FC: Gerard Van der Leun on traitors, free speech, and Ashcroftitus

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Gerard is one of my favorite writers. Make sure you read his famous "A 
Open-Source Apology to Lawrence Lessig" (with apologies to Keats, Chapman, 
and Homer):
http://www.politechbot.com/p-00731.html

And this is Jamie's message from earlier today:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04912.html

-Declan

---

Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:15:08 -0700
Subject: Re: FC: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the
        left
From: Gerard Van der Leun <gvdl () cox net>
To: <declan () well com>
Message-ID: <BB27802C.1F69%gvdl () cox net>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030701162607.0445c1d8 () mail well com>

Mc Carthy has done some very worthwhile searching on this issue of treason
and I read the citations with interest.

While I understand that the flinging about of "traitor" and "treason" is a
phenomenon closely associated with the last two years than immediately
before, it all, in the end strikes me as merely much of a muchness. Indeed,
it is the same category of those who are always going on about the
suppression of their free speech in front of a raft of various media only
too ready to lay their plaints before a world ready to listen.

In the case of Treason as in the case of Free Speech, I am always left
wondering how so many can concatenate the actions of the citizens of the
United States with the Government of the United States. It seems to me that
I can, or you can, or any person can call another a traitor, or say that his
or her behavior is treasonous at any time and on any pretext. At most we
risk a suit for libel or slander, but it would seem that it is the accuser
that is much more at risk here than the accused.  The accuser, in this case
Anne Coulter, is not - at least as far as I am aware - a lawfully empowered
agent of the Federal Government. She is as free to call any individual or
group a traitor as would be, say, James Carville would be to call Coulter a
'whacked out bimbo with the political morals of a ferret." Not that such a
southern gentleman as Carville would ever utter such a sentiment.

In like manner, those who carp about the suppression of their speech always
make me wonder what part of "Congress shall make no law..." they fail to
comprehend. As a citizen, it seems to me that I am perfectly at liberty to
say "Declan is an American set upon the destruction of this country by
consistently filing reports that do not make it comfortable for the powers
that be and failing to toe the Washington Establishment line in exchange for
lots of free lunches with lobbyists. Because of this his web site should be
shut down and he should be imprisoned for a very long time in a very small
room with a television that only receives Fox News." I can call for this
daily and it doesn't seem to me there's much that can be done to stop me. My
speech certainly can't suppress yours.

Hence I don't see from what source all the anxiety arises about charges of
treason and suppression of speech as long as it arises from an individual or
an organization with no formal ties to the government.

Should the government actively see to put someone on trial for treason, I
think they would probably need more than Anne Coulter's observations and
assertions. Indeed, the requirements for such a charge are spelled out in
some detail in the Constitution as I recall, but I won't rehearse them here.

Likewise, should the government attempt to formally shut down Politechbot in
response to something transmitted on it, it had better be something akin to
childporn or a secret terrorist message embedded deep within that jpeg of
Phil Zimmermann (very clever that) to avoid a firestorm of protest and the
launching of 30  Habeas Corpus packing ACLU lawyers from their underground
silos in San Francisco.

Yes, I know, I know about Ashcroft but I've still to get a real case of
Ashcroftitus raising a rash on my brain. In so many places and at so many
times, the man has shown himself to be a gasbag. A dangerous one to be sure,
but it really isn't in what he says, it is in what he can do that counts.

Likewise, it is in what the government can do and not so much in what it
says that we need to be ready to be alarmed.

Does Anne Coulter command the Justice Department or the National Guard? Does
Bill O'Reilly have the power to shut down the presses of the New York Times?
I know it is fun to get all hot and bothered by these professional
blatherers, but until such time as they meld into the Government, it might
be best for every one to take a deep breath and say, with Glinda the Good
Witch: ³You have no power here. Begone, before somebody drops a house on
you.²

---

From: "Nathan Cochrane" <ncochrane () theage fairfax com au>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the left
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:01:29 +1000
Hi Declan

To the British at the time, the US was founded on the traitorous actions of
the colonies' subjects. The patriots to modern Americans were viewed as
traitors to the Crown. And if any state tried now to do what the US holds
high as the mark of liberation (ie secede), the rebels would be put down
violently by the current Administration.

---

Reply-To: <jktaber () tacni net>
From: "John K. Taber" <jktaber () tacni net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Jamie McCarthy on "treason" claims from the right and the left
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:12:37 -0500

While this is an interesting compilation, it seems to
me that McCarthy strains pretty hard to include the Left
in the list of treason criers.

It plain isn't what I observe on Usenet. The overwhelming
preponderance (and no, I haven't counted) of accusations
come from the right, and are charged against Democrats
and Liberals, not the more traditional targets of the
Left, such as commies and socialists and one-worlders.

Note the preponderance of newsmax as McCarthy's sources.
That's what I observe too.

I find the prevalence of these accusations disturbing,
especially since they are not disavowed by presumably
more responsible leaders in, say, the Republican Party,
or the Right Wing movements.

I'm a nominal Democrat, and sometimes in arguments
people accuse me of being a "lib'rul" though I don't
find myself so. Depending on their passion, I'm even
accused of socialism or communism, which is preposterous.
Basically, I disagree with them on some dip-ship point
that they hold dear. People have a problem with
disagreement.

So what does Ann Coulter mean, calling Democrats traitors?
That I should be shot? Thrown in a concentration camp?
Denied my civil rights? And why doesn't a more responsible
spokesperson disavow her claims? Say, Grover Norquist, or
Christopher Ruddy. Ruddy's website, newsmax, instead is
pushing her book.

As I read them, the extreme Right is asking for civil
war. It's not just name calling. Is that what we want?

I take offense. And if you or they really want civil
war, there are those who will give it to them. Do you
want that?

The Right is not just name calling.

As for the Left, McCarthy is straining to find similar
accusations. The Left is so weak and marginalized
it is not important. You have to get to hardcore
Trotskyites before you can find similar hateful
speech. They say they want to kill the Ruling Class,
whatever that is. Nobody, but nobody, can pretend
that the Trots are an important political group.

That is not the case for Coulter or Ruddy. They
ARE important.


John K. Taber




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------