Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Free speech 'zones' shrinking

Long time activist and uberfriend, Ben Masel checks in with an analysis of the "new" Patriot Act and finds a disturbing section. I'm just going to post his email verbatim.

Section 602 of the Conference Committee's version of Patriot Act makes holding an un-authorised sign at a Democratic or Republican National Convention, a Presidential or VP appearance, and any other event designated by the Secret Service as a "national special security event" a felony punishable by a year imprisonment.

A not farfetched interpretation would have made felons of the entire Wisconsin Delegation to the 1968 Democratic Convention, when Mayor Daley ruled them out of order for moving to adjourn the Convention and reconvene outside Daley's bailiwick.

Section 603 makes a seperate offence of entering the Convention with forged credentials, possessing such, or even perhaps the time-honored tradition of sharing ones' entry pass to a friend.

Full text of the pending PATRIOT ACT renewal, including the "Joint Explanatory Statement" from the GOPers on the Conference Committee.
Un-authorised signs? Still think you can call us a free country?
Bookmark and Share

8 Comments:

Blogger Kevin McKague said...

So, in other words, someone has to break two or three other laws before they can be accused of breaking the unconstitutional law restricting what can be printed on a sign.
Why is this law necessary?

It reminds me of the bill co-sponsored by Senator Clinton which makes it illegal to burn somebody elses flag. Isn't it already illegal to burn something belonging to somebody else?

11:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exile you know I respect your opinion but in an administration that considers the wearing of a t-shirt at a public rally a criminal and disruptive act, it's not much of a stretch to imagine them jailing dissenters for even flimsier grounds. It's not even the minor changes here so much as the White House relentlessly chipping away at our civil rights.

It used to be all of America was a free speech zone, which is what the founders intended. The free speech zones as they are currently employed under the guise of "security" should be declared unconstitutional IMO.

Maybe you had to live through the Nixon years to take this sort of thing seriously. All I know for sure is, although I don't know him personally, I know of his work and if Ben is concerned - we have to cause to worry.

The way I see it, the purpose of civil dissent is to peacefully disrupt the status quo. I don't think they make the distinction between violent anarchists and peaceful dissenters as was clearly evidenced in the rounding up of some what was it, 2,000 protestors in NYC during the RNC. Some of them weren't even protesting, they were passersby at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's all part of a very disturbing pattern

9:24:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin McKague said...

Bostonian, if your assertion is correct, that someone would need to violate several existing laws restricting access to certain areas in order to be charged with this additional crime, then why is the administration so adamant about keeping these provisions?

Also, even if your assertions are true, wouldn't section 602 still be unconstitutional?

1:24:00 PM  
Blogger porchwise said...

Except for the violence factor, the pre-existing law also sucked. I was bopped at a rally once by an over-exuberant cop just for using the old finger sign. I think impoitic is right, free speech zones are shrinking.

1:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But it takes a lot more than that to violate this law.

I'm on tyke duty so I don't have time to really answer all Exile's points at the moment but I might remind you that several people have been arrested and at I can think of at least one guy who was prosecuted under some obscure federal statute for carrying a relatively innoucous sign on a public street.

The trouble is, while it may take a lot to get a conviction, this administration has proven time and time again, they are willing to pull out all the stops and spend buckets of our tax dollars trying to do exactly that. They're quick to arrest for the most minor instances of public dissent. It's small comfort to the defendant who was wrongfully arrested to prevail after spending years in court and thousands in legal fees to defend themselves.

All I have time to say right now, and I say it with the greatest of respect and affection Exile - Stop thinking like a lawyer and use some common sense here. Can't you see you're excusing the destruction of free speech on the basis of legal minutia? My God, that's what the White House is relying on to excuse torture as well. I don't understand how you can defend this.

3:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I would add to Kevin's query, what the hell does this have to do with terrorism and national security? Why is it in the Patriot Act which is supposed to have expanded all these powers in order to "fight terrorism".

3:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you lawfully allowed to do today that you are prohibited from doing tomorrow? If you have no answer, then (it seems to me, anyway) your grievance is not with Section 602, but with concerns about how this administration might use it or any other law, a condition which we have, can, and will debate probably for as long as we know each other.

I'm not feeling so hot myself all of sudden and I have to admit I haven't even had time or energy to read the Section so I'd have to answer, I don't know. And most certainly my bigger problem is with how the administration intends to use it, which remains to be seen.

All I know for sure is they wouldn't have snuck it in unless they had a use for it and I fail to see how it addresses terrorism. As far as I can see, the whole damn Patriot Act is useless in terms of terror and has been employed as back door to shut down dissent and prosecute ordinary crimes, mainly drug offenses.

They used it in the sneak an peak when they busted the marijuana tunnel from Canada and I see in comments at Detroit and I think Mikevotes left me a link at LOS, that another provision tucked into this "terror prevention" cure has to do with meth labs.

Sorry, but these meth labs they're busting are small time operations run by American citizens who happen to be addicts - they're not terrorists.

And I assume you saw the article in the last couple of days that shows the FBI is opening up "terrorist investigations" against peaceful anti-war groups.

Forgive me if I seem snappish Exile, but perhaps it's part of my greater frustration in not being able to win you over to my side. We need you to help fight these people and it drives me crazy that you're using your talent and your intelligence to excuse them instead.

In any event, perhaps we've reached the stage where we agree to disagree. Whatever the fine legal points are, as a practical matter, I see by the headlines on my homepage that the House just passed the bloody thing anyway making the debate somewhat moot.

How they will use it I'm afraid, will become all too depressingly apparent in time.

7:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, for what it's worth, the Lady Exile knows your frustration better than anyone. She sends her sympathies.

It's worth much more than you think. ;-D

9:00:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home