# Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

Tags: bush, clamps, freedom, speech
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by phatmonky If a bomber bombs an abortion clinic, or endangers workers/patients, the law will continue to those who supported said actions in anyway but vocally. Money, information, etc. Is all conspiracy to commit a crime, and worse. I'm not sure what the anti abortion crowd has to do with this conversation though, but atleast you understand the way the law works.
Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?[:D]
P: 1,528
 Originally posted by Zero Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?[:D]
I guess other illegal actions don't count???

 Originally posted by kat Phatmonkey- I brought up the Anti-abortionist because often people feel a little bit differently in cases where the people breaking the law are not fighting for something they see as just, but I'm sure you're aware of that already.
I didn't realize you had brought the subject up earlier in the thread.
 P: 691 Greenpeace is being sued under some formerly-hidden 1872 law dealing with "sailor-mongering", whereby pirates lure crews of their ships to brothels. This is a case of the Attorney General, ashcroft, spending much time to find some law, somewhere, to selectively prosecute a group that he and the adminstration he serves does not like.
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by Dissident Dan Greenpeace is being sued under some formerly-hidden 1872 law dealing with "sailor-mongering", whereby pirates lure crews of their ships to brothels. This is a case of the Attorney General, ashcroft, spending much time to find some law, somewhere, to selectively prosecute a group that he and the adminstration he serves does not like.
So, you are saying that the government's claim is that Greenpeace is a naval piracy group with ties to prostitution?
 P: 1,560 So other then the articles mention of "The Bush Administration", normal policies in governments are usually such that the authority to enact such a prosecution is not in the 'Chief Executives' hands, but that of the Attorney General, so it tell/s/mells of "Politics" right in it's reporting... Long time ago, I was sent mail, from Greenpeace, asking for donations, I wrote them back, and asked them to stop mailing me, asking me for money, That really brought them into the mailbox...apparently I needed to send them a "registered letter" () to prove that I had requested, of them, to 'cease and desist'.....'guerilla' tactics against people they want money from....something about the words "No respect" comes to mind... (as did someone {Who? was in Charge of greenpeace? back then?...rhetorical Q!) else 'come to mind' (at that time) but that's 'nother story alllllllll-together!!)
Mentor
P: 21,652
 "sailor mongering,"
That article puts those words in quotes but then quotes the law and that term isn't in it. So where does that term come from? It just looks to me like that law is the maritime equivalent of breaking and entering or tresspassing.
 So, you are saying that the government's claim is that Greenpeace is a naval piracy group with ties to prostitution?
No, the article says that that was the intent of the law and the law is being misused (or is obsolete). I'm not so sure.
 P: 1,560 Well, boarding a ship at Sea is something that needs legal protections, going in under a Sign of Greenpeace would only make someone like myself suspicious of the intents, and true nature, of the persons attempting boarding...would want to know that there are legal protections in place, even if it is an old, "out of date" law (revision would assist) as it is better to have something to protect you, rather then nothing.... Greenpeace protesters have been in trouble before, no doubt it will occur again, Civil disobedience is NOT a legal right, simply a practice that garners attention...that is usually why it is used, to draw attention to a cause...
Mentor
P: 21,652
 Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons Greenpeace protesters have been in trouble before, no doubt it will occur again, Civil disobedience is NOT a legal right, simply a practice that garners attention...that is usually why it is used, to draw attention to a cause...
To reiterate, for something to be "civil disobedience" it must be illegal. Greenpeace admits they are breaking the law because they know that that will give them publicity. And for a group that WANTS to be out on the fringe, bad publicity is good publicity.

Also, Greenpeace envokes "civil disobedience" because they want to put themselves in the same category as MLK. Disgraceful. MLK and his followers broke unjust laws. Greenpeace breaks JUST laws to protest unrelated activities by others that are not illegal but they deem unjust. Big, big, big difference.
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by russ_watters To reiterate, for something to be "civil disobedience" it must be illegal. Greenpeace admits they are breaking the law because they know that that will give them publicity. And for a group that WANTS to be out on the fringe, bad publicity is good publicity. Also, Greenpeace envokes "civil disobedience" because they want to put themselves in the same category as MLK. Disgraceful. MLK and his followers broke unjust laws. Greenpeace breaks JUST laws to protest unrelated activities by others that are not illegal but they deem unjust. Big, big, big difference.
The "big" difference is in your head Russ...which is why we don't vote on free speech, you dig? They believe it enough to get arrested, so for them it is the same as what MLK did...we don't get to decide for other people what causes they support, or what sort of speech they choose to express themselves with. You can arrest people who break a law, but it is another thing to try to shut down entire organizations.
Mentor
P: 21,652
 Originally posted by Zero The "big" difference is in your head Russ...which is why we don't vote on free speech, you dig?
No, sorry, you're just missing the difference. Never fear, I will elaborate.

If a law says you can't sit at the back of the bus and you sit at the back of the bus, you are breaking the law. You go to court and instead of convicting you and throwing you in jail, the court overturns the law as being unjust. Thats the type of thing MLK and his followers did.
If the law says no tresspassing and you tresspass to hang a sign saying 'abortion is murder,' it isn't civil disobedience because the law you broke has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the cause you are fighting. When you go to court, is the judge going to overturn Rowe v Wayde for the sake of your tresspassing case? No, the subject of RvW and the morality of abortion won't even come up because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the law that was broken.

And how you connect that to free speach, I can't fathom. Are you saying you can break some laws for the purpose of free speach? You'd have a tough time convincing a judge of that - but good luck trying that on your next speeding ticket. "Your honor, I was traveling at 95mph as an expression of my individuality...."

