Durch JOANNE SEEMANN

Beschränkungen aller Art haben im erhöhten Sicherheit Klima der letzten Sechs-und-einhälfte Jahre multipliziert, also sollte es keine überraschung sein, die, um die Welt, zugelassene Beschränkungen auf Rede festgezogen haben. Seit 2001 hat es eine freie Tendenz in Richtung zum Verbieten der Rede gegeben, die als stützender Terrorismus wahrgenommen wird, und in Richtung zum Abhalten der Verbreitung Material-einschließlich der Bücher, der videos, und anderer Formen von geschrieben und Graphik, Kommunikation-daß geglaubt werden, um vom Gebrauch für Terroristtätigkeit zu sein.

Internationale Schutze auf freiem Ausdruck schränken keineswegs Regierungen von direkten Anreiz kriminell verfolgen auf Terrorismusrede ein, die direkt die Kommission eines Verbrechens anregt, Strafprozesses ergeben soll, und wahrscheinlich, Verbrecher zu ergeben Tätigkeit-ob ist, oder nicht Strafprozesses resultiert tatsächlich. (In den Vereinigten Staaten, in denen die Beschaffenheit strengere Schutze für Ausdruck als anderwohin gefunden auferlegt, haben die Gerichte daß das verbotene Anreizgeschenk eine Gefahr „des unmittelbar drohenden“ Strafprozessen. erfordert), dennoch ist die zugelassene Tendenz global nicht nur criminalize direkten Anreiz zur Terroristtätigkeit, aber criminalize indirektes Anreiz-zu verbieten die Rede, die wahrgenommen wird, wie, rechtfertigend, verteidigend, oder Terrorismus „, glorifizierend“. Dieses, vom Standpunkt des freien Ausdruckes, ist problematisch.

Die britische Regierung ist ein Führer in dieser Bemühung gewesen. Nicht nur hat es neue inländische Gesetze verabschiedet, um Rede, es zu regulieren hat betätigt internationale Anstalten, die Ausgabe aufzunehmen. Im September 2005 das U.N. Sicherheit Rat nahm eine Großbritannien-geförderte Auflösung an, die behauptete, „Versuche an der Rechtfertigung abzulehnen, oder Verherrlichung (apologie) der Terroristtaten, die anreizen können, weiterer Terrorist fungiert.“ Obgleich die Auflösung den Bezeichnung Anreiz, anstatt indirekten Anreiz verwendete, schlugen seine Hinweise auf Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung ein ausgedehntes Verständnis der Bezeichnung vor.

Früh nahm dieses Jahr, der Europarat, ein europäischer Körper der menschlichen Rechte, eine Versammlung über die Verhinderung von Terrorismus mit ähnlich ausdehnender Sprache an. Der Vertrag erfordert Zustände criminalize „allgemeine Provokation“ von Terrorismus, ein Verbrechen, das indirekten Anreiz einschließen könnte. The convention defines public provocation as the public dissemination of a message “with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed.” Note the clear erosion of the incitement standard: There’s no need for the message to directly encourage terrorism, and rather than having to be “likely” to result in criminal action, it’s enough that the message may “cause a danger” of such action.

A Global Survey

Let’s review a few examples from different countries to get a better sense of what kinds of statements these laws tend to cover:

. The UK’s 2006 counterterrorism law criminalizes any public statement that is intended to encourage, or that recklessly encourages, acts of terrorism, if the statement takes the form of “glorif[ying] the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences” and is such that the audience “could reasonably infer” that what is being glorified should be emulated. (A 2000 UK law already specifies that “inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism” is a criminal offense, one punishable in the same manner as the offense that was incited.)

. Under Zimbabwe’s 2006 counterterrorism law, a person who “solicits, invites, or encourages moral or material support” for a designated terrorist organization commits an offense.

. The United Arab Emirates’ 2004 counterterrorism law reportedly provides for up to five years of imprisonment for anyone who promotes verbally or in writing any of the offenses set out in the law.

. Bahrain’s 2006 counterterrorism law includes extremely broad and vaguely-drafted restrictions on expression. The law provides that: “Whoever uses religion, religious buildings, public places or religious festivities to propagate provocative appeals or extremist ideas, or holds notices/posters, or puts up graphics, pictures, slogans or signs that might create fitna [disorder] or insult monotheist religions, their symbols or their believers, or harm the national unity or social peace, or destabilize security or public order shall be punished by imprisonment and fine or one or both penalties.” The legislation also provides that anyone who “promotes or approves, in any way” of a terrorist act faces imprisonment.

