First Amendment Freaks

Separation of Church and State - A new Vox group invite.

nobody@vox.com(CtianX) — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:43:06 -0700

You are invited to join a new Vox group:

Separation of Church and State

A group devoted to safe guarding the continued Separation of Church and State, protecting religious diversity and the right to believe or not to believe.

Fighting to keep the United States of America a Democracy and NOT a Theocracy.

Challenging the views of the powerful "Religious Right" who believe:

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." - D James Kennedy spoken at the "Reclaiming America for Christ".

The "Religious Right" has virtually taken over the Republican Party and is a force to be reckoned with.

They are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.

They intend to make America a "Christian Nation" and they are continually challenging the First Amendment in regards to the Separation of Church and State.

This group supports a person's right to practice religion or not to practice religion. This group does not support the eradication of religion from public life and is against the extreme views of both the left and the right when it comes to the right to practice religion.

Support these groups who are working to keep the Separation of Church and State:

Theocracy Watch

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

First Freedom First

Talk to Action

Interfaith Alliance

First Freedom First-- Recorded from live show

"James Whitmore" :60 Worship or Not

Dan Lauria "Democracy Not Theocracy"

Sign the petition at First Freedom First to safe guard Separation of Church and State and protect religious liberty.

The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This constitutional guarantee is often known as the "first freedom."

Religion is a deeply personal matter. Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Government exists to provide for the general well-being of all people, and its workings must be independent of specific religious doctrines. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state.

If we do not stand together as a nation, we stand to lose this fundamental freedom.

We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:

Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

It is time to unite and take on the Religious Right!

nobody@vox.com(CtianX) — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:43:46 -0700

Many of us who do not belong to a religion or do not believe in God are very worried about some of the events which are being played out each day by some people in the religious world. Some of the things occurring are minor things which we can over look, however there are certain things which cannot be over looked, because these activities actually threaten life as we know it.

From talking to many atheists I get the feeling that they do not wish to destroy religion, but instead wish to be free from its domineering nature. Sam Harris is on record as saying the problem with religious moderates is that they give cover to the extreme elements in religion, and sadly I now have to agree with him. At present rightly or wrongly it appears that in the main the only people prepared to really stand up to the extremist views in Christianity, are the atheists and the secularists.

We continually hear the call for Muslims to denounce the extremist elements in their religion, and many have been doing so for sometime now, although at times it seems their voices are purposefully ignored.

I think it is really time for the sake of this planet’s future that those who are not from the Religious Right be prepared to join forces and stand up to the Religious Right and their extreme and sometimes dangerous views.

The reason some secularists appear hostile towards Christianity at present, is because we can see the writing on the wall as the Religious Right’s power starts to have a greater influence on our politics, both on our domestic and on our foreign policies. Just as many stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, it can be just as easy to stereotype many American Christians as religious extremists.

I do notice in the comments sections of some articles written about some of those in the Religious Right, that some Christians are labelling some sections of the Right as not being a true reflection of Christianity and calling them a cult. That acknowledgement is refreshing, but it will not be enough to stand up against the very well organized Religious Right, we will need prominent lobby groups to get our message across and it will mean the joining of forces of people of religious and of non-religious backgrounds in order to make an impact.

I recently got tangled up in a discussion here at Vox, where a group of Christians were actively promoting a petition to ban Muslims from practicing Islam in this country. Some of the supporters went even further and wanted all Muslims deported from here and one wanted to go even further still and nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan and eventually destroy the religion of Islam. A couple of the people in support of the petition were hopefully acting due to fear of the unknown, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. However I believe these views are still extreme and are definitely not a solution for peace in this country or the world.

I have decided not to protect religious extremists anymore here at Vox, but instead out them. So if anyone is interested here are the links to the posts in question: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Against Islam Post 1 and Post 2. I may actually be running the risk of promoting this petition and as a result more people may sign it, but that is the risk I am prepared to take.

One glaring thing was that only one Christian stood up and opposed this view at these posts. Perhaps those who knew about it thought it was a waste of time opposing it, as the petition wouldn’t get very far, but is it right to look the other way and say nothing, as isn’t that as good as agreeing with them. I don’t think we can afford to continue to look the other way, when our country is literally being hijacked by the Religious Right.

The other possibility is some Christians may have actually agreed with their stand, but were too afraid to say so. However to be fair there have been a number of other posts mentioning these posts and some Christians have opposed the petition on those posts.