So: "civil disobedience" is breaking an unjust law. If the law that you break isn't the law that is unjust (or isn't at least related to it), then its not civil disobedience.
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by russ_watters No, sorry, you're just missing the difference. Never fear, I will elaborate. If a law says you can't sit at the back of the bus and you sit at the back of the bus, you are breaking the law. You go to court and instead of convicting you and throwing you in jail, the court overturns the law as being unjust. Thats the type of thing MLK and his followers did. If the law says no tresspassing and you tresspass to hang a sign saying 'abortion is murder,' it isn't civil disobedience because the law you broke has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the cause you are fighting. When you go to court, is the judge going to overturn Rowe v Wayde for the sake of your tresspassing case? No, the subject of RvW and the morality of abortion won't even come up because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the law that was broken. So: "civil disobedience" is breaking an unjust law. If the law that you break isn't the law that is unjust (or isn't at least related to it), then its not civil disobedience.
Thanks for elaborating...*cough*jerk*cough*

[g)]
 Mentor P: 21,652 Always happy to be of help. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance. [:D]
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by russ_watters Always happy to be of help. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance. [:D]
If you can explain how anything Bush does would be considered 'conservative', I'd appreciate it...but not in this thread, of course![6)]
 P: 28 that its OK to break the law as long as you are cheif exec and you build a false, misleading, erroneous, deceitful web of lies to make your contradictions appear reasoned, its OK. Yeah, thought so.
P: 1,509
 Originally posted by amp that its OK to braek the law as long as you are cheif exec and you build a false, misleading, erroneous, deceitful web of lies to make your contradictions appear reasoned, its OK. Yeah, thought so.
No, that isn't what Russ said...although it does seem to be government policy.

Let's not get sidetracked, ok?
 Sci Advisor P: 853 International laws are very touchy. Greenpeace is foolish to use them as venues for protest. Wait until the ship is docked, and protest the unloading. Shipmasters have a lot of power. They have this because, at sea, they have fewer legal protections. This stunt was very dangerous. Boarding a ship illegally could easily get you shot. It was also counterproductive. Because American citizens boarded a Brazilian ship, the US government is put in a position of weakness vis a vis the Brazilians. Had the Brazilians been caught with the lumber, with no other complicating circumstances, the Brazilians would have the weaker hand. An effective protest would be to establish a good paper trail to a retailer of either furniture or lumber. Picket it, and inform its consumers. Cost somebody somewhere money in a way that they connect to smuggling. Give someone with a financial stake incentive to stop smuggling. Njorl
P: 58
There seems to be quite a few problems with the way the Green Peace and some of the media is portraying this.

Many media reports, Green Peace and apparently a "law specialist" named "Turley" (where do I know this name from?) are saying that the charge placed "under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against "sailor-mongering". This is EXTREMELY misleading. I believe what they are referring to is this : Section 2194. Shanghaiing sailors
 Whoever, with intent that any person shall perform service orlabor of any kind on board of any vessel engaged in trade and commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or on board of any vessel of the United States engaged in navigating the high seas or any navigable water of the United States, procures or induces, or attempts to procure or induce, another, by force or threats or by representations which he knows or believes to be untrue, or while the person so procured or induced is intoxicated or under the influence of any drug, to go on board of any such vessel, or to sign or in anywise enter into any agreement to go on board of any such vessel to perform service or labor thereon; or Whoever knowingly detains on board of any such vessel any person so procured or induced to go on board, or to enter into any agreement to go on board, by any means herein defined - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
I don't even believe this could be called "obscure" as it was amended and updated as recently as 1996.

But when you read the actual charges here: GREENPEACE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY BOARD CARGO VESSEL
You find that the actual charge is:
 Title 18, United States Code, Section 2279.
which can be found here: Section 2279. Boarding vessels before arrival
 Whoever, not being in the United States service, and not being duly authorized by law for the purpose, goes on board any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination, before her actual arrival, and before she has been completely moored, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. The master of such vessel may take any such person into custody, and deliver him up forthwith to any law enforcement officer, to be by him taken before any committing magistrate, to be dealt with according to law.
Again, I don't see how this can be called "obscure" when it's been amended and updated recently.

I really hate this type of B.S., I have a lot more faith in causes when they aren't busy B.S.in the public.

Of course this gets even deeper when you see where it may all lead.
At the very least it creates an international issue, if we allow citizens to break maritime law...and then find that indeed the brazilians were breaking the law....it gives the U.S. a weaker stance. Also, at this point ships have two options to protect themselves from illegal bording of their ship. They can physically threaten and fight off those boarders or present them to an authority for prosecution. Which is exactly what the shipmates did.

The other issue is that greenpeace did not just "drop of volunteers after bussing them in" those present were also employees on green peace owned ships. The green peace ships also "attempted to evade law enforcement ships". That creates a bit of an issue as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in October.

Of course if the U.S. wins the case against Green Peace then there is an even larger issue that will effect green peace. It has to do with the recent issues of missuse of funds that threaten it's tax exempt status in the U.S.. specificly diverting funds given for educational purpose to use in situations like this...money allocated for illegal actions are not tax exempt.
Mentor
P: 21,652
 Originally posted by kat I really hate this type of B.S., I have a lot more faith in causes when they aren't busy B.S.in the public.
I could smell it, but quite frankly, I'm too lazy to research it to find out for sure - good post. Lotta effort.

 Related Discussions Forum Feedback & Announcements 7 Current Events 11 Social Sciences 29 Current Events 9 Current Events 6