Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Well worth thinking about djf TSA Says It Can Decide Who Can Learn
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:43:59 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com> Date: October 25, 2004 12:54:31 AM EDT To: Bill Marcy <wmarcy () stny rr com> Cc: dave () farber net, gnu () toad com Subject: Re: [IP] TSA Says It Can Decide Who Can Learn [for publication]
Exactly where in the COnstiutution is the "right to learn" codifified?
I said "This violates the fundamental right of freedom of inquiry". Freedom of inquiry is very similar to the right to learn, but note that the freedom to inquire does not necessarily result in learning the answer that one sought. First I'll go into this informally, then give a few citations and quotes from court cases. The roots of freedom of inquiry are in the european Enlightenment, which shaped the intellectual climate of the founding of the United States. The founders' ancestors had fled from countries where they were flogged, imprisoned, or killed for merely seeking to learn. For seeking to learn about a religion other than the official state religion, for example. For teaching such a religion to others. For inquiring into physics and then stating that the Earth revolved around the Sun. For believing in witchcraft or for seeking to teach how medicinal plants could be used to heal. For seeking to learn the truth about the King, when it was inconvenient for the King. It's clear that freedom of speech also includes freedom to listen. The freedom to speak would be irrelevant if nobody was permitted to hear what you had to say, in the same way that the freedom to publish a newspaper would be much less valuable if people would be imprisoned if they were caught reading it. So the "freedom to listen" half of the right of free expression is what students exercise when they attend a school. (Of course, they can and do also speak up.) The "freedom to speak" is exercised by the teachers. The government cannot prevent people who know how to fly an airplane from speaking or publishing that information -- and indeed there are thousands of books on how to fly, and large numbers of flight schools all over the country and the world. Also at the heart of the freedom to learn is the freedom to associate with others. A school is a community. The government may not say, "These people are permitted to be part of your community; you must shun these other people." They can't tell you who not to invite to your house, who not to have lunch with, or who not to have in your classroom. Learning works best in association; it's possible to learn alone, but much harder. Indeed that's why TSA seeks to prevent flight schools from teaching. Non-citizens are free to read books, run flight-simulator software on their computers, and even rent time in airplane simulators. If they pass a safety exam, they are free to rent or buy airplanes and fly them around. But they're more likely to learn well if they do it in a class with teachers and other students. What TSA wants is that certain people -- picked by TSA under secret criteria -- to have to learn those skills the harder way. If TSA had its way, those people would be prohibited from buying books or software about flying, too. Would it be OK for Cat Stevens to learn to fly an airplane? How about his brother, or the head of his charity foundation? What exactly ARE the rules for who's allowed to learn flying? TSA wants all the information to flow to it -- all the students' names and passports and pictures and course schedules -- with the only information that flows back being the decision: yes or no, this person is permitted to learn or that person is not. In a free society, a lot more information needs to flow to the public. Like: What are the rules TSA is administering, exactly? And why do those rules exist? And are those rules fair? And are those rules followed scrupulously, or sloppily? And do those rules provide a way for people who are maltreated under the rules to correct their treatment? And are those rules constitutionally permitted? Freedom of inquiry goes beyond the freedom to speak and listen and associate, though. It also reaches the solitary philosopher or theologian who ruminates over the structure of the universe or of society. It reaches the lone physicist who thinks the speed of light in vacuum is constant and who tries to prove it. It reaches the engineer who seeks to understand how his competitor's product works. It reaches the reporter who inquires into the workings and failings of his neighborhood or its government. It reaches the voter, can research the strange people who run for elected office. It relates to the even more fundamental freedom of thought -- the right to hold your own opinions, inquire into their truth or falsehood, and to not have the government forcibly alter the workings of your brain, whether with the rack, the Lynndie, with drugs, or by withholding drugs. OK, you've heard my opinion. Now let's hear who backs it up. The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. "By limiting the power of the States to interfere with freedom of speech and FREEDOM OF INQUIRY and freedom of association, the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons, no matter what their calling. But, in view of the nature of the teacher's relation to the effective exercise of the rights which are safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and by the Fourteenth Amendment, inhibition of freedom of thought, and of action upon thought, in the case of teachers brings the safeguards of those amendments vividly into operation. Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers . . . has an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers." Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (concurring opinion). "Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain FREE TO INQUIRE, to study and to evaluate . . . ." Sweezy v. New Hampshire , 354 U.S. 234, 250. That's Justice Stewart, writing the majority Supreme Court opinion in Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960), page 487 (capitalized emphasis mine). They were striking down an Arkansas law that teachers had to disclose all of their associations, or be barred from teaching. The court invokes the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Bill of Rights, because that's how the First Amendment came to apply to state governments. Here's a famous case, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Connecticut to the Supreme Court of the US. The issue was whether people have the right to learn about birth control. The laws of Connecticut punished patients who use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception", and any doctor or other person who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" to do so. "Counsels", i.e. teaches. The defendants "gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception" at a Planned Parenthood office. They were arrested and fined. Justice Douglas wrote the majority opinion: The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights. By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and FREEDOM OF INQUIRY, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) -- indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases. That's Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 at 482-483 (emphasis mine). Here's another case -- a District Court case from Nebraska in 1971, over whether a prison inmate was free to receive the Black Muslim newspaper "Muhammad Speaks". The court noted that the plaintiff was not a Black Muslim, and sought the newspaper for its coverage of racial issues. Here's what Judge Urbom had to say: In the present case the restraint is upon the receipt of a newspaper, rather than the expression by the prisoner of his own ideas. The threshold question, therefore, is whether the First Amendment, as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, affords protection to a person as a passive receiver of ideas generated by another. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1965) demonstrates that the First Amendment protection extends to both ends of a communication to protect the receiver as well as the initiator of ideas. Mr. Justice Brennan in his concurring opinion in Lamont stated: "* * * I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." That's Rowland v. Sigler, 327 F. Supp. 821, pages 824-825. Let's get this clear. The First Amendment even prohibits the government from blocking Mr. Rowland, a "belligerent and uncooperative inmate" -- in prison -- after conviction -- from receiving information and education of his choice, as long as it does not incite in him a clear and present danger of violence. If that's true, then the First Amendment clearly permits a non-citizen, lawfully admitted to the United States, not in prison, not convicted, not even accused of any crime, to receive information and education of his choice. Even more interestingly, the TSA regulation is a "prior restraint" on First Amendment protected activities. It's not that TSA goes snooping around flight schools, seeing who's learning even though it's prohibited by law, and then arrests and convicts people AFTER they learn to fly. That's what the Connecticut police did to Planned Parenthood. That would be unconstitutional. But TSA does something a hundred times worse. They PREVENT people from learning to fly. They REQUIRE A LICENSE of people who wish to learn to fly. They exercise total ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION over whether a given person will be permitted to learn or not. (Perhaps some readers will be reminded of Prof. Bernstein's court case about the similar licensing scheme prohibiting publication of software and other information about encryption. It was struck down in the 1990s. I instigated that case. Our web browsers and cellphones have encryption today because Prof. Bernstein, EFF and I won that case.) TSA's actions exactly violate the main purpose of the First Amendment -- to prohibit prior restraints on free expression. Now, no rights are absolute, not even First Amendment rights. But the very strongest rights are the prohibitions on prior restraint of First Amendment rights. The government would need to come up with a very, very, very strong case to justify a prior restraint on the teaching of particular subjects to non-citizens. Publishing an in-depth analysis of the war, in wartime, did not justify such a restraint (the Pentagon Papers case). Publishing how to build an atomic bomb did not justify such a restraint (the Progressive case). Neither TSA nor the statute they are enforcing have made ANY strong case. The fact that three years ago some people died because four guys knew how to fly planes is ZERO excuse for building a licensing scheme to prohibit everyone else from learning to fly planes. At least if we live under a constitutional government rather than a dictatorship. John Gilmore ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Well worth thinking about djf TSA Says It Can Decide Who Can Learn David Farber (Oct 25)