Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (36320)	11/6/2001 12:55:33 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Jeez, I must have missed that discussion as well. Was the post you linked to of Karen's a good way to find it? I'm surprised to hear you saying you're concerned about the new anti-terrorism law. That is what you're referring to, right? Poet@slow.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (36320)	11/7/2001 11:39:47 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Some points, or thoughts, I've wanted to express here regarding recent threats to the Bill of Rights, and most particularly the First Amendment, largely concerning the "USA PATRIOT Act," most of them pursuant to a discussion on FADG about the account of the arrest of the Green Party woman (which has later become somewhat cloudier in its detail, I've had pointed out to me.) Message 16608196 Quoting herself without fear of contradiction by the author, she continued... ...Obviously we were naively vulnerable to terrorist operations in this country. But I fear we are about to see abuses of new governmental power to suppress dissent (a thing establishments like to do). Except that what we will see will be the mere tip of the iceberg... Unfortunately, I find it credible, though of course there will be another side presented, and it will suggest that she is a terrorist threat of some sort, probably as an "eco-terrorist," since she's Green Party. But then I believe that establishments will do anything they can get away with to suppress dissent, and that includes labeling it terrorism. (There is actual terrorism being machinated at this moment in our country, and we have, as I have said, long been naive on this score. But power corrupts, and the U.S.A. Patriot Act gives much power that will, inevitably, be corrupted into dissent-suppression.)... [continued...]

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (36320)	11/7/2001 11:41:17 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

[That was going to be too long a post....] You mention the title of the act, "U.S.A. PATRIOT Act." This is why I think it is unsettling and revealing: The combating of terrorism is not about "patriotism," it is about safety and security. The suppression of dissent, however, is invariably called by that name, just as dissenters are invariably called unpatriotic... If legislation gives an establishment the right to suppress dissent for its own political purposes, it will define its own political purposes so as to allow it to muzzle its critics. That is the way it works. Unless one has a functioning Bill of Rights to minimize the Power Corrupts effect... This predictable phenomenon should make us wary of such opportunistically broad pieces of legislation as the "U.S.A. PATRIOT Act." One man's 'patriotism' is that same man's fervidly felt right to suppress expression of disagreement with his 'patriotic' views... [This is too long, too....]

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (36320)	11/7/2001 11:47:03 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And the last of what I wanted to say about the f-ing USA PATRIOT Act and freedom of expression in this country is below. I promise. In the discussion of the "USA PATRIOT Act," I was making reference to the potential (I believe, predictable) misuse of opportunistically-conceived anti-terrorist legislation to suppress not terrorism, but mere distasteful, annoying (isn't it always?) dissent from the views of an establishment... If legislation gives an establishment the power to suppress dissent for its own political purposes, it will define its own political purposes so as to allow it to muzzle its critics. [Thanks, Laz, for the opportunity to clarify, for those who might have gotten a misimpression about my unambiguous reverence for freedom of expression, what my views are, and have been since I wrote a paper on the subject for Mr. McDermot's ninth grade Social Studies class!]