Speaking out

Brooklyn College finds itself today in the middle of a sea of controversy over a forum being held on campus by a group, BDS, calling for boycotts, divestitures and sanctions against Israel for its policies in the occupied territories.



The reaction among elected officials in New York was very predictable. State legislators and city councilmen all called on the school to cancel the forum. Some went so far as to advocate cutting funding to Brooklyn College if it didn't cancel the event. The politicians are upset because someone has the gumption to criticize Israel.

Critics say that the forum will be one-sided because no other group, or individuals, were invited to participate. Well, guess what, media coverage of Israel in this country is extremely one-sided. While these politicians have a problem with the forum, they have no problem with the human rights abuses Israel has committed in the West Bank and Gaza. While they have a problem with free speech, they have no problem with Israel violating international law by encouraging new settlements in the occupied territories.

Maybe these grandstanding politicians should take some time to review the First Amendment. It's a beautiful thing this right to free speech - but it comes with a price. Not all speech is pretty. Not all speech is popular. Some of it, in fact, is downright nasty. That's just the way it works.

Today it's your ox getting gored - tomorrow it'll be someone else's. But we don't get to cherry pick the speech we want to be protected. If we start taking away the right to say something that's unpopular then sooner or later you're going to lose your right to say what's on your mind. And there won't be anyone to fight for you right to say it.

As to the criticism that only one side will be heard, I can only say so what. I went to plenty of events while a student at UT in which two opposing speakers debated each other. The problem is folks go to those events because they agree with one point of view. No one is going in with an open mind. The participants spit out their applause lines and gimmick phrases and the crowds respond like Pavlov's dog.

Colleges and universities are our hottest beds for the free exchange of ideas. That's something that's sadly missing out in the "real" world. And politicians aren't interested in ideas. They are only interested in the views that their pollsters tell them will get them over the hump in the next election. The last thing we need are politicians dictating to colleges what can and can't be taught or debated on their campuses.

If you want an unquestioning and compliant populace, then shut down all debate and force people to conform to the views held by those defending the status quo. But, if you want a vibrant and colorful society, then you've got to loosen up and allow the free flow of ideas to rain down.

H/T Democracy Now!

Mesquite police retaliate against local woman

Undercover police officers lie. That's their job. They create a persona and use it to gain entree into a world of lawlessness.

But where does the lying stop? Does it stop after the bust? After the offense report? After taking an oath to tell the truth on the stand? Or after the trial is over?

Melissa Walthall of Mesquite, Texas, had a friend who was upset at the testimony of an undercover narcotics officer. And, when Ms. Walthall came across a picture of the officer on a flyer, she posted it on Facebook with the caption "Anyone know this b****?"

Mesquite Police weren't amused. Investigators decided that Ms. Walthall's message posed a "viable threat to the officer's safety" so they charged her with felony retaliation.

Sec. 36.06. OBSTRUCTION OR RETALIATION. (a) [amended 9/1/97] A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act:
(1) in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime; or
(2) to prevent or delay the service of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime.
(b) For purposes of this section, "informant" means a person who has communicated information to the government in connection with any governmental function.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

But what exactly did Ms. Walthall do wrong? She didn't harm the officer. She didn't threaten to harm the officer. She didn't ask anyone else to harm the officer. She just posted a picture she saw on a flyer and called the officer a bad name.

Yes, she busted the officer's cover. But so freaking what? He works undercover - that's one of the hazards of his job.

In order to convict Ms. Walthall, the government must first prove that she meant to harm or threaten to harm the officer. The government must then prove that she meant to harm or cause harm through an unlawful act.

I don't think the government can even prove the mens rea of the crime. She posted a picture with a derogatory caption. There was no threat in the caption. Moreover, there was no unlawful act. It's not against the law to post the picture of an undercover officer. Nor should it be against the law.

Ms. Walthall has a right under the First Amendment to speak freely. Her posting of the picture with the caption is clearly an act of speech. That act of speech is protected under the Bill of Rights. The actions of the Mesquite Police Department were clearly retaliatory.

