|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Jun 8, 2004 19:37:18 GMT -5
I am very, very concerned about legislation being passed down lately. First we have the Patriot Act, where the goverment, without just cause, can get information on anyone if they have the excuse "he might be a terrorist!" Including Library and bookseller records. Then we have the "Harmful to minors" legislation in Michigan and other states. Anything, including comic books but also novels and text only books, that could be considered harmful to minors can not be displayed where a minor can veiw them. If a book store fails to keep this 'harmful' material out of the reach of minors, a parent can charge them and can win a minimum of 10,000 dollars.
With things like the Patriot Act, there are many people who don't really understand it or realize the connotations that support it because they're afraid of terrorists. That's fine. I understand that you want to protect yourselves, but what kind of country will we be living in if all our liberties are stripped away for a sense of saftey? We'll have taken away everything that makes America worth living it, everything that people have fought and died for. That is freedom of speach and expression and the right to not be searched without reasonable cause.
What's even worse is that when I mention my stand on the Patriot Act, or my stand on the War in Iraq, people say that if I don't like it I'm not a Patriot, or that I can 'just leave if you don't like it.' Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the general concept on which the country I live in was formed is that if enough people don't like somethingthat the government is doing, they can do something to change it. Telling me to leave if I don't like the way the country is being run goes against all of that.
I found an interesting quote that is a rather acurate depiction of the political mindset of the United States;
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-Nazi Leader Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
I recomend checking out cbldf.org for more information about the various legislature that threatens free speach in this country. (For everyone outside the US, I don't mean to leave you guys out. It's just something that worries me. Fortunatly I've reached the voting age.)
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Jun 8, 2004 19:40:32 GMT -5
Oh yeah, on a lighter note; kudos to the Eight Curcuit court of appeals for ruling in favor of video games as a form of free speach!
gIf the first amendment is versatile enough to eshield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,fcwe see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection.h
Sometimes the underdog wins. ^______^
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Jun 8, 2004 19:58:01 GMT -5
Then we have the "Harmful to minors" legislation in Michigan and other states. Anything, including comic books but also novels and text only books, that could be considered harmful to minors can not be displayed where a minor can veiw them. If a book store fails to keep this 'harmful' material out of the reach of minors, a parent can charge them and can win a minimum of 10,000 dollars. My God, that's HORRIBLE, and I didn't even know about it! Exactly how is "may be harmful to minors" defined? |
|
|
|
Post by tennmagpie on Jun 8, 2004 20:00:42 GMT -5
My God, that's HORRIBLE, and I didn't even know about it! Exactly how is "may be harmful to minors" defined? Well, any book could be defined as "harmful to minors" if you take it and beat them over the head with it.  But I agree- that's just plain AWFUL. |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 8, 2004 20:37:22 GMT -5
My God, that's HORRIBLE, and I didn't even know about it! Exactly how is "may be harmful to minors" defined? Heh. Interesting point. In the world of law, almost anything can be considered "harmful to minors" if you try hard enough and spin it just right. Patriot Act... hmmmm.... I don't know how to feel about it. I'd like more details. Teow, you don't happen to know of a neutral website that will give me details of the Patriot Act, do you? I mean, what exactly it allows the government to do and all? I'd really like to know more about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Jun 8, 2004 23:12:29 GMT -5
Yes, the Patriot Act is something I'm very, very strong against. I don't see why it has not been rejected for violating the 4th (is it the 4th? Illegial search and such things) amendment...
It's not only information, but the fact that they can enter my home and I belive tap my phones without my knowledge is...scary.
Even though I doubt they would do it to me, the fact that they have the ablity and I can do nothing about it is scary. Too much Big Brother for my tastes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 8, 2004 23:30:04 GMT -5
Eh, I'm iffy on the Patriot Act myself. I've not felt my rights impinged on, it keeps me safe, and there's nothing as an absolute right anyway ("Freedom of Speech"? Did you know it's illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a theatre? No such thing as an absolute right, so yeah). But at the same time I understand the fear that this could turn into a Big Brother thing at some point in time if either extreme liberals or extreme conservatives wish to abuse it as so.
