IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed
From: oldbat <bucsplace@cchat.com> Subject: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:48:25 -0500 To: IP <ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_3...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment permits people to express their ideas without background checks. ``Some of these talk shows have become a heaven for criminals and hate speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked basis,'' Clinton said. He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no free speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech licenses sales within minutes. In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways: purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four times as likely to involve a prohibited printed opinions. Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to between 10 and 12 million. Unregulated speech are ``an open invitation to criminals and right wing crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law was named after the President, who was wounded in verbal attacks first launched by radio personality Rush Limbaugh in 1992. California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to require a waiting period and a background check for speech at public places.
**************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************
At 7:25 PM -0800 11/10/98, b!X wrote:
Yeah yeah all very well and good parody except that the 2nd amendment contains the word "well-regulated" and the 1st doesn't.
(And yes I know I'm asking for a shitstorm of trouble saying that on THIS list of all places).
No, you are welcome to _say_ damned near anything you want to say. However, graduate from _saying_ things to grabbing our guns, that's when you'll need killing. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
Yeah yeah all very well and good parody except that the 2nd amendment contains the word "well-regulated" and the 1st doesn't. (And yes I know I'm asking for a shitstorm of trouble saying that on THIS list of all places). - b!X (Guerrilla Techno-fetishist @ GEEK Force)
Without endorsing Tim's "need killing" views, I would like to point out that Mr. b!X has a deeply flawed understanding of the Second Amendment and constitutional history. -Declan At 08:35 PM 11-10-98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 7:25 PM -0800 11/10/98, b!X wrote:
Yeah yeah all very well and good parody except that the 2nd amendment contains the word "well-regulated" and the 1st doesn't.
(And yes I know I'm asking for a shitstorm of trouble saying that on THIS list of all places).
No, you are welcome to _say_ damned near anything you want to say.
However, graduate from _saying_ things to grabbing our guns, that's when you'll need killing.
--Tim May
Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote: # Without endorsing Tim's "need killing" views, I would like to point out # that Mr. b!X has a deeply flawed understanding of the Second Amendment and # constitutional history. Which would in no way affect the fact that it's asinine to try and use the First Amendment to make a point about the Second Amendment (as the parody does) because they are approached in entirely different ways to address entirely different things. Which was my central point. - b!X (Guerrilla Techno-fetishist @ GEEK Force)
At 07:25 PM 11/10/98 -0800, b!X wrote:
Yeah yeah all very well and good parody except that the 2nd amendment contains the word "well-regulated" and the 1st doesn't.
Observe: --begin pasted text-- Amendment I 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. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. --end pasted text-- While the 2nd does say "well regulated", it should also be pointed out that the 1st does not say "right OF THE PEOPLE", except in the freedom of assembly clause.
(And yes I know I'm asking for a shitstorm of trouble saying that on THIS list of all places).
So why did you? Reeza! If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention of doing you good, you should run for your life. -stolen from a cypherpunk sig
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Reeza! wrote:
Amendment I 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.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--end pasted text--
While the 2nd does say "well regulated", it should also be pointed out that the 1st does not say "right OF THE PEOPLE", except in the freedom of assembly clause.
And notice also that the 1st begins with "Congress shall make no law" while the 2nd begins with "a well regulated militia".
(And yes I know I'm asking for a shitstorm of trouble saying that on THIS list of all places).
So why did you?
Becos the attempted paraody was lame in the same ways that all attempts to nonrationally support 2nd amendment freedoms by calling down the gods of 1st amendment freeomds always are nonrational. (And no, that's not me saying supporting 2nd amendment freedoms is irrational; it's me saying using the 1st amendment to do so is irrational). - b!X (Guerrilla Techno-fetishist @ GEEK Force)
At 05:27 AM 11/11/98 -0800, b!X wrote:
And notice also that the 1st begins with "Congress shall make no law" while the 2nd begins with "a well regulated militia".
and
Becos the attempted paraody was lame in the same ways that all attempts to nonrationally support 2nd amendment freedoms by calling down the gods of 1st amendment freeomds always are nonrational. (And no, that's not me saying supporting 2nd amendment freedoms is irrational; it's me saying using the 1st amendment to do so is irrational).
Let's try this again. Notice how, in each of the amendments below, the 1st is the only one with the text "congress shall make no law". This is implied, understood to be implied, accepted as implied and supreme court ruled to be implied as applicable to each of the rest of the bill of rights, and later to the amendments, wherein it is not so specified as in the 1st. A large part of the reason that 2 thru 10 and the rest do not include that phrase is to prevent the states from doing the very thing that congress was and is prohibited from. Congress cannot pass any law that would infringe freedom of speech, they cannot cause the states by threat or incentive to pass such laws either- say by withholding highway maintenance funding a la 55. Arbitrary out of context interpretations of documents such as this are just that. I grant you no brownie points for comprehension, you may have earned some demerits for instigating a straw man. Go to the back of the class. Reeza! --begin pasted text-- Amendment I 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. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --end pasted text-- If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention of doing you good, you should run for your life. -stolen from a cypherpunk sig
participants (5)
-
b!X -
Declan McCullagh -
Reeza! -
Tim May -
Vladimir Z. Nuri