One of the points made in the discussion of the petition against Muslims was a point which was continually made and I have seen this point made elsewhere as well, is that Christianity has the ability to reel in the rogue and extremist elements of Christianity, and adjust and contain their extremist views. But I really wonder if this is always true, because it seems to me that this is not quite true. Also when the people promoting this petition were accused of being extreme in their views, they could not see that this was so.

They cited two examples of Christians bringing other Christians into line.

The first example was WBC and it’s picketing of returned soldiers funerals. I agree that Christians have spoken out about this deplorable act. However another person challenged this argument by saying, “Yes, but where was the Christian outcry when WBC was only targeting the funerals of gay men?” To date there has not been a reply and there won’t be given the time that has elapsed.

The second example was the FLDS issue, and how the authorities in Texas had removed the children from ongoing abuse at the FLDS property in Texas and this was cited as a case of Christians bringing other Christians into line. Once again this was challenged, given that this situation is not a recent situation and I read an article yesterday which indicates that this issue had been ignored for about 50 years due to the problems authorities had with prosecuting people back in 1953. So effectively this situation has been ignored for half a century and now that some action was taken in Texas, Christians believe they can take the credit for helping to bring about this change – I am sorry I don’t think so, not if the facts about how the Texas authorities came to take action are looked at.

The massive raid on Eldorado compound was triggered by telephone calls to an abuse hot line in which a woman claimed to be an underage wife with children at the compound. Those calls are now believed to have been a hoax.

By writing this post I am not discounting the obvious fact that the extremist views of some followers of Islam are a real threat to the peace in this world, and it is a problem which needs to be addressed. But it is wrong to punish a whole people due to the actions of some. It is however our duty as Americans to reel in the rogue elements amongst ourselves, whether they be people of faith or not. Unfortunately, I do see many in the Religious Right as a danger to not only our own country, but also to the rest of the world.

Some Christians simply dismiss these Christian extremists as people without any influence and we shouldn’t take any notice of them. I disagree, when some of these people have the ear of our politicians and strongly lobby our politicians then we do have to take notice.

Obviously I cannot name all of them, but they all hang out together so that makes it rather easy.

Let’s start with pastor Rod Parsley who believes we are a “Christian Nation” who in part was formed to see the destruction of Islam. One of the things I was told at the infamous Vox post was,

“Presently, I don't see Christians invading other people's land in the name of Christianity”

Let’s quote Rod Parsley:

From his book, Silent No More in a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion. At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Some of what he says in his book in regards to Islam is quoted in this video clip:

Rod Parsley and Islam

“Islam is an anti Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world. The fact is America was founded, I am going to stagger you right now, America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. Muhammad received revelations from demon spirits not from the living God. America has historically understood herself to be a bastion against Islam in the world. In fact I will tell you this I do not believe our nation can fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam."

The final part of the clip: “We were built for the battle, we were created for the conflict, we get off on warfare.” Can be seen in its original context in this clip. The Commander and Chief he is referring to is God and I am unsure if he is referring to real war or a spiritual war.

Unfortunately the person who made this clip over emphasized, “we get off on warfare” and I feel that should not have been done, but the message of Rod’s is still clear.

"We get off on warfare" Rod Parsley

In Parsley’s book he also bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim”. Maybe instead of bemoaning the fact, he should ask the question why? What is Islam offering that Christianity is not?

Testimony from a Californian lady, who was a practicing Christian and an active member in her nearby Presbyterian church, wrote in her conversion story that despite her active affiliation with the church, she always had serious questions about the fundamentals of Christianity which did not make sense to her. The church couldn't give them good answers either, they only told them to "have faith". Her questions were answered when she took a course about Islam. "This class brought back all of the concerns that I had about Christianity. As I learned about Islam, all my questions were answered. All of us are not punished for Adam's original sin. Adam asked God for forgiveness and our merciful, loving God forgave him. God doesn't require a blood sacrifice in payment for sin. We must sincerely ask for forgiveness and amend our ways. Jesus wasn't God, he was a prophet like all of the other prophets. This answered all of my questions about the trinity and the nature of Jesus. I found a teaching that put everything in its proper perspective and appealed to my heart and my intellect. It seemed natural. It wasn't confusing. I had been searching and I had found a place to rest my faith."