And I don't mean to nitpick or start a debate, but something should be mentioned...our country is actually not a democracy (influenced by total public opinion). It's a Republic that allow's its people to have some say in the goings-on and laws. So even if enough people got upset, there's no gaurantee it'd change. *shrugs*
In any case, simply my two cents. Hopefully this won't spark a debate (as my two cents normally do)...especially since I'm leaving for awhile starting Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Jun 9, 2004 1:13:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure how I feel about the Patriot Act. It was designed to help keep us safe, and it's not like they pick a few random names out of a bag and say "Hmm... let's go raid their stuff!". They actually do center it around some form of evidence that a person may be a terrorist.
We are living in a post-9/11 world, though. People get worked up over things that never used to bother them. They're all flocking to the stores to stock up on plastic sheeting, duck tape, water and toilet paper. It's a bit much.
I do believe in the Iraq war, though. Before 9/11, the white house did receive some intelligence that an attack might take place, but it wasn't enough to take any decisive action. Well, it happened, and then they started recieving intelligence that Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction and is planning on using them - do you honestly believe they would just brush it aside? As we spent a year arguing about it with the UN, though, they got the weapons out of Iraq. By the time we arrived, they had already been moved. I'm very disheartened that so many innocent lives had to be lost, but I am very happy that an evil dictator was taken out of power. And yes, I still believe that the weapons are somewhere out there.
Am I frightened by some of the new legislations? I won't deny that I am, but it's all for the protection of Americans. Some things these days, such as airport security, can be overly frustrating, but would you rather live in a country that took no action against terrorists after such a devastating attack like 9/11? A lot of people are living in fear, and, quite frankly, they have a lot to be afraid of. Things such as the Patriot Act are there to protect them and to stop terrorism before it starts. I don't think that they're violating any of our rights.
Of course, it's near midnight right now, so feel free to ignore me... I'm just rambling, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 9, 2004 2:39:15 GMT -5
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"
As quoted by either Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson. Both have been credited for this.
This is as true today as it was 230 years ago.
The terrorists have won. They sought to destroy the freedom and way of life the US exhibited and celebrated. And people like John Ashcroft and GW Bush obliged by taking away the free lifestyle that Americans enjoyed. AND WE LET THEM. We did it by letting them tell us it would make us safe. It's only a little freedom. They only restrict us a little bit.
It's all for a good cause. Those that oppose it are terrorists and sympathize with with them. "You're either with us or against us." as GW Bush stated.
Gee, I think that people like Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams would have been locked up as terrorists. The British certainly thought they were. And I am sure thay would disagree with GW's and Ashcroft's
views of security versus freedom.
The "Patriot Act" is neither patriotic nor will it protect your freedom. Freedom is inherently risky, but the rewards are what make it worth the risk.
We have hidden our beacon to the world under a very dense bushel basket.
