Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law
    #2182743 - 12/16/03 04:07 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

?FREE-SPEECH ZONE?


The administration quarantines dissent.


By James Bovard - December 15, 2003 issue of The American Conservative

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, ?To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ? your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ? give ammunition to America?s enemies.? Some commentators feared that Ashcroft?s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft?s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up ?free speech zones? or ?protest zones? where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, ?The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.? The local police, at the Secret Service?s behest, set up a ?designated free-speech zone? on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush?s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president?s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, ?As far as I?m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.?

At Neel?s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine ?people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views? in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service ?come in and do a site survey, and say, ?Here?s a place where the people can be, and we?d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.?? Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, ?I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ?I don?t agree with you, but I?ll defend to the death your right to say it???

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, ?At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators?two of whom were grandmothers?were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome.? One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, ?War is good business. Invest your sons.? The seven were charged with trespassing, ?obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.?

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri commented, ?No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn?t allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media.? When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her five-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a ?No War for Oil? sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a ?free speech zone? half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the ?free speech zone.?

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if ?it was the content of my sign, and he said, ?Yes, sir, it?s the content of your sign that?s the problem.?? Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, ?The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.?

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department?in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.?quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding ?entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.? If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey?s request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a ?petty offense.? Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey?s trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, ?We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached.? The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the ?free speech zone? but refused to co-operate. Magistrate Marchant is expected to issue his decision in December.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, ?These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.? Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

Marr?s comments are a mockery of this country?s rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern-and-practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere. The ACLU?s Witold Walczak said of the protesters, ?The individuals we are talking about didn?t pose a security threat; they posed a political threat.?

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs?as has happened in some demonstrations?is pointless, since potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Presuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration?s anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, ?The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can?t be heard.? Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush?s recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city, and impose a ?virtual three day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,? according to Britain?s Evening Standard. But instead of a ?free speech zone??as such areas are labeled in the U.S.?the Bush administration demanded an ?exclusion zone? to protect Bush from protesters? messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the ?forward strategy of freedom? and declared, ?We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.? Regarding the protesters, Bush sought to turn the issue into a joke: ?I?ve been here only a short time, but I?ve noticed that the tradition of free speech?exercised with enthusiasm?is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.?

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department?s recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who ?expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.? If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of ?suspected terrorists.?

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington, and elsewhere. Film footage of a February New York antiwar rally showed what looked like a policeman on horseback charging into peaceful aged Leftists. The neoconservative New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department ?send two witnesses along for each participant [in an antiwar demonstration], with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution? since all the demonstrators were guilty of ?giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.?

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, ?You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that?s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.? Van Winkle justified classifying protesters like terrorists: ?I?ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn?t just bombs going off and killing people.?

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration?s advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans? everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists ?for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.? The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI?s ?belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,? according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators?supposedly to ?blunt potential violence by extremist elements,? according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI?s expansive defintion of ?potential violence? in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

The FBI is also urging local police to report suspicious activity by protesters to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is run by the FBI. If local police take the hint and start pouring in the dirt, the JTTF could soon be building a ?Total Information Awareness?-lite database on those antiwar groups and activists.

If the FBI publicly admits that it is surveilling antiwar groups and urging local police to send in information on protestors, how far might the feds go? It took over a decade after the first big antiwar protests in the 1960s before the American people learned the extent of FBI efforts to suppress and subvert public opposition to the Vietnam War. Is the FBI now considering a similar order to field offices as the one it sent in 1968, telling them to gather information illustrating the ?scurrilous and depraved nature of many of the characters, activities habits, and living conditions representative of New Left adherents??but this time focused on those who oppose Bush?s Brave New World?

Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely. Is it carrying out a war on dissent? Probably not?yet. But the trend lines in federal attacks on freedom of speech should raise grave concerns to anyone worried about the First Amendment or about how a future liberal Democratic president such as Hillary Clinton might exploit the precedents that Bush is setting.
______________________________________________

James Bovard is the author of Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,830
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 2 hours, 44 minutes
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2182772 - 12/16/03 04:24 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2183410 - 12/16/03 07:25 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

FREE SPEECH DEAD IN AMERICA
by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com

Most people's eyes glaze over when they hear or read terms like "campaign-finance reform."

It's understandable. Many Americans cannot see how this kind of legislation impacts their lives.

And, accordingly, there was little outrage when Congress passed the "McCain-Feingold" campaign-finance bill.

Again, there was little outrage when President Bush signed the legislation.