. El Salvador’s 2006 counterterrorism law prescribes a five- to ten-year prison sentence for anyone who publicly justifies terrorism.

. In Australia, the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act bars organizations from advocating terrorism. An organization is understood to advocate a terrorist act if it: 1) “directly or indirectly counsels or urges” such an act; 2) “provides instruction” on how to commit such an act, or 3) “directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person Ö to engage in a terrorist act.”

. Turkey’s 2006 counterterrorism law imposes criminal penalties on those who “make propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims.” The law provides for harsher penalties for those who do so using the media. A Council of Europe expert committee has criticized the provision, finding it to be “ambiguous and written in wide and vague terms.”

. Under French and Spanish counterterrorism laws, which predate the September 11 terrorist attacks, the act of justifying terrorism (apologie or apolog’a) is a crime. The difference between the two countries is that such prosecutions are quite common in Spain, whereas they are extremely rare in France.

What these laws generally have in common is broad language, which may in some instances cover legitimate political speech, and which gives prosecutors enormous discretion in deciding when and if to bring a case.

Possession of a Map Without an Excuse

In some countries, moreover, not only is it illegal to express views deemed to support terrorism, it is illegal to possess materials that support terrorism. Again, the UK has taken the lead in this area, both in passing legislation to restrict the possession and dissemination of such materials, and in prosecuting alleged offenders.

. Under the UK’s 2000 counterterrorism law, the possession of articles connected to terrorism–including terrorism-related publications or videos–is a criminal offense, as long as there is some minimal showing that the person’s possession of the items may be related to plans to commit terrorism. Specifically, the law provides that: “[a] person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”

. Another provision of the same UK law criminalizes the possession of documents containing information “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” This extremely broad provision–which could otherwise bar, for example, possessing a map of London–also provides that a person charged with violating the law may defend against prosecution by proving that he has “a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.”

. Finally, the 2006 UK counterterrorism law criminalizes the distribution of “terrorist publications,” defined as publications that either glorify terrorist acts or are made available “wholly or mainly” because they would be useful in the commission or preparation of terrorist acts.

Preemptive Action against Terrorism

The reasoning behind such laws is understandable. Governments want to stop terrorism before it occurs; indeed, they would prefer to deal with the problem before the potential terrorist gets anywhere near the stage of actually planning violent acts. Some proportion of the people who communicate support for terrorism, or who read terrorist publications, may one day be moved to action.

Still, a spate of recent prosecutions in the UK does little to instill confidence in these laws. Defendants have included a couple of 17-year-olds, and a young woman known (for her poems) as the “lyrical terrorist.” Are such people really a threat? It’s hard to tell; the problem with preemptive action is that it’s based on prediction. And while some number of adolescents may go from downloading Al Qaeda videos to actively supporting terrorism, the gap between the two activities is large.

By wasting scarce legal and prosecutorial resources going after speech, rather than action, governments may be doing more harm than good. The defendants in such cases no doubt see them as political and religious persecution, and their families, neighbors and larger communities may agree.

Joanne Mariner is a human rights attorney based in New York.

flamesong
RINF Alternative News

Unconfirmed reports on the internet suggest that filmmaker and political activist Aaron Russo died on 24th August 2007 after a struggle with cancer. He will be perhaps most remembered for his outspoken work, America: From Freedom to Fascism.

Although a filmmaker, famous for producing films as Trading Places and The Rose as well as managing Bette Midler, Aaron Russo became politically active when he produced the film Mad As Hell - which took its name from the phrase ranted by Peter Finch in the film Network - in which he was critical of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), the introduction of identity cards, the so-called war on drugs and proposed regulations on alternative medicine.

He made numerous attempts to seek elected office including his 2004 campaign for nomination as the Libertarian Party candidate for US president in which he was only defeated in the final ballot by a modest majority.