The police are using their badges and guns to quell speech with which they don't agree. She was arrested for constitutionally protected activity by officers acting under color of law. That sounds like official oppression to me.

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office 

or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another to

 mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment,
 or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in
 the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing
 his conduct is unlawful; or (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual
 harassment.

But what's the likelihood that anyone up there is going to have the guts to do the right thing and charge the officers with the crime?

The investigators are aware that we all enjoy the right to speech free from government restriction under the First Amendment. The act of arresting Ms. Walthall impeded her ability to enjoy her right to free speech. What could be clearer? The action could also set the department up for a civil rights lawsuit under Chapter 1983.

The actions of the police in Mesquite were illegal and thuggish and were designed to discourage people from exercising their right to free speech. Thuggery is always the last resort for those who know they can't make a logical argument in defense of their actions.

Priorities, priorities

He further considered whether the prosecution of the defendant in furtherance of the protection of the rights of others was “necessary in a democratic society”, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It had been convincingly shown that the conviction of Connolly was necessary in a democratic society. 

The defendant’s right to express her views about abortion did not justify the distress and anxiety that she intended to cause those who received the photographs. Of particular significance was the fact that those who worked in the three pharmacies were not targeted because they were in a position to influence a public debate on abortion. 

-- Connolly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2007]  EWHC 237 (Admin)

On March 6, 2012, six British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by an improvised explosive device. Apparently not everyone in England showed the proper level of commiseration.

Azhar Ahmed posted his thoughts on his Facebook page. More than a few folks were a bit upset when he wrote that "all soldiers should die and go to hell" two days after the attack.

In the face of criticism, Mr. Ahmed apologized for his comment and thought the matter was over with. Boy, was he wrong. For you see, over there across the pond, it's illegal to send a "grossly offensive" message whatever the hell that is.

Mr. Ahmed told the court he realized the message he posted was unacceptable but he denied that it was grossly offensive. The judge told him that his comments were both derogatory and inflammatory. The court then convicted Mr. Ahmed of the offense of causing someone to get their panties in a wad.

So fucking what if someone thought his comment was insensitive and inflammatory? I happen to find war to be grossly offensive. The use of unmanned drones to drop bombs out of the sky on unsuspecting civilians is inflammatory. The use of weaponry to kill those with whom one disagrees is inflammatory. Holding suspected enemy combatants incommunicado indefinitely and torturing them is highly inflammatory.

But will anyone ever be held responsible for the war crimes committed in our name in Afghanistan? I'm sure that George W. Bush and Barack Obama will live out the rest of their days without fear of being arrested and hauled before the international criminal court. But Mr. Ahmed, on the other hand, will live out the rest of his days with a criminal record because he spoke his mind.

He didn't kill anyone. He didn't drop a bomb indiscriminately. He didn't torture anyone. But he's the one in the dock.

Pussy Riot and the decline of empire

Two years in prison for performing an anti-government song in a church. Two years in prison for insulting the official religion. Two years in prison for encouraging people to protest against the nation's leader.

Two years is what the three members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot received after being convicted of hooliganism last Friday.

Russia is a country with a long tradition of discouraging dissent. Whether we're talking about life under the tsars, under Stalin or under Putin and his minions, the story is always the same. Those who speak out against the government are outcasts.

Criminalizing anti-government speech is the mark of an insecure leadership. Repression in Russia has survived for centuries because of the docile nature of the masses. When a people are scared to walk or talk out of turn, the result is a lack of creativity and new ideas.

Criminalizing speech is a means of controlling thought. You raise the price of poker enough, even the most ardent critics will begin to think twice before criticizing those in power. You eliminate criticism and you eliminate opposition to your ideas.  You eliminate criticism and you eliminate a very powerful check on authority.

New ideas are always born out of opposition or criticism of the ideas currently in vogue. As Marx would say, new ideas are born from the contradictions of old ideas. Yet that fostering of new ideas is the very thing the Soviet government fought against for decades. It is the same thing that Mr. Putin and his minions are fighting against today.