I grieve for the USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 9, 2004 9:04:37 GMT -5
Pat, may I ask you what freedoms have been taken away? Have there been freedoms taken away from you? Is your life still the same way it was before the Patriot Act was passed, or has it changed for the worse? I really would like to know, because it sounds like you're extremely angry and speaking from experience here. But at the same time, if there's been no change in your life (and the life of many other Americans), and no loss of freedoms for you...then what is there to be angry about? ((EDIT -- I had to change the sound of my post. It sounded like an interrogation at first and not just curiosity...still doesn't sound right.  )) |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 9, 2004 9:27:24 GMT -5
Do a search for "Patriot Act" on Google, and you'll find the whole bill and other stuff. If you can understand the big words.. I can't help thinking, that if we had known the terrorists behind 9-11 were in the country, and we saw they might be dangerous, there's a good chance we wouldn't have been able to arrest them. And had we tapped their phones or whatever, we could possibly have stopped September 11. Of course, our intellegence wasn't good enough to even think of them, but I think you get what I'm saying. I think if the government is smart enough, they won't go around searching random people for no reason, but you're right, it could happen. Then they are taking away Constitutional rights, and the thing is bad. I don't really think there's an easy way to solve the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by shimmer2 on Jun 9, 2004 9:54:28 GMT -5
I can't help thinking, that if we had known the terrorists behind 9-11 were in the country, and we saw they might be dangerous, there's a good chance we wouldn't have been able to arrest them. And had we tapped their phones or whatever, we could possibly have stopped September 11. Of course, our intellegence wasn't good enough to even think of them, but I think you get what I'm saying. Actually, one of the things being debated now is whether or not the CIA and FBI did have the intelligence to stop 9/11 but ignored it. I do believe there was something on the news the other day about a British Muslim who went to a US intelligence office to warn them about people flying planes into buildings but was turned over to British intelligence. Some food for thought: The Patriot Act is not the first time in history that the government has passed such ruling. We actually talked about this in US history (I really wish I hadn't thrown away my notes now.) For example, John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0803344.html). Also, in the case Schenck v. U.S., supreme court ruled that speech presenting "a clear and present danger" was illegal. However the court did not define this statement. Schenck had been arrested for passing out anti-war pamphlets to draftees. There were several other laws passed at different times, but I cannot remember them exactly. I think for a lot of people support the Patriot Act because they do not believe it affects them. It kind of reminds me of stem cell research. Being Republicans, I sincerely doubt the Reagans would have supported such research if the Alzheimer disease did not run in their family. A lot of people who support the Patriot Act don't believe it will have ill effects on them. No one can see into the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Jun 9, 2004 10:06:53 GMT -5
Pat, may I ask you what freedoms have been taken away? Have there been freedoms taken away from you? Is your life still the same way it was before the Patriot Act was passed, or has it changed for the worse? I really would like to know, because it sounds like you're extremely angry and speaking from experience here. But at the same time, if there's been no change in your life (and the life of many other Americans), and no loss of freedoms for you...then what is there to be angry about? ((EDIT -- I had to change the sound of my post. It sounded like an interrogation at first and not just curiosity...still doesn't sound right. )) I'm wondering the same thing. I don't have any less freedom than before the Patriot Act. |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 9, 2004 10:36:45 GMT -5
I think for a lot of people support the Patriot Act because they do not believe it affects them. It kind of reminds me of stem cell research. Being Republicans, I sincerely doubt the Reagans would have supported such research if the Alzheimer disease did not run in their family. A lot of people who support the Patriot Act don't believe it will have ill effects on them. No one can see into the future. I was actually thinking the same thing. People don't care if people's rights are getting taken away - as long as it's not their rights. This is a sad, but ultimately true, piece of human nature we are all probably guilty of at one point or another. So what if Al Muhammad down the street is getting his phone tapped for no reason? So what if soldiers are dieing over in Iraq everyday? It's not my phone, right? It's not my son or daughter, right? Why should I care?... |
|
|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Jun 9, 2004 10:49:19 GMT -5
My favorite thing about the Patriot Act is the name itself. It almost implies that you're unpatriotic if you don't go with it...
You don't have less, but the goverment has more. They can enter you home, bug your phones, and do many other things and you never know about it.
But it's not even that, it's the fact that the public canlet them get away with it. It only paves the way if they perhaps want MORE.
I maybe a bit hyperbolic, AP english does that to you (after you read all those goverment-big-brother satires...well....you can't help it), but the fact that they simply HAVE the right to enter my house and tap MY phones because of some belive on terrorism (which, reading about how over 700 immigrants and others have reported abuse in the current state of things just because of their heritage) that I may be comitting.
It's the fact that they can do it, and that in itself isn't agreeable.
|
|
))