I am not promoting Islam as a perfect religion, but it obviously appeals too many and testimony such as this indicates that Islam is quite often spread peacefully. Islam has just as much right to exist as any other religion, and just because it does not seem compatible with Christianity due to conflicting interpretations of dogma, doesn’t make it any less legitimate. What right does a Christian have to say Christianity's view is correct and another's religion is not? I no longer believe in God, but I do not expect people to denounce their God, but I do expect them to respect my right not to believe in God. When I see truly spiritual people practice their religion in a fully compassionate and loving way, I am deeply moved and it moves my own spirit. But when I see people abuse people with their religion, I recoil in horror.

So let’s discuss Rod Parsley. Here is a prominent pastor claiming that we as a “Christian nation” should destroy the religion of Islam. This man has also endorsed a presidential candidate and the candidate has accepted his endorsement. I think this would qualify as a potential sign of a “Christian nation” supporting massive invasion and destruction of lands and people in the name of Christianity.

Another point about this situation is that it portrays a very strong message to the Islamic communities around the world, it reinforces what the likes of Osama Bin Laden has been telling Muslims, that America does want to destroy Islam. So we are playing straight into the hands of the Islamic terrorists and we are creating the potential for more terrorists to be born.

Also what is the difference between an Islamic cleric shouting, “Death to America” in the name of Islam and what Rod Parsley is shouting in the name of Christianity – NOTHING!

Also where does this attitude leave the 7 million Muslims living peacefully in this country, what sort of a terrible message is this sending to them?

One more point before I move on. America was not founded with the intention of seeing Islam destroyed. The Treaty of Tripoli indicates this.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."(Musselmen means Muslim)

So as far as Parsley is concerned, I think here we have an extremist in out midst’s going virtually unchecked by mainstream Christianity. He also just happens to be a member of CUFI, along with John Hagee who must be without doubt currently the most prominent “End Timer” in our country.

So what is John Hagee and CUFI promoting? Let me see. We should attack Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike and he quotes Biblical verses to back his claim. His motive is so that Israel stays intact and let’s be honest, he wants Israel intact initially so that his “End Time Prophesy” can come true and part of the strike on Iran is to do with his prophesy. So I would classify that as attacking a country in the name of Christianity and not necessarily in defense.

What else does CUFI promote? It promotes that Israel should not give up any land to Palestine, even though the land in question is what is rightfully theirs as stated by UN guidelines. So rather than encouraging peace, as I would have thought most Christians would be about, he and his followers demand (Update on Annapolis Rapid Response Action Alert) that the US government not put any pressure on Israel to give up any land and their reasoning once again is purely biblical, and has to do with End Time Prophesy, as Israel must remain intact and not be divided for the prophesy to unfold as planned. So instead of promoting peace and looking out for the long term welfare of the Palestinians and the Israelis, he and his group are more interested in their own interests i.e. their version of the “End Time Prophesy”. Interesting article: 5 Myths on Who's Really 'Pro-Israel'

Here is what his followers believe, which shows Hagee’s real intention:

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour

Hagee:Strike Iran 'for Israel'

Near the end of this video Hagee makes the Jewish claim for Israel based on it being passed down through Abraham to his son Isaac. Here is another item of contention, as that is not how Islam sees it. Hagee ignores Abraham’s son Ishmael who it is said that the Muslims descended from and according to Islam the Muslims also have a right to the Holy land. Who is right and who is wrong, well who would know, but according to the Bible Abraham was buried and there were two mourners, Isaac and Ishmael -- together. Genesis 25. Wouldn’t it be nice for the rest of the world if the Jews and the Muslims could share the land equally? Some of us are sick of the squabbling over this piece of land.

The views of Hagee and CUFI which seem to be influencing our foreign policy have grave implications for the rest of the world. So I consider them extreme, as they may create a nuclear war which may destroy our planet. It is time to bring them to task. See this website for a more rational view and a starting point at tackling the Christian extremists. Challenging Christian Zionism I would also suggest the book The Left Hand of God

I have another concern about the Religious Right and the preaching of the “End Times Prophesy” and that is the negative impact it is having in some third world countries. Take for instance missionary work in Uganda, here is a well meaning missionary preaching the gospel and sadly also preaching “End Time Prophesy”. The effects of this prophesy in a country where many have a poor life with little opportunities results in many giving up on their future.

As a Uganda Newspaper editor Andrew Mwenda states, he is appalled by these Doomsday preachers, who he believes are converting young people and diverting them from fulfilling their potential and pursuing their careers. Instead of people coming up with man made solutions to their problems, they are turning to prayer so that the world may end quicker and their problems will be over.

Uganda Teacher Julius Othieno describes children being taken out of school as there is no point in schooling if the end is near. Children are praying all night for the end of the world and not being able to concentrate in school during the day. Also children are not taking medicine when they are ill, in order to hasten their death.

