Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
So what you are saying, in essence, is that we are really REQUIRED to answer the very instrusive questions in this survey, or risk losing our home and our freedom if we don't? To me, this is not freedom, as you have indicated, if only certain people face this risk, and not the population as a whole. Somehow, also, I don't believe for a minute that people are randomly picked. This year, once again, our oldest daughter (49) and her fifteen year old multi-racial daughter moved in with us. We also have a small trailer in Florida, which we are trying to sell, but have spent part of every winter for the past couple of years out of the state in which we live. So all of a sudden, a daughter who receives state benefits, with a non-white child, and we who have worked part-time until this spring, are being asked these very intrusive questions.
I also, contacted our state representatives, of course to no avail. I had never heard of these surveys until this year, as has no one else I have talked to--so why do they keep this quiet, if it is so legal and necessary? We have had many stressors in our lives in the past few years, and now I am losing sleep over this--it definitely is Big Brother watching, especially when you hear that laptops from census takers have gone missing, etc. If I sound angry, I am angry beyond belief--this sounds like a conspiracy of some kind, and I am usually not a conspiracy theorist.
In the on-line research I have done, apparently 45% of the people who receive these do not respond--what happens to these people? Sounds like we could be subjected to harassment of various kinds--also the threat that hangs over us sounds very, very 1984ish to me.
B. Meyers
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
GPS and the Police State We Inhabit: Living in Oceania
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Very interesting and thorough. You might add "Facebook", but I don't know much about that.
J. McVickar
Great article as usual John.
Yup, big brother is watching (inevitably), pity the government is not a big brother.
Rather we are suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
What better way to control the masses other than make them feel vaguely guilty of something (real or imagined) all the time.
I've now been living in the USA for 10 years (legally), working hard, paying tax, jumping through every hoop presented before me.
Yet, this is the way I am slowly, incrementally learning to think and feel - I am a suspect.
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
America has definitely seen better days.
J. Grounds
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
The two most disturbing aspects of what you write are: 1. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, and republicans are all on board with the government having this power, and 2. The mainstream media will cheerleader this with the most annoying cliche --- well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
Let's face it Mr. Whirehead, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in reality, have been reduced to documents under glass. They are to be seen, and admired, but totally ignored by what passes for justice (sic) in early 21st century America.
And, as I tell my friends and associates, most of whom are rabid Faux News enthusiasts, if one is waiting for political salvation from the GOP, or the dems for that matter, they will be sorely disappointed.
Best regards,
B. Gentile
Sir:
Your article describes perfectly one of the reasons that I refuse to get a cell phone. Another reason is that cell phones can be turned on remotely to enable the police and others to monitor your conversations, even when you are not using the phone. The only way to stop this is to remove the battery.
C. Browne
It is much worse than just tracking your location via GPS.
Cell phones can be used as bugging devices to monitor your (non-telephone) conversations, and the U.S. government routinely does this.
There was a court case brought by a known mafioso to try to stop the government from listening in on people's conversations.
The government prevailed (no surprise).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/your-cell-phone-can-be-used-to-eavesdrop-on-you-even-when-turned-off/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1fNjK9SXg
H.
John,
While I agree with the Oceania allusions, you are way off in blaming technology. Technology is a tool. The criminals are those who (mis)use it. What you're doing is tantamount to blaming guns for shootings.
You will never stop the thought police by stripping them of some of their tools. The tools do not matter. There were no cell phones and GPS in 1984's Oceania.
M. Turner
Hi John,
Just read your recent essay at LRC. I can assure you, we already live in Oceania, our rights are violated on a daily basis for prolonged periods of time. Government is out of control, they are creating problems where no problems should exist. I don't think this will end well.
The intrusions are far more insidious than you suggest and somehow we have to fight back and halt this monster.
Sincerely,
M. Porter
Hi
In the words of the late Harry Browne. He said " there may a camera in every room but it won't work".
It seems to me that we have arrived at that point. The morons in charge may have access to data but they can't make it work. Too much, the cameras break, the lenses show unclear images, bureaucrats and bureaucracies are systemically lazy on top of that.
Our only real defense is the ineptitude of those behind the cameras.
Despite all of the satellites and radios and heavy artillery and airplanes and helicoptors and high powered weapons we are unable to defeat a bunch of Afghani's and Iraqi's with AK47's and RPG's. My explanation for this is that they are not incompetent and we are.