He had been acquainted with some of the most powerful people in the world with some of whom he fell foul - including Nicholas Rockefeller about whom he said:

‘Here’s what I do know first hand - I know that about eleven months to a year before 9/11 ever happened I was talking to my Rockefeller friend (Nicholas Rockefeller) and he said to me ‘Aaron there’s gonna be an event’ and he never told me what the event was going to be - I’m not sure he knew what the event was going to be I don’t know that he knew that,’‘He just said there’s gonna be an event and out of that event we’re gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order and we’re going to go after Venezuela - that’s what’s going to come out of this event.’‘Eleven months to a year later that’s what happened….he certainly knew that something was going to happen.’‘In my relationships with some of these people I can tell you that it’s as evil as it really gets - this is it - this is the game.’

Reverend Billy was arrested and detained last night while reciting the First Amendment in Union Square. The police claimed his preaching it at this month’s Critical Mass constituted “Harassment of a Public Official”. The NYPD has a history of some controversial arrests at the Critical Mass events, and at last night’s the number of police practically outnumbered the riders. From the press release we received:

“…even unaffiliated riders were ticketed as they approached the park. Reverend Billy and his partner Savitri D were reciting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to the gathered police force when Lieutenant Daniel Albano, head of the NYPD’s Legal Division, ordered the Reverend’s arrest and detention at the 13th Precinct station. It is believed Albano is the public official Reverend Billy has been charged with harassing.”

This brings up ongoing concern over protecting civil liberties and rights to free assembly and political action. However, it also draws attention to selectively enforced Parade Laws, drafted by the police and passed into law by the City Council earlier this year. The law criminalizes gatherings of more than 50 people that do not have permits. Something the press release points out is that “while the NYPD surrounded and intimidated last night’s Critical Mass cyclists, a line of several hundred shoppers formed just across the street to purchase the new iPhone, blocking pedestrian traffic and forcing people to walk in the street.”

As of now, Reverend Billy is being held at 100 Centre Street, awaiting arraignment. Hopefully he’ll be out for tomorrow’s Hot and Holy Highline Revival show!

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News 

An independent news web site has begun appealing for help from members of the public in a bid to get re-enlisted in Google News.

The web site, thepeoplesvoice.org has been accused of publishing anti-Semitic content and hate material due to their criticism of Israel.

The web site strongly denies the accusations.

Thepeoplesvoice.org said: “We post excellent articles by many different people and from journalists risking their lives to bring us the non-corporate truth about the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is what we are about, giving people a voice on the net to speak out on environmental political and social justice issues.”

Apparently the web site has been pulled from Google’s news service because of complaints from users.

“Although Google News doesn’t proactively review articles or images for adult content, violence, or hate speech, we depend largely on user reports to identify articles containing these materials. We appreciate any feedback with regard to these types of content appearing in our News index,” said the Internet giant.

Whilst investigating the web site I could not find any example of hate or anti-Semitic content.

Independent media is our best hope of exposing and stopping the criminal cabal from enforcing a New World Order through illegal wars, fear tactics and 24/7 surveillance. Give alternative media your support. Contact Google News.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A high school student’s ”Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner got slapped down by the Supreme Court in a decision Monday that restricts student speech rights when the message seems to advocate illegal drug use.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Joseph Frederick, who unfurled his handiwork at a school-sanctioned event in 2002, triggering his suspension and leading to a lengthy court battle.

”The message on Frederick’s banner is cryptic,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. But the school principal who suspended him ”thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.

In a concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy said the court’s opinion ”goes no further” than speech interpreted as dealing with illegal drug use.

”It provides no support” for any restriction that goes to political or social issues, they said.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling ”does serious violence to the First Amendment.”

Students in public schools don’t have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school’s basic educational mission.

Frederick said his banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended it to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

Frederick displayed his handiwork on a winter morning as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

School principal Deborah Morse said the phrase was a pro-drug message. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use and brought a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal, called it a narrow ruling that ‘’should not be read more broadly.”

Taking issue with that, Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, ”It is difficult to know what its impact will be in other cases involving unpopular speech.”

The Students for Sensible Drug Policy said it was sad that the court thought there should be a drug exception to the First Amendment.

In their concurrence Alito and Kennedy said that the decision ”goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use.”

Nor does it address political or social issues such as the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, Alito and Kennedy said, embracing language from Stevens’ strong dissent.

Stevens said the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students.

