Steganography, My Ass: The Dangers of Private and Self-Censorship

[Greg Broiles]

At 08:20 PM 12/12/2001 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote recently -

>Some claim that behind the truth of Ashcroft's words is a veiled threat.
>Aiding national enemies is indeed one of the definitions of treason.
>Yet in the larger sense such a reading is plainly absurd.  No Attorney
>General would ever attempt to make the case that criticising government
>policy is treasonous and should be forbidden.

.. but s/he is apparently unfamiliar with the events described in

_United States v. Schenck_ 249 US 47 (1919);
_United States v. Debs_ 249 US 211 (1919);
_Abrams v. US_ 250 US 616 (1919);
and _United States v. Pierce_ 252 US 239 (1920);

all of which are US Supreme Court cases upholding convictions of people for 
the crime of criticizing existing government policy and/or urging 
noncooperation with war-related activity. There were approximately 2000 
prosecutions and 1000 convictions for violations of the speech-related 
Espionage and Sedition acts during World War I.

Nomen quoted Ashcroft as saying "We need honest, reasoned debate; not 
fearmongering" - but Nomen and Ashcroft's call for debate which occurs 
after decisions are made and people are jailed, not before, puts them 
firmly in Beyond the Looking Glass territory, to wit -

>`It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,' the Queen remarked.
>
>`What sort of things do YOU remember best?' Alice ventured to ask.
>
>`Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a 
>careless tone. `For instance, now,' she went on, sticking a large piece of 
>plaster [band-aid] on her finger as she spoke, `there's the King's 
>Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even 
>begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
>
>`Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
>
>`That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said, as she bound 
>the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon. Alice felt there was no 
>denying THAT.
>
>`Of course it would be all the better,' she said: `but it wouldn't be all 
>the better his being punished.'
>
>`You're wrong THERE, at any rate,' said the Queen: `were YOU ever punished?'
>
>`Only for faults,' said Alice.
>
>`And you were all the better for it, I know!' the Queen said triumphantly.
>
>`Yes, but then I HAD done the things I was punished for,' said Alice: 
>`that makes all the difference.'
>
>`But if you HADN'T done them,' the Queen said, `that would have been 
>better still; better, and better, and better!' Her voice went higher with 
>each `better,' till it got quite to a squeak at last.

sound familiar?


--
Greg Broiles -- gbroiles at parrhesia.com -- PGP 0x26E4488c or 0x94245961
Eliminate due process, civil rights? It's the Constitution, stupid!