Oz Atheist’s Weblog presents Carnival of the Godless #99
And, Holy Holies, I got the Thinker Award!
Archive for August, 2008
Carnival of the Godless #99 – Hosted by OzAtheist
Saturday, August 30th, 2008Run DNC
Thursday, August 28th, 2008Whether you’re an activist who’s joined the Recreate 68 Alliance because you’re tired of being “sold out” by the Democratic Party, a member of the Troops Out Now Coalition fighting to end the war, or an asshat from the Westboro Baptist Church who believes the Almighty Gawd hates Obama as much as he hates “fags,” plenty of people have their reasons for protesting at this year’s Democratic National Convention being held this week in Denver, Colorado. And thanks to the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”1 U.S. citizens are free to do just that.
However, as was demonstrated with pepper spray, police batons and handcuffs on Monday night, the rights of protesters are limited and often trampled on by law enforcement. Despite an unexpectedly low turnout at Monday morning’s “Free the political prisoners” march, participants found themselves surrounded for much of the route by officers in full riot gear, on mounted patrols, on foot, on bicycles, in helicopters, and even standing on platforms mounted to the sides of patrol units.2 After a police officer drew his weapon on a peaceful crowd in front of the federal courthouse, some protesters commented that they could soon end up as “taser bait.”3 That evening, about a mile from the DNC, police clashed with about 300 protesters, spraying many of them with pepper spray and arresting about one-third of them on charges of failure to obey a lawful order, obstructing a public roadway, and interference. According to Larry Hales of Recreate 68 (R68), “The Denver school budget has been cut by more than $50 million just to provide the funds to the Denver Police. This atmosphere has been created to justify that budget.”4
Whatever their motives, officials are certainly covering all their bases. Earlier this month, The Denver City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting protesters from carrying feces for use as protest material during the convention. More Monday madness saw to the arrest of 22-year-old Zachary Patrick Grey, who was carrying what he says was a bottle of coffee and soy milk when he was surrounded by about 20 officers and took off running. He dropped the bottle as he was being chased down, but the police claim that he was preparing to throw it and that it was filled with feces, not coffee. Grey is now facing charges of interference, disturbing the peace and possession of “irritants” in public.5
On Tuesday, protesters’ rights were blatantly violated when police disregarded the permit R68 held for the Civic Center Park by helping to bring in right wing groups such as the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church. When R68 organizers demanded their right to the space they had legally obtained, authorities arrested organizer Carlo Garcia, who happens to have two brothers serving in Iraq and a father who received a purple heart. When Alicia Torres, organizer for Code Pink, questioned Garcia’s arrest, she was arrested as well and claims to have been struck by the arresting officers.6
So, what exactly comprises our rights to demonstrate and protest? The First Amendment protects all forms of communication including speech, symbolism, music, theater, film and dance. Controversial and/or unpopular views can never legally be suppressed. However, any illegal acts committed while exercising your free speech, such as the obstruction of pedestrian or street traffic, may lead to criminal punishment. Despite the fact that many law enforcement officers love to instruct people standing on the sidewalk to “keep moving,” this is actually a misunderstanding of the law on their part. So long as there is room for others to pass, protesters may remain in one place on the sidewalk as long as they please.
Typically, permits are not required except for large events that will require traffic to be blocked or will create excess noise or other disruptions. Officials are prohibited from using advance notice of a demonstration to prevent it from occurring, but many permit ordinances give a lot of discretion to police and city officials to impose conditions and restrictions on events. These restrictions can often violate the First Amendment if they interfere with a group’s ability to communicate with its intended audience, or if the restrictions are unnecessary for public safety and/or traffic control. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly common for local governments to impose on those wishing to exercise their free speech rights various financial costs such as application fees, security deposits, and charges to cover overtime pay for police officers. However, these regulations require the inclusion of a waiver to protect groups that do not have the financial resources to cover the fees. Also, the courts will not allow local governments to hike up the fees for events that are controversial or expected to have a greater cost.7
We all know that it never does any good to argue with a street patrol officer, under any condition. So, what should you do if your rights are being violated by a law enforcement officer? According to the National Lawyers Guild, the best thing to do is to ask to speak to a superior. So long as you have not disrupted anyone else’s activity, your actions are protected by the First Amendment and you should explain this to the superior officer. You may still be arrested for failure to obey an officer, or other charges depending on the circumstances. The matter would then be left to the courts to decide.
Regardless, you should know your rights and how to exercise them. Free speech is not always free, and it’s up to us citizens to keep our government in check and protect our right to speak our minds.
- http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html [<]
- http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17293936/detail.html [<]
- http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-streets-of-denver-free-political.html [<]
- http://www.commondreams.org/news-2008/0826-31793.htm [<]
- http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10317143 [<]
- http://www.commondreams.org/news-2008/0826-31793.htm [<]
- (http://www.nlg-la.org/free_speech_rights.pdf [<]
Carnival of the Godless #98 at Letters from a broad
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008Carnival of the Godless at Letters from a broad.
If you want to submit an article for the next Carnival of the Godless, do so HERE.