”This nonsense banner does neither,” Stevens said.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should not have decided the First Amendment issue, but should have simply held that Frederick’s claim for monetary damages because school officials have qualified immunity in carrying out their duties.

Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son’s legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.

The Alaska Intel ReportThursday

Bill Adams

There is a war going on folks.
No missiles, no bombs, no bullets, but a war none the less.
This is a war against democracy, a war against free speech.

Ever since Ron Pauls amazing showing the other night on the Republican debate, people have been pouring into the polls, forums, and other places on the net to demonstrate their support for Congressman Paul and the ideas he has put forth, and to share their thoughts about the debate.

At first, the ‘Big Money Media’ like ABC and Yahoo made an attempt to accomadate this feedback by giving us a place to post our comments about their articles.
It would seem that as soon as it became clear that there was a ground swell of support for Mr. Paul they went into ‘bury’ mode.

First they trotted our their talking heads to try to explain it all away by claiming that a few Paul supporters were bombing the sites with repeated messages and this was not a true representation of the ‘people’. However, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of how websites work knows, most sites deposit cookies to prevent repeated votes in addition to other measures that can be implemented to insure fair accounting. However they chose not to address the security issue. (I wonder why)

Finally in desperation, realizing that there was no way to stem the tide, they started blocking favorable comments for Mr. Paul. When that didn’t work, they finally started removing and shutting down these forums and comment sections of their websites.

This naked attempt to silence the voice of the American people and control what is said about the candidates by the media elites, is nothing less then outrageous.

Below is a partial collection of ‘comments’ from FMNN and it represents hundreds of more from forums all over the net.

“ABC News Silences Posters … As of yesterday, I can no longer view comments on stories at ABC News. I had joined members of the Digg community yesterday in commenting on an ABC News story about Ron Paul. In order to do this, I created a user ID on the ABCNEWS.COM website. Today I went to read the news on ABC’s web site, and wanted to comment on another article that I thought was interesting. When I added my comments and tried to post, I was asked to log in to the ABC News site, so I did. The news article re-appeared, but now without any comments section at all. Not only can I not post comments on ABC News, but I can not read comments on ABC News stories while I am logged in. As soon as I log out of the web site, I am able to read posted comments. ABC has effectively silenced me as a contributor to their discussions for my actions on the Ron Paul story that I posted about yesterday.”
RandomblingsFromRich

1. 5/10/2007 - 16:34:16PM
BY: A. Magnus
“Yahoo news took down their bulletin boards a while back because it was becoming impossible for the Freepers and the army psyops guys to manufacture any credible semblance for Bushevik support among the posters. When the overwhelming volume of posts became anti-Bush and anti-war, Yahoo took the boards down just like ABC just did.”

2. 5/10/2007 - 17:57:0PM
BY: Noel Gibeson
“Exact same thing happened to me. ABC News does not want our comments and that is why they are playing games on their website by not posting comments. We must continue to use alternative media. Here is what I tried to post on the statist ABC News website:

“Congressman Ron Paul is a fine gentleman who believes that politicians should actually follow the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Such behavior - following the Constitution - would be news to most current members of Congress and the Executive branches of government. Perhaps we should listen to what Ron Paul has to say.”

Hardly the ravings of some political hot head !

It’s time to get ‘creative’ and start pushing these school yard bully’s back where they belong, because if we don’t … (Censored!)

http://alaskaintel.blogspot.com/

Bill is a member of the post war ‘baby boom’ after WWII, and came of age during the civil rights struggle of the 50’s and 60’s, and the Vietnam War soon thereafter. The assassination of Jack Kennedy made a huge impact on him and his doubts about the ‘official’ explanation launched him into a lifelong search for the truth which has taken him down many paths, from Zen Buddhism to a two year study of the Koran at the Islamic Center in Wash. DC . In 1984 this self proclaimed ‘intellectual atheist’ had what could only be described as profound ‘Damascus Road’ experience which was to change his spiritual life forever. With the advent of the internet, his search really went into high gear, and after 911, it accelerated even more. Now living in rural Alaska with his best friend ‘Buddy’ (his red nosed pit-bull) he has traded a career as a computer consultant for simpler way of life and when he’s not hunting, fishing, or chopping firewood for the wood stove, he continues this search, peeling back the layers of the onion and shining in the light of the truth and watching the enemy squirm.