More Arrests

[Pangloss]

Looks like more arrests in the 7/7 case:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4720027.stm

 

Just as a brief aside, it's fascinating to me how fast the British authorities have been able to move on this case. The number of people arrested and the way information has been coming out is really impressive. It suggests to me a number of things:

 

1) British intelligence is pretty darn good. These people know what's going on within their borders. (Quite unlike my country.)

 

2) Right or wrong, the London public surveillance system certainly seems to be paying massive dividends at the moment.

 

3) Britain seems to be reconsidering its policy of tolerating pro-violent extremist movements.

 

4) I still don't detect an ounce of blame (at least not the kind that's taken seriously) being aimed at America.

 

I think Americans can learn a lot from watching the British during this time. While I've been critical regarding the shooting incident, it seems to me that there's a much greater sense of national unity and purpose (not to mention level-headedness) there than we have here.

[Douglas]

1) British intelligence is pretty darn good. These people know what's going on within their borders. (Quite unlike my country.)

 

3)........................................ its policy of tolerating pro-violent extremist movements.

Yes, I imagine #1 is true, because #3 is true.

 

In my opinion, Britain should be reconsidering its policy of tolerating pro-violent extremist movements.

 

As *you* know, but not everyone knows, that the U.S. has just sentenced a man to life imprisonment for "exhorting his followers after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops"..... And of course, in your home state, Sami Al-Arian is on trial for his alleged dealings with the terrorists.

[Pangloss]

Right, good point.

 

I think the margins at work here between "free speech" and "yelling fire in a crowded theater" are pretty narrow -- we're having to set very sharp lines in very gray areas -- but the war on terror seems to be more or less forcing us to split those legal hairs.

 

One thing that I think is critical in order for that to succeed is that the citizenry needs to understand what that means and what the reasons are for doing it that way. Why is it important to make such fine distinctions? What protections are we giving ourselves by so carefully defining things, and why is that more important than, say, issues of complexity (or "too many laws")? One of the more tragic dynamics for change in a society when something *totally expected* happens and people react to it in unexpected, unpredicted ways, owing to either lack of knowledge or the context of other recent events. Knowledge is power.

 

At the moment my gut feeling is that the British people are doing a better job of this than we are -- they're engaged, focused, and determined to such a degree that we can only sit back and admire. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. (shrug)

[Douglas]

Agreed, there's a fine line between free speech and screaming fire, but the lines need to be defined.

 

IMO, under the present circumstances, some of the U.K. muslim clerics have gone beyond free speech, are guilty of sedition and should be tried in a court of law.

 

As I see it, if the U.K. were NOT part of the coalition forces in Iraq, and if the U.K. was NOT under the threat of terrorist acts on their terra firma, the U.K. Muslim clerics could pick and choose who they wanted to support under the laws of free speech.

[darkkazier]

what's the point of free speech if it will be limited in some way? We should not call it free speech, but we should call it "speech that does not upset someone". I live in America and i think our polices at home and abroad are crap and we're going to end up causing more harm than good. should i be thrown in jail for my views? No. People should be able to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause direct physical harm to others(i.e. screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre).

[Pangloss]

what's the point of free speech if it will be limited in some way?

 

Well you say that but then you go on to support the "fire in a crowded theater" caveat, so I'll spare you the lecture and just point out that what we're suggesting here is that there are cases similar to that caveat that appear to warrant the same protection.

 

For example, leading a terrorist cell (but not actually committing an act of terrorism yourself) could become be a crime if you specifically order them to commit violent acts, and they do so. It's reasonable to have to show a causal link between "orders" and "expectations" (i.e. why the individual felt the need to carry out those orders), but once that's shown, the claim "it was just free speech" pretty much flies out the window.

 

Where these issues become somewhat "gray" is when they aren't orders, but just inciteful speech. I agree that someone simply pounding the podium and then someone else blowing up a school bus doesn't necessarily make the first person responsible. There has to be some kind of demonstrable expectation on the part of the speaker that a violent act will result (he doesn't have to admit it, it just has to be apparent).

[Thomas Kirby]

The actual origin of the "Shout fire in a crowded theatre" quote, which people use as legal precedent to attempt to weaken arguments for greater protection of the right to freedom of speech. From the context it would appear that Justice Holmes supported punishing people for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that actually was on fire:

 

Excerpt from History News Network article link

 

In 1917, when the U.S. began its involvement in the First World War, President Wilson and supporters in Congress were determined to maintain public enthusiasm by instituting extremely strict measures. The 1917 Espionage Act forbade the publication of any reports that could be construed as aiding the enemy. The Trading With the Enemy Act gave Wilson the power to censor the foreign language press in the United States and all international communications. Reports from the front were strictly censored and often blocked entirely.

 

The 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act (popularly known as the Sedition Act) gave the government the power to control both written and verbal communications; the government did not have to prove that the communications directly aided the enemy. Any negative remark about the government, flag, or even military uniforms was banned.

 

The U.S. controls were even stricter than in France, where the war was actually being fought. More than 2,000 people were arrested and 1,055 convicted under the Espionage and Trading With the Enemy Acts. Socialist Eugene Debs received a ten-year prison sentence for making an antiwar speech. Film producer Robert Goldstein also received a ten-year sentence for producing a film about the Revolutionary War that was deemed treasonous because it portrayed the British (our ally) in a negative light. It was even illegal to state that the conscription law was unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court had yet to rule on the law. Some were arrested for criticizing the YMCA and the Red Cross. By 1920, the FBI had files on over two million people deemed “disloyal.” The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Holmes, upheld the Espionage Act, using the “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” argument. The 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act were repealed in 1921, but the other Acts remain on the books.

 

Even such a forgiving simile as the one I just used is not appropriate. This is more like justifying the punishment of someone who notices the fire hazards that actually exist. As a public service he publishes articles and posts notices about these hazards. He also hopes that the theatre management might remedy some of these hazards. Illegal to write up opinions that the conscription act was unconstitutional? No wonder we are so screwed up.

[Pangloss]

Interesting points.