In the 1990s the Ugandan AIDS infection rate was cut from 30 to 5%, unfortunately now people are not using condoms for protection, because what is the point if the world is coming to an end, so sadly as a consequence the infection rate is once again climbing

So this type of preaching is having a severe negative impact. Therefore this situation is also something Christianity really does need to address.

I would suggest watching this documentary which looks at the negative effects of teaching End Times Prophesy.

The Doomsday Code.

I really have to question the real social conscience of the Religious Right when their commentators write articles such as this: “God’s Choice for President”

It is time people of all faiths and secularists joined forces and put a real social conscience back into this nation and rein in all of the extremists in this country. This nation and the world depends on it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A librarian to remember

nobody@vox.com(Chris Finan) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:06:29 -0800

Jeanne Layton, 1930-2008

One of the questions I most enjoyed answering in my history of free speech was, "Since when did librarians become champions of free speech?" There was a time in this country when the leaders of the book community believed it was their job to help suppress "bad" books. "Titillation through the imagination is not a process of nature at all," publisher Henry Holt wrote in 1922. "It leads to more murders and suicides than all other causes put together."

Most booksellers and librarians thought the same way. An Atlanta librarian told the Library Journal in 1909 that she hid trashy novels in the stacks in the hopes that no one would find them. Booksellers joined the censors in suppressing books in Boston during the early 1920s.

So all of us book people were complicit in censorship. Yet it was the librarians who came to carry the stigma of censoriousness. The image of the shushing librarian is deeply ingrained in popular culture.

But the free expression movement in this country owes a lot to librarians. In 1939, the American Library Association adopted the Library Bill of Rights, encouraging librarians to buy books based on their "value and interest," ignoring "the race or nationality or the political or religious views of the writers." In 1953, when Joseph McCarthy was still riding high, librarians joined publishers in proclaiming the importance of intellectual freedom in a statement, "The Freedom to Read."

Many librarians have shown great courage in upholding free speech. One of the most celebrated cases occurred in 1950 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, when Ruth Brown, the town's librarian for over 30 years, was dismissed for subscribing to five "subversive" publications, The Nation, The New Republic, Soviet Russia Today, Negro Digest and Consumer Reports. (Yes, Consumer Reports!)

I knew about Ruth Brown, but I had not heard about Jeanne Layton until I read her obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune the other day. Layton also lost her job, not in the dark ages of the McCarthy era, but in 1979. She was fired for refusing to remove Don DeLillo's first novel, Americana, from the shelves of the Davis County library. (Davis is a small county just north of Salt Lake City.)

It seems that Morris F. Swapp, a county commissioner who was also a member of the county library board, considered DeLillo's novel "obscene" and instructed Layton to ban it. He had picked a fight with the wrong woman. She not only refused to ban the book: she refused to accept her firing, launching a fight for reinstatement. "Jeanne was a very small person in stature, but she was one of the strongest people I know," her nephew, Craig Layton, told the Tribune.

It was not an easy fight. According to her nephew, it was an "excruciating" experience for the librarian. But she won her job back in 1980, vindicating the principle for which she had fought. "It's not the library's role to determine choices for adults," she told an interviewer in 1990. "It's important for the library to serve everyone in the community, not just select groups."

Jeanne Layton died on January 19 at the age of 77. Hers was a life--and an example--to be remembered.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Face of evil

nobody@vox.com(Chris Finan) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:39:51 -0800

I thought you might like to see the face of the Westhampton Beach, N.Y., bookseller who defended the use of "salacious" books at the local high school. Terry Lucas is the woman in white.

Terry Lucas, Open Book

This picture was taken last weekend during the Christmas on Main Street celebration. Again this year, Terry played Mrs. Santa Claus. Those "elves" aren't so innocent either. They all participated in Terry's banned books "read-in." (Read yesterday's blog entry for more background.)

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression takes tremendous satisfaction in defending Mrs. Claus!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Only the battle, not the war

nobody@vox.com(Chris Finan) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:04:58 -0800

We lost a battle last week. Approximately 75 parents of students at the Westhampton Beach High School on Long Island, New York, had complained to the school board about the inclusion of two books on a list of 300 titles that students can select for reading assignments. They argued that James Patterson's Cradle and All and Jodi Picoult's The Tenth Circle should be banned because of their sexual content.

The first thing to note is that these parents were not complaining about books that their children were being forced to read. Students could choose any of the titles on the list of 300, and parents were free to veto books they thought were inappropriate.