Funny stuff.
All the best.
J. Harrison
Very interesting and thorough. You might add "Facebook", but I don't know much about that.
J. McVickar
Great article as usual John.
Yup, big brother is watching (inevitably), pity the government is not a big brother.
Rather we are suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
What better way to control the masses other than make them feel vaguely guilty of something (real or imagined) all the time.
I've now been living in the USA for 10 years (legally), working hard, paying tax, jumping through every hoop presented before me.
Yet, this is the way I am slowly, incrementally learning to think and feel - I am a suspect.
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
America has definitely seen better days.
J. Grounds
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
The two most disturbing aspects of what you write are: 1. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, and republicans are all on board with the government having this power, and 2. The mainstream media will cheerleader this with the most annoying cliche --- well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
Let's face it Mr. Whirehead, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in reality, have been reduced to documents under glass. They are to be seen, and admired, but totally ignored by what passes for justice (sic) in early 21st century America.
And, as I tell my friends and associates, most of whom are rabid Faux News enthusiasts, if one is waiting for political salvation from the GOP, or the dems for that matter, they will be sorely disappointed.
Best regards,
B. Gentile
Sir:
Your article describes perfectly one of the reasons that I refuse to get a cell phone. Another reason is that cell phones can be turned on remotely to enable the police and others to monitor your conversations, even when you are not using the phone. The only way to stop this is to remove the battery.
C. Browne
It is much worse than just tracking your location via GPS.
Cell phones can be used as bugging devices to monitor your (non-telephone) conversations, and the U.S. government routinely does this.
There was a court case brought by a known mafioso to try to stop the government from listening in on people's conversations.
The government prevailed (no surprise).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/your-cell-phone-can-be-used-to-eavesdrop-on-you-even-when-turned-off/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1fNjK9SXg
H.
John,
While I agree with the Oceania allusions, you are way off in blaming technology. Technology is a tool. The criminals are those who (mis)use it. What you're doing is tantamount to blaming guns for shootings.
You will never stop the thought police by stripping them of some of their tools. The tools do not matter. There were no cell phones and GPS in 1984's Oceania.
M. Turner
Hi John,
Just read your recent essay at LRC. I can assure you, we already live in Oceania, our rights are violated on a daily basis for prolonged periods of time. Government is out of control, they are creating problems where no problems should exist. I don't think this will end well.
The intrusions are far more insidious than you suggest and somehow we have to fight back and halt this monster.
Sincerely,
M. Porter
Hi
In the words of the late Harry Browne. He said " there may a camera in every room but it won't work".
It seems to me that we have arrived at that point. The morons in charge may have access to data but they can't make it work. Too much, the cameras break, the lenses show unclear images, bureaucrats and bureaucracies are systemically lazy on top of that.
Our only real defense is the ineptitude of those behind the cameras.
Despite all of the satellites and radios and heavy artillery and airplanes and helicoptors and high powered weapons we are unable to defeat a bunch of Afghani's and Iraqi's with AK47's and RPG's. My explanation for this is that they are not incompetent and we are.
Funny stuff.
All the best.
J. Harrison
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Marriage Meltdown: Gay Unions, Divorce and the Dysfunctional Family
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
The destruction of marriage is no accident. The traditional family stood as the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical government so that had to go. Through Title IV-D the states profit from the destruction of the family through divorce. They do this by offering incentive to women to leave their husbands; they get the kids and the money that comes with it. This is why 80% of all divorces are initiated by women.
There have been attempts in almost every state to put some semblance of fairness into the family court system by mandating assumed equal custody unless one parent is actually proven guilty of some real detriment to the children. These types of measures are viciously opposed by politicians, lawyers who profit from custody disputes, and the NOW.
True, many men leave their families. However, it is equally true that many men are driven from their homes, their children, and into poverty by the combined efforts of their former wives and the Casanova state.
It would be great to see a report from John on the so-called Family Court System in America and how it undermines the traditional family.
Sincerely,
S. Hopkins
The destruction of marriage is no accident. The traditional family stood as the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical government so that had to go. Through Title IV-D the states profit from the destruction of the family through divorce. They do this by offering incentive to women to leave their husbands; they get the kids and the money that comes with it. This is why 80% of all divorces are initiated by women.