Then, last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the law's ban on so-called "soft money," or unlimited donations to political parties, as well as new restrictions on political advertising 60 days before elections.

But this legislation, shockingly upheld by the court, represents one of the biggest attacks on First Amendment freedoms in America's history.

It's no exaggeration to say Congress, the president and the court killed freedom of speech with their actions.

Why?

Because if Congress does indeed have the power to regulate political speech in America ? in stark contradiction to what the First Amendment clearly states ? then it is only a matter of time and opportunity before the government takes the next step. It is only a matter of time and opportunity before the government takes yet another "privilege" of expression away from the American people, who clearly have no inalienable rights in this area, despite what the Constitution says. It is only a matter of time before Congress eviscerates other provisions of the First Amendment ? once considered sacrosanct, even by judicial activists who had no use for the rest of the Constitution.

Let's say I, Joe American, want to make my voice heard in opposition to a congressional candidate in my district 59 days before the election. I believe there is a compelling reason to reject a particular candidate ? and no one in the media is willing to examine my pet cause. Even the opposing candidate is missing the boat ? either through ignorance or oversight.

So, I decide to take out a small ad in my local newspaper ? on my own initiative and with my own meager financial resources.

Do you know this wholesome, perfectly appropriate, civic-minded action is illegal under the new law?

I kid you not. And this is just the beginning. The full ramifications of this legislation are not even known yet. There will be people prosecuted and fined for speaking their minds publicly ? people with no ties to any candidates or parties, just regular people who want to participate in the political system.

Let me give you another real-life example.

Have you ever thought about using your website to campaign for your favorite candidate? Or, perhaps, to urge the defeat of that congressional representative who has been ignoring your letters?

Better think again.

A couple years ago, Leo Smith of Connecticut decided he would use his business website to do just that ? urge the defeat of his congressional representative, Republican Nancy L. Johnson. He decided to add a new section to an already existing Internet site to advance the cause of her challenger, Charlotte Koskoff.

Just a few days later, Smith was contacted by Koskoff's campaign manager. No, it wasn't a call to thank him for his efforts. It was a warning of legal problems he might encounter because of campaign-finance regulations.

Smith was told by the Federal Election Commission that he was in violation of federal law because he had spent more than $250 in expressing his political views without disclosing his identity and filing the required reports.

Never mind that Smith didn't spend anything (except time) creating the new page. The FEC, however, insisted in an advisory opinion that the value of the computer hardware and software is factored into its calculations. If a computer used to express political viewpoints cost more than $250, the FEC said, its owner would have to meet the filing requirements.

Again, this is before the latest heinous legislation. It's only going to get worse now.

The answer to those who say we need stricter limits on campaign spending is that we need no limits. Any limits are limits on speech. You cannot divide money and speech. Money buys speech. Effective communications requires money. It's an illusion to pretend otherwise.

We don't need more government control ? whether it is through taxpayer-financed elections or limits on political speech. Either solution spells less freedom.

What we need to do, as much as possible, is to get government's nose out of the election process ? and, for that matter, the rest of our public and private affairs.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2183502 - 12/16/03 07:57 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Your constitutional right ends where the bush administration begins


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGranola
bag lady

Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2184418 - 12/17/03 03:11 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

it really started with this administration Jackson
but got progressively worse with the president the didnt want to be oneTaft


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2184426 - 12/17/03 03:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SpecialEd said:
Your constitutional right ends where the bush administration begins



They ended long before that. Just look at Lincoln. Bush certainly didn't help support them though.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 days
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2195325 - 12/22/03 10:57 AM (13 years, 30 days ago)

2004 Preview: High Court to Amend 1st Amendment

(2003-12-22) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule, in early 2004, that most of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional, according to an unnamed Court clerk.

The nation's highest court will likely amend the 1st amendment contained in the so-called "Bill of Rights," eliminating everything but the first five words.

Currently, the 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

However, the unnamed Supreme Court clerk said, "In light of some recent federal court rulings, a majority of the justices have come to believe that only the first five words of the amendment really make sense. Eliminating the rest should reduce intolerance and dissent in our country, making us truly one nation under mandamus."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it has a team of attorneys searching for a plaintiff whose case would "facilitate" such a ruling.


http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001445.html


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibletimetravel
I'm going toMars!

Registered: 12/08/03
Posts: 163
Loc: Holland
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Phred]
    #2269947 - 01/25/04 01:31 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

>>>>However, the unnamed Supreme Court clerk said, "In light of some recent federal court rulings, a majority of the justices have come to believe that only the first five words of the amendment really make sense. Eliminating the rest should reduce intolerance and dissent in our country, making us truly one nation under mandamus."<<<

Ya gotta love how they switch "command" with the latin word mandamus which only a small % of folks understand.