This fight was not about parental rights. It trampled the rights of the parents who wanted their kids to be able to use these books. No, this was your average power play by a group of conservative parents who want the school board to rein in the educators who put the books on the list.

And it worked. The school board voted 4-3 last week to ban the books.

But the news was not all bad from Westhampton Beach. The censors met strong opposition from community members who rallied behind the leadership of bookseller Terry Lucas, the owner of The Open Book. Terry was one of four people who spoke at the initial school board meeting. She circulated a petition and held a read-in at her store, which attracted 60 students, teachers, and librarians as well as a couple of local authors.

If your morale needs a boost, you can watch kids reading their favorite banned books in a video of the read-in on the Web site of the Library Club. Or you can look at the smiling faces of those who participated.

Freadom Fighters

If you want to do something to boost Terry's morale, stop by the Open Book and buy a book for the holidays.

Independent booksellers have long been leaders in the fight for free speech. If we want them to keep fighting, we have to help them survive.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

independence of intelligence

nobody@vox.com(math) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:59:39 -0800

My own earlier post (is there a right to intelligence?) is the context for my reading of recent news that a national intelligence estimate was released recently which contradicts the warmongering Bush rhetoric about Iran. I was forced to ask myself what had changed in the intel community that would allow such a report to surface, when in the past - going back to 02 and 01 - the White House had exercised totalitarian control over intelligence reports.

A couple of news reports yesterday made the suggestion that the change of course was due to Sec Defense Gates, who apparently is (suddenly) neither a hawk nor an ass-kisser.

Of course there has been turmoil in the intel industry, and it has to be settled somehow, or the govt runs the risk of having no functional intel-gathering and analysis capability at all. The intelligence community was a rush hour pileup. The whole system has been tossed into the ditch by the incompetence of Tenet and Freeh, the disaster that was Colin Powell at the UN, bullying by Rummy his henchmen at the Pentagon, the internal demagoguery of Wolfowitz, Abrams and Bolten, the Hanssen espionage at the FBI, the organizational bloodletting that was Porter Goss, the treasonous episode of Scooter, Dick and Valerie.

All of this has been facilitated by the extralegal concoctions of AGs like Ashcroft and Gonzales, telling the Prez he doesn't need to pay attention to the UN, to sovereignty, to the Geneva convention, to the First and Fourth Amendments, to the Consitutional notions of oversight and balance of powers.

During this sick period, there has been criticism and analysis. Leaked out was some responsible bitching by Ray McGovern, Sibel Edwards and Scott Ritter. The 911 commission (Kean and Hamilton) made a couple of strong criticisms while hiding lots of skeletons. Shocking numbers of experienced intelligence analysts left their jobs, and discussion spread out vaguely from them into the press and academic literature. The Defense Dept, NSA, CIA and Executive intel offices spent bristling energy excusing themselves to the 911 Commision, and to each other. All observers had a 'spooky' feeling that the dramatic reforms needed were not going to happen. Perhaps many were even more spooked about the prospect that intelligence as a profession in America was dying from the inside out. Both of the fat insider parties collaborated on doing nothing.

Lots has be said about fixing faults in intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The strategy selected by those in power was the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security - basically like trying to stop bleeding in the belly with a full-body cast. Other reforms were pure pork, like installing new computer and telecomm systems and across various agencies. Coordination between agencies and stepped up translation have both been fatally bogged down in bureaucratic backlog. Congress was superficially outraged but continued to keep themselves at a silent distance.

The situation - after years of decay and confusion, after years of embarassed failure and excuse-making - the intelligence community found itself at death's door. Without credibility, without leadership, without protections for professionals, without effective programs, without the ability to recruit. Would someone step up to save the patient?

Gates has been accused of being, in the past, from the camp whose philosophy is political, saying that the role of the intelligence machinery is to provide the White House with ammunition it needs to push its agenda. Now that the president has been rebuffed by the intelligence community operating under Gates, I am not so sure. Maybe Gates learned something. Maybe not. But this is a welcome change.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

What is public right to info?

nobody@vox.com(math) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:59:26 -0800

Under the first amendment, protecting free speech, there is an implied protection of information flow. Keeping information (generated in the public community) away from people is a kind of violation of free speech. Censorship is an example.

That leads to questions about WHAT information is subject to this public right. What public information should not be censored?

That leads to questions about open meetings, open records. The more records and decisionmaking processes are locked up and hidden away, the less freedom of speech there is.