There have been attempts in almost every state to put some semblance of fairness into the family court system by mandating assumed equal custody unless one parent is actually proven guilty of some real detriment to the children. These types of measures are viciously opposed by politicians, lawyers who profit from custody disputes, and the NOW.
True, many men leave their families. However, it is equally true that many men are driven from their homes, their children, and into poverty by the combined efforts of their former wives and the Casanova state.
It would be great to see a report from John on the so-called Family Court System in America and how it undermines the traditional family.
Sincerely,
S. Hopkins
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Obama and War: What Would Jesus Do?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I want to commend you on your recent articles regarding Christianity and War. I wholeheartedly agree!
It is amazing that so many “Christians” are willing to endorse, support and even go to war, when it is very clear in scripture that doing so is a violation of the teachings of Jesus. While there will be wars in this world, they are not for Christians to be involved with. It is also a shame that so few Christian leaders (regardless of denomination) are willing to speak up about the subject. Instead they seem to prefer violence over non-violence. The only group of Christians that I’ve come across that have faithfully been opposed to war are the Anabaptists, particularly the Mennonites.
As you have said, the Early Church Fathers were opposed believers being in the military and causing violence. Too bad more Christians don’t read what the early Christians believed and practiced. When I started reading the Early Church Fathers, that was one of the main teachings and practices that stood out to me.
For those Christians that are in the military or are thinking about joining, I would suggest they read a book called “Change of Allegiance” by Dean Taylor. Both Dean and his wife were in the Army when they came to the realization that being a Christian is incompatible with the military and war.
Again, thank you for your recent articles and speaking the truth.
In Christ,
C. Prang
These bastards in Washington are controlled by the New World Order which make money with war and crime .
D. Ecker
Congrats on the Jesus and War article ,now if we could just find the Chrisians who practice it and join in, what a world we would have. Let me know if you have found a Church who not only teach it but are not ashamed to proclaim this truth and pratcie it aswell and Ill move.
Agian I enjoy reading things like that it shows Im not alone at least in my understanding of what Jesus was saying.
Tony S.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I want to commend you on your recent articles regarding Christianity and War. I wholeheartedly agree!
It is amazing that so many “Christians” are willing to endorse, support and even go to war, when it is very clear in scripture that doing so is a violation of the teachings of Jesus. While there will be wars in this world, they are not for Christians to be involved with. It is also a shame that so few Christian leaders (regardless of denomination) are willing to speak up about the subject. Instead they seem to prefer violence over non-violence. The only group of Christians that I’ve come across that have faithfully been opposed to war are the Anabaptists, particularly the Mennonites.
As you have said, the Early Church Fathers were opposed believers being in the military and causing violence. Too bad more Christians don’t read what the early Christians believed and practiced. When I started reading the Early Church Fathers, that was one of the main teachings and practices that stood out to me.
For those Christians that are in the military or are thinking about joining, I would suggest they read a book called “Change of Allegiance” by Dean Taylor. Both Dean and his wife were in the Army when they came to the realization that being a Christian is incompatible with the military and war.
Again, thank you for your recent articles and speaking the truth.
In Christ,
C. Prang
These bastards in Washington are controlled by the New World Order which make money with war and crime .
D. Ecker
Congrats on the Jesus and War article ,now if we could just find the Chrisians who practice it and join in, what a world we would have. Let me know if you have found a Church who not only teach it but are not ashamed to proclaim this truth and pratcie it aswell and Ill move.
Agian I enjoy reading things like that it shows Im not alone at least in my understanding of what Jesus was saying.
Tony S.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: They're After All of Us and You're Next
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
"The only resistance to the perceived repression, Body Snatchers tells us, is an embattled individualism."
Mr. Whitehead, you're an attorney. Have you assisted anyone who was attempting to fight (in court) the theft of his property via eminent domain? How about someone attempting to defend his personal liberty by fighting a ticket for refusing to wear a seatbelt.
It's easy to write about what is wrong with society. Getting chewed up and spit out of a corrupt corporate court system is another matter entirely.