MANDAMUS - The principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus,meaning "we command".
Peace


--------------------
Everything in this post happened 7 years ago. If you do not feel good get a hobby like r/c airplane flying.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinerecalcitrant
My Own God

Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 2,927
Loc: Canada West
Last seen: 8 months, 6 days
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2270248 - 01/25/04 03:07 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I'm not sure I can continue to tell people my true thoughts. I think I might even be afraid to tell my children my opinions for fear of Hitl..er.. Bush Youth narcing on me.


--------------------

We have to answer our own prayers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2270316 - 01/25/04 03:27 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

thats ok, pretty soon you will be accepting that you have no free speech


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefalcon
In the green

Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 6,865
Last seen: 6 hours, 35 minutes
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2271372 - 01/25/04 01:19 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

If we can get free speech zones declared religious charities we may be able to get funding for chairs and coffee and donuts. :smirk:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2271439 - 01/25/04 01:39 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

?To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ? your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ? give ammunition to America?s enemies.?

that shit is scary.

The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law

much like the 2nd... and 4th.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMitchnast
Trial by Madness
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Mahjong

Registered: 10/28/99
Posts: 8,572
Loc: Okanagan Flag
Last seen: 5 days, 2 hours
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: ]
    #2272591 - 01/25/04 09:08 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who &#8220;expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.&#8221;




simmilarily scary as this


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMitchnast
Trial by Madness
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Mahjong

Registered: 10/28/99
Posts: 8,572
Loc: Okanagan Flag
Last seen: 5 days, 2 hours
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Mitchnast]
    #2272596 - 01/25/04 09:10 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

woah, i diddnt do the .&#8221;
that was quitation mark, and .&#8220;
was the one before it :P


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Mitchnast]
    #2272609 - 01/25/04 09:13 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

That's where you go back and edit it.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMitchnast
Trial by Madness
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Mahjong

Registered: 10/28/99
Posts: 8,572
Loc: Okanagan Flag
Last seen: 5 days, 2 hours
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: silversoul7]
    #2272759 - 01/25/04 10:32 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

yeah, but st this point its not worth the effort :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2321263 - 02/10/04 03:19 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

FEDS WIN RIGHT TO WAR PROTESTERS' RECORDS
BY RYAN J. FOLEY
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 8, 2004; 9:23 AM



DES MOINES, Iowa - In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

The group, once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena on Monday.

"The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority," guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement.

Representatives of the Lawyer's Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades.

Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002.

They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.

"This is exactly what people feared would happen," said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. "The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on."

The forum, titled "Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!" came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolence training for people planning to demonstrate.

The targets of the subpoenas believe investigators are trying to link them to an incident that occurred during the rally. A Grinnell College librarian was charged with misdemeanor assault on a peace officer; she has pleaded innocent, saying she simply went limp and resisted arrest.

"The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday" when the four testify, said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, which is representing one of the protesters.

Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records.

He said the case brings back fears of the "red squads" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.

According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, "all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting."

It also asks for campus security records "reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."

Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment Friday, including school spokeswoman Andrea McDonough. She referred questions to a lawyer representing the school, Steve Serck, who also would not comment.

A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding school officials from discussing the subpoena.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law [Re: Evolving]
    #2321293 - 02/10/04 03:28 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."--1984, by George Orwell


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* old law turns protesters into threats against the Pres DigitalDuality 323 0 09/23/04 03:27 AM
by DigitalDuality
* Ending prohibition, how can we help? IsaacHunt 1,480 12 08/02/05 07:04 AM
by LSDempire
* Britain to pass Indirect Terrorism Law Swami 1,103 4 08/17/05 08:48 PM
by Los_Pepes
* LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) supersapien 588 3 02/19/06 05:29 PM
by blaze2
* Protests lysergicide 576 7 11/12/06 07:09 PM
by Luddite
* State versus fed law question
( 1 2 all )
SeussA 2,053 20 10/17/07 01:32 PM
by johnm214
* Political Action Suggested: Support a YES vote on the Hinchey Medical Marijuana Amendment geokillsA 660 6 07/12/07 12:58 PM
by OneMoreRobot3021
* The Second Amendment-What does it cover?
( 1 2 3 all )
Cannabischarlie 2,077 56 12/11/08 07:28 AM
by zouden

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,338 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.135 seconds spending 0.002 seconds on 14 queries.