Every new movement in art is the result of a struggle against the existing movement.

Those who fight to prevent dissenting voices from being heard are the conservative wing attempting to prevent progress. That progress may not be smooth or linear but so long as there are competing opinions and competing visions, progress will be made. The alternative is stagnation and decay. All of the old empires fought off progress and they all collapsed under their own weight.

The Russian government is fighting a losing battle.

I don't remember church being like this

Okay, so "storming" a church wearing garish clothing, wearing masks and playing a punk song urging the populace to say no to the front-runner in the presidential race might not be the best thing one could do. Although I am not religious, I understand how some folks might get a bit upset if a punk band was playing at the altar.

But threatening to put young people in prison for seven years because they did something the old guard found distasteful is more than a bit too much.



And that's where the young women who make up Russia's most popular punk band, Pussy Riot, find themselves these days. They are sitting in the dock in a Russian courtroom charged with hooliganism. If convicted, they could face up to seven years in prison.

But that's the danger you face if you want to stand up and challenge the established order around the world. Not everyone appreciates the need for free speech as much as we do in the United States.

Denying the holocaust will get you arrested in Germany. Denying the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians can get you in trouble in France.  Making "malicious" remarks on Twitter can get you arrested in England. Speaking out against authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world can get you arrested, disappeared or killed.

The orthodox Christians in Russia are all up in arms because the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow is a sacred place. Really? It's a building in which members of a cult get together a few times a week and chant and sing and listen to a message based on superstition and oppression. In other words, it's just like every other church on any street corner anywhere around the world.

Even the target of their vitriol, Russian President Vladimir Putin, thinks things have gone a mite too far. He doesn't think the three should be treated too harshly if convicted. Of course he has to put out that message to the masses after the ways in which he, and his party, conspired to steal the presidential election. He knows there could be hell to pay if the women are sentenced to long stretches in jail. Such a scenario would bring back the mass protests the sprang up across Moscow after the election.

In this country we have folks who are mad because someone was mean to them on the internet. We have politicians who think that writing vague anti-bullying statutes that penalize those who criticize. We enhance sentences for people who might have had unkind thoughts at the time they committed a crime.

To all those folks I say - grow up.

The right to free speech is an amazing right and it's one that we don't appreciate as much as we should. While I might not like what someone says, I will defend their right to say it, no matter how crude, boorish or hateful it might be. That's the speech that needs defending.

The Founding Fathers were worried about democracy run amok. That's why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are full of provisions guaranteeing minority rights - such as the right to free speech and the protections of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixty amendments.

Free Pussy Riot!

Sticks and stones

 “I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you. I will not pray for you.” - Hamza Kashgari

That tweet has 23 year old Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari looking at the possibility of death for the offense of blasphemy.

Mr. Kashgari posted that message, and two others, on Twitter last weekend, the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. Mr. Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia last Thursday but was arrested at the airport in Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian authorities. He was deported back to Saudi Arabia on Sunday.

This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo against Cuba. Following the Cuban revolution, the Cuban government nationalized the sugar industry and seized foreign-held property on the island. President Kennedy, acting on behalf of American corporate interests, denounced the revolution, instituted the embargo and proclaimed that the US would not rest until Castro's repressive government fell.

Yet, despite its claims to support freedom and democracy around the globe, the US government has continued to sell arms to the repressive, undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia.  Just last month the Obama administration announced the sale of $30 billion worth of fighter aircraft, ammunition and logistical support to Saudi Arabia.

Our government sends young men to die by the score "to defend democracy" yet we supply arms to one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. We provide the tools of death to a government that will murder its own citizenry for daring to say something disagreeable to the imams.

Of course at the same time we are doing our best to criminalize speech by enacting so-called hate crimes bills that enhance a charge because of the words someone spoke or the attitudes they held.

