't have permission to torture in my name.

 

The fact that unconstitutional surveillance been going on since the 60s certainly doesn't justify our government spying on us without authorization from the courts. In fact it makes it all the more wrong. And the fact the government felt it necessary to codify their actions in law proves, at least to me, that they knew it was wrong all along. But hey, why let a good crisis go to waste when instead more control and power can be exercised while the sheep are cowering in the corner.

 

Crime is an interesting thought here because what is crime? It's an action by one person that denies a second their essential liberties. The victim of a crime doesn't voluntarily give up their liberty, it is taken from them. Why isn't it a crime when the government does the same thing? For me the "essential" liberties in the quote is easy to define, they're all essential. With each liberty surrendered we draw a step closer to the point of no return. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It passes through serfdom along the way.

[TAHAWK]

I should also add to my earlier post of the things we failed at after 9/11 is the whole torture, extreme extradition, black site, CIA stuff. I think Sen. Feinstein had purely political reasons for releasing her report but it was needed and the government doesn't have permission to torture in my name.

 

The fact that unconstitutional surveillance been going on since the 60s certainly doesn't justify our government spying on us without authorization from the courts. In fact it makes it all the more wrong. And the fact the government felt it necessary to codify their actions in law proves, at least to me, that they knew it was wrong all along. But hey, why let a good crisis go to waste when instead more control and power can be exercised while the sheep are cowering in the corner.

 

Crime is an interesting thought here because what is crime? It's an action by one person that denies a second their essential liberties. The victim of a crime doesn't voluntarily give up their liberty, it is taken from them. Why isn't it a crime when the government does the same thing? For me the "essential" liberties in the quote is easy to define, they're all essential. With each liberty surrendered we draw a step closer to the point of no return. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It passes through serfdom along the way.

 

 

"Crime" is the concept that my wrong against you is a wrong against the state, not merely a personal matter between the two of us -- or our kin. You give up the freedom to exact personal revenge in return for the state's commitment to exact "justice" at my expense.

 

The concept was alien to England until William I arrived. He legislated morality and used sufficient force to, more or less, make it stick.

 

Well, that's the theory.

 

 

"Superior" people, knowing themselves to be "superior," tend to ignore rules and facts that are inconvenient, They see the "greater truth" that is beyond merely objective reality.

[packsaddle]

Thinking about the original question, I just read an OpEd in the NYTimes which argued a limit to the first amendment in which an online magazine advocating terrorism and giving instructions on how to kill should be banned. I was unaware of the publication but the argument made seemed to have merit. I'd be interested in hearing alternative views.

http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pg5nB5w5go5/OdvCJorKS4KdQU9fbPYAz8ZNL4wRBxwkiGhvRG4k9GDFwPnYDHW5GUqM43oxefWJ/99joAfWtSRvNA98Q2aA/VGEG/s/+Gd1aRpmNpYgj6yh6xYKRlcDcOGbkfUwYnfSM=&campaign_id=129&instance_id=53043&segment_id=68369&user_id=66917861a07a0f006bcfb9f5be2a750e&regi_id=48592939

[TAHAWK]

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

 

Under Schenck v. United States (1919), read in light of Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), "advocacy of the use of [unlawful] force" is not protected by "Freedom of Speech" when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action."

 

But superior people need not follow the law.

 

[walk in the woods]

 

Thinking about the original question' date=' I just read an OpEd in the NYTimes which argued a limit to the first amendment in which an online magazine advocating terrorism and giving instructions on how to kill should be banned. I was unaware of the publication but the argument made seemed to have merit. I'd be interested in hearing alternative views.[/quote']

 

This one is interesting in a couple of ways I think. If the ezine is indeed the publication of AQAP, then one might assume the majority of the authors aren't US citizens which would tend to eliminate the application of the first amendment. I suppose one would also need to know where the servers are located that host the particular content in question. If it is published off-shore then the expectation that the US Constitution would apply seems even weaker.

 

I suppose one could argue that once the content comes across the border on US telecom cables that it is then subject to the first amendment. But in that case "banning" the publication isn't barring free speech so much as free consumption of content by citizens of the US. It's a thin but important line I think. It's the line we use to criticize China and Iran whenever they ban US internet content from their citizens. Are we as a people willing to count ourselves among the national firewall nations of the world? Afraid of foreign content? I know I'm about to make a slippery slope argument but who gets to choose the information that is presented to the general populace?

 

I thought the authors made an overly emotion argument for banning. It basically came down to "this is bad, we disagree, we're afraid, it should be banned." For support they only offered up that the US Courts have offered other bans on the first amendment. I also found the argument terribly unoriginal. You could substitute "gun" everywhere the article use the name of the ezine and the arguments would all have basically held the same ground.

 

I suspect my odds of dying on the Chicago area expressways are significantly higher than my odds of being killed by somebody who reads this ezine. I choose not to fear.

[TAHAWK]

 

 

This one is interesting in a couple of ways I think. If the ezine is indeed the publication of AQAP, then one might assume the majority of the authors aren't US citizens which would tend to eliminate the application of the first amendment. I suppose one would also need to know where the servers are located that host the particular content in question. If it is published off-shore then the expectation that the US Constitution would apply seems even weaker.

 

dc, it is not at all clear that US. citizenship is a requirement for recognition and/or protection by the U.S. Government of inalienable rights said to be derived from God. Nor is it at all clear that only those rights exercised on U.S. soil are so recognized or protected. I think, to the contrary, there is a good body of law saying that the government may not, for example, arrest foreign nationals who merely demonstrate against the government, much less machine-gun them.