Gerard is one of my favorite writers. Make sure you read his famous "A Open-Source Apology to Lawrence Lessig" (with apologies to Keats, Chapman, and Homer): http://www.politechbot.com/p-00731.html And this is Jamie's message from earlier today: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04912.html -Declan --- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:15:08 -0700 Subject: Re: FC: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the left From: Gerard Van der Leun <gvdlat_private> To: <declanat_private> Message-ID: <BB27802C.1F69%gvdlat_private> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030701162607.0445c1d8at_private> Mc Carthy has done some very worthwhile searching on this issue of treason and I read the citations with interest. While I understand that the flinging about of "traitor" and "treason" is a phenomenon closely associated with the last two years than immediately before, it all, in the end strikes me as merely much of a muchness. Indeed, it is the same category of those who are always going on about the suppression of their free speech in front of a raft of various media only too ready to lay their plaints before a world ready to listen. In the case of Treason as in the case of Free Speech, I am always left wondering how so many can concatenate the actions of the citizens of the United States with the Government of the United States. It seems to me that I can, or you can, or any person can call another a traitor, or say that his or her behavior is treasonous at any time and on any pretext. At most we risk a suit for libel or slander, but it would seem that it is the accuser that is much more at risk here than the accused. The accuser, in this case Anne Coulter, is not - at least as far as I am aware - a lawfully empowered agent of the Federal Government. She is as free to call any individual or group a traitor as would be, say, James Carville would be to call Coulter a 'whacked out bimbo with the political morals of a ferret." Not that such a southern gentleman as Carville would ever utter such a sentiment. In like manner, those who carp about the suppression of their speech always make me wonder what part of "Congress shall make no law..." they fail to comprehend. As a citizen, it seems to me that I am perfectly at liberty to say "Declan is an American set upon the destruction of this country by consistently filing reports that do not make it comfortable for the powers that be and failing to toe the Washington Establishment line in exchange for lots of free lunches with lobbyists. Because of this his web site should be shut down and he should be imprisoned for a very long time in a very small room with a television that only receives Fox News." I can call for this daily and it doesn't seem to me there's much that can be done to stop me. My speech certainly can't suppress yours. Hence I don't see from what source all the anxiety arises about charges of treason and suppression of speech as long as it arises from an individual or an organization with no formal ties to the government. Should the government actively see to put someone on trial for treason, I think they would probably need more than Anne Coulter's observations and assertions. Indeed, the requirements for such a charge are spelled out in some detail in the Constitution as I recall, but I won't rehearse them here. Likewise, should the government attempt to formally shut down Politechbot in response to something transmitted on it, it had better be something akin to childporn or a secret terrorist message embedded deep within that jpeg of Phil Zimmermann (very clever that) to avoid a firestorm of protest and the launching of 30 Habeas Corpus packing ACLU lawyers from their underground silos in San Francisco. Yes, I know, I know about Ashcroft but I've still to get a real case of Ashcroftitus raising a rash on my brain. In so many places and at so many times, the man has shown himself to be a gasbag. A dangerous one to be sure, but it really isn't in what he says, it is in what he can do that counts. Likewise, it is in what the government can do and not so much in what it says that we need to be ready to be alarmed. Does Anne Coulter command the Justice Department or the National Guard? Does Bill O'Reilly have the power to shut down the presses of the New York Times? I know it is fun to get all hot and bothered by these professional blatherers, but until such time as they meld into the Government, it might be best for every one to take a deep breath and say, with Glinda the Good Witch: ³You have no power here. Begone, before somebody drops a house on you.² --- From: "Nathan Cochrane" <ncochraneat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the left Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:01:29 +1000 Hi Declan To the British at the time, the US was founded on the traitorous actions of the colonies' subjects. The patriots to modern Americans were viewed as traitors to the Crown. And if any state tried now to do what the US holds high as the mark of liberation (ie secede), the rebels would be put down violently by the current Administration. --- Reply-To: <jktaberat_private> From: "John K. Taber" <jktaberat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the left Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:12:37 -0500 While this is an interesting compilation, it seems to me that McCarthy strains pretty hard to include the Left in the list of treason criers. It plain isn't what I observe on Usenet. The overwhelming preponderance (and no, I haven't counted) of accusations come from the right, and are charged against Democrats and Liberals, not the more traditional targets of the Left, such as commies and socialists and one-worlders. Note the preponderance of newsmax as McCarthy's sources. That's what I observe too. I find the prevalence of these accusations disturbing, especially since they are not disavowed by presumably more responsible leaders in, say, the Republican Party, or the Right Wing movements. I'm a nominal Democrat, and sometimes in arguments people accuse me of being a "lib'rul" though I don't find myself so. Depending on their passion, I'm even accused of socialism or communism, which is preposterous. Basically, I disagree with them on some dip-ship point that they hold dear. People have a problem with disagreement. So what does Ann Coulter mean, calling Democrats traitors? That I should be shot? Thrown in a concentration camp? Denied my civil rights? And why doesn't a more responsible spokesperson disavow her claims? Say, Grover Norquist, or Christopher Ruddy. Ruddy's website, newsmax, instead is pushing her book. As I read them, the extreme Right is asking for civil war. It's not just name calling. Is that what we want? I take offense. And if you or they really want civil war, there are those who will give it to them. Do you want that? The Right is not just name calling. As for the Left, McCarthy is straining to find similar accusations. The Left is so weak and marginalized it is not important. You have to get to hardcore Trotskyites before you can find similar hateful speech. They say they want to kill the Ruling Class, whatever that is. Nobody, but nobody, can pretend that the Trots are an important political group. That is not the case for Coulter or Ruddy. They ARE important. John K. Taber ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:11:22 PDT