The Time Bomb Torture Test
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008
Scenario:
You are leading an investigation regarding a potential terrorist plot to set off a bomb in the middle of Manhattan. You have good reason to believe that the bomb is set to go off on the anniversary of 9/11. The date today is September 10.
You have captured a person whom you have verified as being a member of the terrorist group in question. You have reason to believe that this person knows where the bomb will be planted and knows the location of the other members of the terrorist group.
Your intelligence level of reliability and accuracy is based loosely on past experience and the consistent reliability of the same sources. You would rate the accuracy of your “reason to believe” at about 90% (about a 10% possibility of error).
Based on your information, the bomb would kill around one million people. (There are about 1.6 million people living in Manhattan).
You have some educated guesses as to where the bomb may be located, but you lack the resources and time to be able to cover even a small fraction of those locations.
You have approximately 12 hours before you believe the bomb will detonate.
You have been given special permission by the President of the United States to use any means necessary to prevent the bomb from detonating, and assurance that you will be immune from any criminal or civil liability based on your actions. This guarantee is in writing, and you have no reason to believe it is insincere. It also covers any attempt at extradition by any international courts. (Basically, for purposes of the hypothetical, assume that regardless of what you do, you will not be legally liable).
You have unrestricted access to the prisoner (who speaks English), and unrestricted access to any devices that may be acquired and used within a 12-hour period.
Assuming that the prisoner is adamant about trying not to reveal any information regarding the whereabouts of the bomb or the other members of the terrorist organization,
What do you do to try to extract the necessary information from the prisoner?
Options:
1: Use unrestricted torture devices and methods
2: Use torture devices and methods, but limited in a certain way (which you will explain in your comment)
3: Use only methods authorized by the Human Rights Convention and other applicable humanitarian international and domestic law
4: Only interrogate verbally (including any sort of psychological methods)
5: Only interrogate verbally (without resorting to psychological manipulation)
6: Something else
Also, please consider these additional questions:
a. Would you allow the prisoner to have a personal legal representative (attorney) present?
b. Depending on which option you chose, would you perform any of the interrogation/torture personally, or would you delegate that duty?
c. Would you video tape or otherwise record any or all of the interrogation?
d. Would your answer to the original question (level of torture) differ depending on the gender of the prisoner?
e. Would your answer differ if the prisoner were a white, U.S.-born anglo-saxon? Male? Female?
f. Would you use forms of mutilation? Genital mutilation?
g. Would you consider rape (either for a male or female prisoner), or the threat of rape to be an acceptable form of torture in this scenario?
h. If you had access to the prisoner’s 10-year-old daughter, would you consider torturing the daughter in order to extract information from the prisoner? If so, what’s the extent of torture you would use against the daughter (in terms of the options above)?
i. If you had access to two otherwise equal prisoners, would you kill one in order to extract information from the other?
j. If you had not gotten the requisite information by hour 11, what would you do?
Photography Laws, Photographer Rights
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.1 I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise.
Today, I’m going to offer up some links to resources that you might find beneficial if you ever decide to take a photograph outside your own residence. Considering that so many cell phones have their own cameras, and that cameras are becoming more and more portable, it’s likely that anyone reading this has a camera, and can probably benefit from a bit of knowledge about what freedoms and restrictions exist in the realm of photography.2
Photography Bay — Photography Laws
Photo Attorney (look for the “Photography Not Allowed” posts for more examples of harassment)
Legal Andrew: Photo Law – Your Right to Take Pictures in Public
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
PhotoSecrets: The Law For Photographers — A free, online guide to the rules of taking and selling photos.
PhotoSecrets Links page
In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad
prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law,
including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the
basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may
constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.
The basic rule of thumb is that if the general public has access to a public forum
and may operate cameras within it, the press may do so as well.
Photo Junkie: Photographers Rights
Photos & The Law: The Legality of Urban Exploration Photography
Andrew Kantor: Legal Rights of Photographers
Kantor’s USATODAY photography rights article
Student Media of North Carolina State University: Photographers’ Manual
Feel free to include suggestions of your own in the comments.
- Why, you ask, is a blog devoted to rational activism posting articles regarding a photographer’s right to take pictures in public? Quite simply, State of Protest is dedicated to the elimination of all aspects of irrational, fear-based oppression, whether it be from religious organizations, political factions, neighborhood lynch party groups, or school boards. The photography issue has escalated since 9/11, and we’re all harmed by the misconception that restricting photography somehow ensures national security. While we, as a nation, criticize countries like China for restricting blogger, journalist, and photographer ability to capture and disseminate media critical of the government, we simultaneously create a false requirement of the same restrictions on the basis of national security. All the while, the government continues to increase its ability (and legal right) to invade our privacy with wiretapping, cctv, and other methods of information acquisition.
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”
– James Madison. Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788. [<]
- Note that I am not affiliated with any of the individuals or organizations behind these links. I’ve derived the links from my own searches. I’m not being paid to provide any of these links. I am not providing any legal advice, and I am not suggesting that any of the links provide legal, proper, or correct advice. I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, consult an licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. [<]