Now I would, if we were talking about a different act, write about how we all did things when we were in our twenties that we are ashamed of today and that we all acted foolishly and are probably lucky, in some instances, even to be alive today. But I'm not going to blame Mr. Kashgari's "transgressions" on his age. That would give the religious fanatics too much credibility.

The Saudi government seeks to control the thoughts of the Saudi people. Think Orwell and groupthink. I was listening to the BBC show World Have Your Say the other day driving back from the island. One of the guests was a Muslim named Sultan from Toronto. He argued that Mr. Kashgari had committed a criminal offense. Another guest asked him what would be accomplished by punishing Mr. Kashgari for what he wrote. Our friend Sultan then asked what letting Mr. Kashgari off the hook would say to the youth of Saudi Arabia.

His concern was the government's ability to control the thoughts of the Saudi people. He was more interested in preserving order. He couldn't wrap his head around the concept of allowing people to speak and communicate freely.

To answer Sultan, I would say that not pursuing charges against Mr. Kashgari would send the message that the government is more interested in freedom of thought and expression than it is in maintaining rigid control over the Saudi people. It would send the message that the government supports the notion that the people have a right to be left alone. It would indicate that the repressive rulers of that land have respect for the people they govern.

You're right, Sultan. We can't possibly allow that message to get out, can we?

For a few votes more

This week the French Senate approved a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the Turks committed genocide against Armenians during World War I. Anyone denying it was genocide could face jail and a fine of up to $58,000.

The rise of the Thought Police in the United States is troubling enough - but to make it a crime to disagree with what someone else says goes beyond anything we could imagine on this side of the pond.

Maybe it was genocide. Maybe it wasn't. That, ultimately, is a question for the historians to answer. But to criminalize a point of view makes a mockery of scholarship. It also makes a mockery of the French justice system.

According to the BBC, there are half-a-million French citizens of Armenian descent. Did the party of President Sarkozy pass the bill in order to curry favor with those voters? Was the criminalization of thought the price to pay for a few more votes? What does that say about the state of politics in France?

Maybe the politicians in France have forgotten the words of the Declaration of the Rights of Men written during the heyday of the French Revolution.

Article 4 states:

Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others; accordingly, the exercise of the rights of each man has no limits except those that secure the enjoyment of these same rights to the other members of society. These limits can be determined only by law.

Article 5 states:

The law has only the rights to forbid such actions as are injurious to society. Nothing can be forbidden that is not interdicted by the law, and no one can be constrained to do that which it does not order.

Can someone explain to me how the exercise of speech can "injure" another. Sure, you might disagree with what I say, but my words are just that - words. They have no more power than you allow them to have. It is quite a stretch to conclude that denying the Turks committed genocide against Armenians a century ago is injurious.

Likewise, disagreeing with a statement is not injurious to society. It is through the exchange of different, and sometimes contradictory, ideas that our knowledge of the world increases. To criminalize such a disagreement will serve only to chill speech and scholarship.

How ironic that the French gave us the Statute of Liberty.

Celebrate freedom, read a banned book

The 27th annual Banned Books Week kicks off on Saturday. Sponsored by the American Library Association, Banned Books Week celebrates freedom of expression and democracy.

Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled. - American Library Association "Intellectual Freedom Manual"

Most of the featured books were the targets of attempted bannings, but still remain on the shelves.

Several of the top 100 novels of the 20th century have been the target of the book banners, including:

• The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
• The Color Purple by Alice Walker
• Ulysses by James Joyce
• Beloved by Toni Morrison
• The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• 1984 by George Orwell
• Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov
• Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
• Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
• Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
• The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
• As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
• A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
• Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
• Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
• Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
• Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
• Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
• Native Son by Richard Wright
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
• Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
• For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
• The Call of the Wild by Jack London
• Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
• All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren
• The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
• The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
• Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
• A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
• In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
• Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
• Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence
• Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
• A Separate Peace by John Knowles
• Naked Lunch by William Burroughs
• Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence
• The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer
• Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller
• An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
• Rabbit, Run by John Updike

Celebrate the First Amendment and freedom of thought by reading one of these classics during Banned Books Week.