D. Paape
I saw body snatchers when I was 6 years old and it scared the living daylights out of me. But your article has shed new light on a movie I was unable to understand as a child. Your article came at a very relevant time for me as we have been receiving "visits" and "calls" from the census bureau that irritate and bother us. Your statement, "There is hope in the defiant individual" is another moment of encouragement for us to continue resisting the invasive questioning.
Thank you for your well thought out article,
B. Stump
"The only resistance to the perceived repression, Body Snatchers tells us, is an embattled individualism."
Mr. Whitehead, you're an attorney. Have you assisted anyone who was attempting to fight (in court) the theft of his property via eminent domain? How about someone attempting to defend his personal liberty by fighting a ticket for refusing to wear a seatbelt.
It's easy to write about what is wrong with society. Getting chewed up and spit out of a corrupt corporate court system is another matter entirely.
D. Paape
I saw body snatchers when I was 6 years old and it scared the living daylights out of me. But your article has shed new light on a movie I was unable to understand as a child. Your article came at a very relevant time for me as we have been receiving "visits" and "calls" from the census bureau that irritate and bother us. Your statement, "There is hope in the defiant individual" is another moment of encouragement for us to continue resisting the invasive questioning.
Thank you for your well thought out article,
B. Stump
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Snyder v. Phelps: Will Misguided Patriotism Destroy Free Speech?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Mr Whitehead: Regarding the Westboro Baptist Church case on which you have recently written, I have some concerns of a different nature relative to cases of that sort (what sort I mean I will make clear below).
To me freedom of speech means the freedom not to be constrained in spoken or written expression of opinions, beliefs, etc., because of content, so long as such content does not explicitly incite others to actions that would threaten public safety. This freedom also includes absence of purposeful constraint on access to said expression by those who wish such access.
Currently, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the freedom of speech of an individual or group of individuals is being "abridged" if they are prevented from seeking out a captive audience and forcing their speech (or expression) on that audience. This is the case with the Westboro Baptist matter as with the American Nazis in Skokie who were successfully defended by the ACLU.
In my own view, my right to freely express myself is no more worthy of protection than your right to get out of earshot when I do so if you so desire. But I realize that others may differ. As for funerals, although I wouldn't distinguish that of a soldier from that of any other departed, those present certainly have a right to mourn without disruption. Laws of public nuisance, disturbance of the peace and trespass certainly should provide legitimate grounds for preventing such disruption.
And I would think that such limitations as denial of the right to force speech on an unwilling audience should not significantly diminish the effectiveness of a "free marketplace of ideas" so long as speech remains free to the extent indicated in my second paragraph above.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Justice Holmes did not consider other proper reasons for preventing an interloper from interrupting a theater performance than just his threatening public safety.
C. Coffman
Mr. Whitehead,
I wanted to thank you for your article linked on LewRockwell.com about Westboro Baptist Church and the implications of their pending lawsuits. I am a 6-year veteran of the North Carolina Air National Guard, and I have a long family history of military service. I’ve actually had my own run-ins with the Westboro church when I lived in Kansas, and have been the personal target of their protests several times.
But regardless of how offensive their speech is, and regardless of how sick it might make me to see them protest at the funeral of 18-year old kids killed because of their naïve belief that freedom can be gained through force of arms, I agree with you that attempts to silence such speech is a far greater threat to our liberties. As you quote by Holmes suggested, our freedom of speech is meaningless unless it protests the speech of those with which we disagree.
My biggest problem with Westboro is not their terribly bigoted views, but more of their attempts to goad people into violence through their protests. They abuse our broken legal system by doing their best to get people to react physically or by stopping the protest so that they can sue the parties involved for huge payouts through their own law firm. While speech and assembly definitely should be protected, massive lawsuits beyond just compensation should not be.
I also wanted to thank you for pointing out America’s culture of soldier worship. While that culture tends to benefit many in uniform, I have come to realize over my years in the military that the soldier culture is probably the best example of American socialism available and represents a model that is started to show the classic signs of socialist failure (e.g. military healthcare and soldier benefits now make up most of the DOD total budget and is continuing to skyrocket). I could give you example after example of massive waste and bureaucracy in just my little part of the military.
There are those of us working to reduce that waste and reduce the size of the military and military intervention from within though, but that seems more and more like a never ending fight with our multiple wars and continuing contingencies overseas. Please continue writing, and I’ll continue reading.
A. Smith
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)