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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (46345)	2/12/2006 7:58:54 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

An Unwelcome NO Why is the city prosecuting Perry Patterson? And what does it say about free speech in America? ..... ..... Speech chillin' Oregon ACLU Executive Officer David Fidanque says that the Bush administration has set a new standard in political censorship. During the 2004 election season, the Bush-Cheney campaign staged many of its rallies on private property and relegated protesters to distant "free speech zones," essentially stripping attendees of their First Amendment rights. In stark contrast to Kerry-Edwards rallies, where Republicans as well as Democrats were permitted to hold signs and express their beliefs, Bush-Cheney rallies often excluded or ejected dissidents, sometimes slapping them with criminal charges (see sidebar). "It's part of a long-term trend of hyper-management of political appearances by the president and vice president," Fidanque said. "I think it's an attempt by political handlers to make sure that the news is sanitized to reflect the message that they want to put out, which means that the public doesn't get exposed to controversy when controversy exists. But to the extent that the events are held in [private] places, they can probably get away with that." Regan is preoccupied with another threat to free speech: a proposed new provision of the PATRIOT Act, which Congress will consider for re-authorization on March 10. Section 602 would make protesting or holding a protest sign at any "national security event" a felony. If that provision were applied to Patterson, her "no" would become a federal crime, punishable by up to a year in prison. Section 602, as well as other restrictive aspects of the PATRIOT Act, echo Attorney General John Ashcroft's October 2001 warning: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." Regan says that Patterson's arrest and similar incidents across the nation have a "chilling" effect on free speech, discouraging citizens from speaking out against the government. "By arresting a mom and a housewife, they hope to send a message to other citizens, especially in what's known as a fairly liberal community: 'Don't mess with us,'" Regan said. Chilling speech is illegal under the First Amendment, but it's happened before in America. The Sedition Act of 1918 prohibited citizens from using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the U.S. government during wartime. That act was repealed in 1921, but not before putting socialist Eugene Debs in prison for three years. "We are on a slippery slope of losing our freedoms, and since most politicians and most of the media are acting as if they are under a gag rule, it's up to each individual to research and speak up," Patterson said. "If this could happen to someone like me, what's going to happen to someone who's not as reserved as I am?" eugeneweekly.com