But we could push the enquiry to the level of information and decisionmaking that is traditionally kept secret, or considered to be an exception to the constitutional guarantees of the first amendment. Did the public have a right to know about secret recordings made by President Nixon in the oval office? Does the public have a right to know about the process of deciding which US attorneys were politically acceptable to the White House and which were not?

Going further, I would like to ask why the public should not have the right to intelligence reviews, intelligence briefings, intelligence sources, and the impact of both good and bad intelligence on policymaking.

Do I or don't I have the right to examine the documentation that could tell us whether the whole enchilada of the Iraq war was based on systematic lying and manipulation?

Pushing back censorship. How far does it go?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Pat Conroy blasts West Virginia censors

nobody@vox.com(Chris Finan) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:42:59 -0800

Pat Conroy

Author Pat Conroy has sent a scathing response to censors in Charleston, West Virginia, who are trying to ban his novels, The Prince of Tides and Beach Music. His letter to the editor appeared in the Charleston Gazette on October 24.

The books have already been pulled out of the hands of students at Nitro High School. The school board is meeting tonight to decide whether to make the ban permanent.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Opening Outrage

nobody@vox.com(Chris Finan) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:53:33 -0700

Valdosta, Georgia

I have just created a new Vox group for First Amendment freaks like me. First Amendment freaks recognize that the fight for free speech is a daily struggle. "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it," Judge Learned Hand wrote in 1944. In other words, we either fight for free speech or we lose it.

As my opening outrage, I offer a controversy that began this spring when a student at Valdosta State University in Georgia decided to protest the university's plan to construct two new parking garages on the campus.

In March, the student, T. Hayden Barnes, posted flyers around the campus that raised environmental questions about the plan. In April, he wrote a letter to the student newspaper. He followed up with a letter to the university president, Ronald M. Zaccari.

Barnes soon received Zaccari's reply. On May 7, he entered his dormitory room to discover that a "notice of administrative withdrawal" had been slipped under his door. "As a result of recent activities directed towards me by you....you are considered to present a clear and present danger to this campus," Zaccari wrote. To be readmitted, Barnes would have to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and to offer evidence "that you will be receiving on-going therapy."

VSU President Ronald M. Zaccari

As evidence of Barnes' purported derangement, Zaccari attached to his letter an image of the student's Facebook page, which contains a number of images related to the parking lot controversy, including Zaccari's face. According to the university president, this was a "threatening document." The university was also worried because Barnes had "posted a link on his website page to an article discussing the massacre at Virginia Tech"; linked to an advertisement for a film competition that featured the tagline, "Shoot it. Upload it. Get famous. Project Spotlight is looking for the next big thing. Are you it?"; and commented on his website that he was "cleaning out and rearranging his room and thus, his mind, or so he hopes."

The Virginia Tech massacre, which occurred on April 16, was clearly very much on Zaccari's mind. He was so convinced that Barnes' actions constituted "a specific threat to his safety and a general threat to the safety of the campus" that he put the campus police on "high alert" and hired plain-clothes police officers to accompany him to "high profile" events.

Barnes has appealed his explusion to the Georgia Board of Regents. The Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings now has jurisdiction in the case and has scheduled a hearing for Nov. 26.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new about what is happening in Valdosta. President Zaccari's use of the words "clear and present danger" carries us back to a 1919 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the imprisonment of Eugene Debs and other critics of America's participation in World War I. The Court ruled that expressing criticism of the war constituted such a serious threat that protesters could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

Justice Holmes

However, much has changed since 1919. Just six months after he wrote the unanimous decision upholding the imprisonment of Debs, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his mind. In one of the most famous dissenting opinions in American legal history, Holmes wrote in Abrams v. U.S., "I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

The free speech movement was born just a few months later when the American Civil Liberties Union opened its offices in New York. In the intervening years, it has fought hard to prevent government officials from suppressing speech that it considers threatening. In 1969, the Supreme Court finally endorsed Holmes' view. Today, the government can punish only direct incitement to violent acts that occurs in a context that is likely to produce violence.

Clearly, T. Hayden Barnes is guilty of nothing more than unintentionally frightening a jumpy administrator.

There is one other remarkable aspect of this case. As free speech has grown in this country, so has the number of groups that are dedicated to defending it. The ACLU was our only civil liberties group for many years, but there are dozens today.

The group that is trying to call attention to the Barnes case is the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). I am grateful to FIRE President Greg Lukianoff for documenting this case in detail on his Web site.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend