Protected Speech
I sit in the middle on this page with an objective to raise points of interest to anyone, regardless of political view. Writing on this page brings scrutiny to my opinions and exposes myself to debate and argument. I have learned it takes courage to stand in front of the crowd for what I believe, and I always work to ensure there are no personal attacks in my writing, but often I see columnists and bloggers using personal attacks in an effort to drive home their point. Fueling these attacks is the veil of anonymity; no longer signing a letter or a blog response with your name and address creating an inflammatory environment. Furthermore, I do not believe the First Amendment was intended to protect anonymous speech, but the Supreme Court has taken a different view.
I absolutely believe our democracy thrives on protected speech; it differentiates us from the oppression found around the world when ideas and opinions are given. Appropriately, libel and slander laws are also in place to prevent abuse of protected speech.
A few recent examples of my concern over whether anonymous speech is protected are important as I feel the cowardice of anonymity fuels defamatory personal attacks. For example, Tiger Woods is fighting in the Court of public opinion. Legitimate writers are identifiable and must “source” their comments. Sadly though, I have read news articles on various web sites where anonymous bloggers attack Tiger’s character and make crude comments about him personally. These anonymous people don’t know him and have no basis for those comments, but behind the veil of anonymity these people weakly assert defamatory opinions.
Similarly, people either love or hate Sarah Palin. As a country we are as divided on feelings about her as we are on college football in Florida. We all know the story of Palin and her rise to the highest position of leadership in Alaska, but yet people attack her personally. Opinions focus not on Palin’s accomplishments as a politician, but instead follow David Letterman’s method of crude, personal attacks. A quick look at the Huffington Post article regarding the Newsweek cover featuring Palin’s “legs” showed over 1,000 commentators and I must wonder how the tone of those comments would change had real names and addresses been used.
Personally, I feel the problem with the protection of anonymous speech is it allows for cowardice and unfounded statements. But, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anonymous speech is protected. The much cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission reads: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Although protected, sadly anonymous speech typically leaves the door open to defamation and the burden to prove otherwise is on the victim. Thus, this empowers questionable publications and writings and can sway public opinion on unfounded claims. I will continue to sign my name and always write with the understanding that I stand by my opinions and am not ashamed to hide behind anonymity. I encourage you to consider what you want to say and whether it is anonymity or your beliefs that give you the strength to share your opinion.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas from Congress
As the Christmas holiday comes upon us this week I feel compelled to take a look at our government and what has happened in the past year. Driving this is speculation over whether Senator Harry Reid will force a vote on healthcare Christmas Eve. Personally, I hope the vote is squashed, not because of my feelings on government run health care, but because of the actions and methods of this new Democratic Party run government.
I am concerned by the cloak of secrecy and selling votes to force healthcare to fruition. In contrast to Congress’ actions right now, I have had the opportunity to sit on several government boards in Florida and the “Sunshine Laws” have been drilled into me. On one hand they are frustrating as these laws regarding open, transparent government make it difficult to negotiate contracts, bid on projects, and protect the tax payer in some instances. But, this smaller issue is far outweighed by eliminating secrecy in government. Florida is renowned for putting a high priority on the public's right of access to governmental meetings and records. In fact, the principles of open government are not only embodied in Florida statutes, but also are guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Similar to the Sunshine Laws, President Obama proposed “Sunlight Before Signing” stating “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” However, this has been done far less than 50% of the time since taking office. Additionally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared on September 24th she would make the healthcare bills available for review at least 72-hours prior to any votes, but as we know that was not the case. The American people learned how this new majority party government would work when the stimulus bill passed last spring was voted on without accommodation for members of Congress to read it, rushed through for signature, and even President Obama did not follow his own directive for “Sunlight Before Signing”.
Open government protects us, the citizens from potential tyranny by our elected officials. I am dismayed at closed-door meetings in Washington, the President calling members of a single party to the Whitehouse, or caucus meetings to promise hundreds of millions of dollars to a single congressional district or state. Sadly, at the national level straw polls are taken, potential votes counted, and strategies are determined to allow some members of congress to even vote “Nay” in an effort to protect them from political backlash over certain legislation. Thus, a bill may pass by the slimmest majority, but a majority nonetheless when a single party controls Congress; all in sharp contrast to Florida’s open government laws.
This week much political maneuvering regarding procedures will take place while most of us are distracted with holiday events. One must wonder why if the proposed healthcare bill is critical to one-sixth of our economy, our well-being, and best for the country then why must negotiation be done secretly. Like Santa Claus, the Senate will come together Christmas Eve to deliver the “gift” of healthcare over the objection of the majority of Americans.
As the Christmas holiday comes upon us this week I feel compelled to take a look at our government and what has happened in the past year. Driving this is speculation over whether Senator Harry Reid will force a vote on healthcare Christmas Eve. Personally, I hope the vote is squashed, not because of my feelings on government run health care, but because of the actions and methods of this new Democratic Party run government.
I am concerned by the cloak of secrecy and selling votes to force healthcare to fruition. In contrast to Congress’ actions right now, I have had the opportunity to sit on several government boards in Florida and the “Sunshine Laws” have been drilled into me. On one hand they are frustrating as these laws regarding open, transparent government make it difficult to negotiate contracts, bid on projects, and protect the tax payer in some instances. But, this smaller issue is far outweighed by eliminating secrecy in government. Florida is renowned for putting a high priority on the public's right of access to governmental meetings and records. In fact, the principles of open government are not only embodied in Florida statutes, but also are guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Similar to the Sunshine Laws, President Obama proposed “Sunlight Before Signing” stating “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” However, this has been done far less than 50% of the time since taking office. Additionally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared on September 24th she would make the healthcare bills available for review at least 72-hours prior to any votes, but as we know that was not the case. The American people learned how this new majority party government would work when the stimulus bill passed last spring was voted on without accommodation for members of Congress to read it, rushed through for signature, and even President Obama did not follow his own directive for “Sunlight Before Signing”.
Open government protects us, the citizens from potential tyranny by our elected officials. I am dismayed at closed-door meetings in Washington, the President calling members of a single party to the Whitehouse, or caucus meetings to promise hundreds of millions of dollars to a single congressional district or state. Sadly, at the national level straw polls are taken, potential votes counted, and strategies are determined to allow some members of congress to even vote “Nay” in an effort to protect them from political backlash over certain legislation. Thus, a bill may pass by the slimmest majority, but a majority nonetheless when a single party controls Congress; all in sharp contrast to Florida’s open government laws.
This week much political maneuvering regarding procedures will take place while most of us are distracted with holiday events. One must wonder why if the proposed healthcare bill is critical to one-sixth of our economy, our well-being, and best for the country then why must negotiation be done secretly. Like Santa Claus, the Senate will come together Christmas Eve to deliver the “gift” of healthcare over the objection of the majority of Americans.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Civil Rights
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Big Brother IS Watching
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)