Lecture: Losing Our Civil Liberties in Times of Crisis
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I attended a lecture Wednesday evening given by Idaho State University professor Dr. David Adler. “Loosing our civil liberties in times of crisis” was delivered in the Idaho Falls Bennion Student Union Building on the Idaho Falls ISU campus. John McGimpsey introduced the event, saying it was sponsored by the Idaho Progressive Students Alliance and the Snake River Freedom Coalition.
McGimpsey mentioned on the recent local case of teenagers who vandalized stop signs into “Stop War” messages, and those students are being threatened with felonies. He expressed he does not condone vandalism, but acknowledged the act was likely the result of feeling powerless in existing venues. T-shirts were sold with the proceeds helping those teens with their legal costs.
McGimpsey also observed that mainstream media is beginning to address this lecture’s topic more lately, blogs certainly cover the issue, and the City Club of Idaho Falls recently sponsored a speaker on this issue.
Dr. Adler spoke for an hour and took audience questions for an hour. I will summarize what was said from my notes, but please do not take them as direct quotes:
We cannot have too much citizen participation and democracy, and Dr. Adler gave hats off to those two groups who sponsored the lecture.
Discussed the Roman Empire, and how their democracy ended when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Nobody then predicted the loss of 1,000 years of civic self-rule and the demise of the great Roman Empire as a result of trading their freedom for security. When legislative power is dominated by executive power, our republic is threatened.
President George Bush’s assertion of executing supremacy is menacing to our democracy. Bush has asserted authority to conduct preemptive war, to conduct war without Congressional oversight, to detain Americans without access to due process, to suspend the Geneva Convention on his own, and of course to listen to our phone calls, and read our emails and letters. Bush has also invoked the state secrets defense so he decides what can be withheld from oversight, and has called foundational constitutional principles “quaint”.
This is not the first time in America when presidents have abused power during crisis, Adler said the government has lost it’s mind several times. For example the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed just seven years after we passed our first amendment. Adler questioned how we could have free speech when speech was being repressed? Many critics of President John Adams were imprisoned as a result. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, but ordered the Justice Department to arrest people criticizing his conduct of World War I. Some folks served 13 years in prison for just suggesting our country had violated laws. At the time Americans had no more freedoms than Russians, but we pretended we had freedom of speech despite the practices.
Government is intolerant of free speech because it is insecure in it’s own policies. President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order confining Japanese Americans to camps because of an Army report suggesting these citizens might be loyal to Japan if Japan invaded our mainland. The report was mostly based on discrimination, and there was no roundup of Italians or Germans in America.
McCarthyism during the 1950’s labeled citizens as disloyal, subversive, and communist if you questioned the government. Many people were required to register as communists with the government, which then violated a law prohibiting membership in the communist party, so you could then be sent to prison.
Adler believes it is far better to let people exhibit their discontent rather than force them underground. Freedom of speech means government has no right to investigate you based on what you say. Nobody knows the extent of Bush’s surveillance activities. What gives our government the authority to do this? Haven’t they heard of or appreciate our right to dissent? Our government needs a 101-style lesson on our basic freedoms. Prosecuting people over expressing speech displays an arrogance that our government thinks they own wisdom and know what is best.
In times of crisis, dissenting speech comes with a great price because our friends and neighbors may not agree or approve. However those people do not understand the real issue. The president’s press secretary warned after 9/11, “Those who criticize the President better watch what they say.” Attorney General John Ashcroft equated dissent to being a terrorist. Several Bush administration officials equated criticism to being unpatriotic. What does it suggest when our government says questioning them is helping the terrorists? Our government is insecure in hearing criticisms. In times of crisis we need more dissent, not less. In times of war we should speak out more to ensure the war doesn’t last forever and get conducted immorally; it is our expressed interest.
Our first amendment rights were written by the most dissenting and government-critical generation ever in America, and all were patriots who criticized the crown. If they did this, why should we feel disloyal for criticizing our government? If it was good enough for Thomas Payne, it is good enough for us. Dissent is not only your right, but also your duty to express concerns about policies that affect you. It is our government, not their government.
Freedom carries responsibilities to be informed and offer your views. It requires courage to support our constitution and bill of rights in times of crisis. We have retained our rights over 200 years through times of crisis because brave Americans stood up to our government and reminded them of our fundamental rights. Government cannot legally take away our rights so we should never give them up for security.
Adler asked which rights are you willing to give up on the premise that you will be more secured by government? Are you willing to give up your freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of religion, or freedom from slavery? Which are you willing to surrender? The fact is our government cannot guarantee our security anyway. Ben Franklin said, “those who trade freedom for security will have neither.”
We need to prevent America from crossing the Rubicon by expressing dissenting speech. It is difficult for us to contemplate the loss of our country, freedoms and liberties, but the Romans couldn’t contemplate it either and they lost it all. The only thing that has helped us survive as long as we have has been our insistence that our government respect our constitution and bill of rights. The key question of our time is if we too will accept that challenge. We never know when we will be a key cog in history, and it is a crucial challenge. Nobody else can make that choice for us. If we decide to dare expressing our views, we follow in the footsteps of our greatest Americans.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Here is a big reason that groups like the ACLU are derided…..and perhaps rightfully so…..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
The ACLU is protecting the rights of a child molester group. They also are coming to the defense of our good Senator Larry Craig. And people wonder why the ACLU is not taken seriously?
Vote:
0 0 This was an excellent story Joe. It really is amazing to see so many people think that the goverment gives us rights. In this mindset, we wait for the government to give us freedom. This type of thought leads into the government “giving” us other things like health care.
If people could only understand that the government’s job is not to give anyone anything….it’s job is to protect my rights and yours too. They can’t give something that already exists. But then again, I don’t think enough Americans appreciate this fact…..and because of this we get suckered into believing that the government is the provider of everything–including the right to free speech. Instead of limiting government interference, we welcome it in our public and private lives because it is all that we have been allowed to know amd become accustomed to. Then when our liberties are slowly eroded, we wonder why…..
Vote:
0 0 Another audience question was: “How do they get away with these ‘free speech zones’ lately which seem to just restrict our freedom?”
Adler responded that there is a legal justification that speech may be confined to an area for security reasons. There is a time/place/manner test in these cases.
However, the speakers can be relegated away from the audience and effectively the state has killed free speech. Judges get it wrong when they rule in favor of allowing these free speech zones. This is an ongoing current battle to fight. Remember a defeat one day in one courtroom does not mean the whole fight is over, it should motivate us to fight harder next time in the next courtroom.
Vote:
0 0 I, too am very alarmed at the ease in which the current regime was able to usurp our basic rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
I’ve seen the Franklin quote many times in many formats. I suppose one of these days I’ll have to look it up to see exactly how it really was said. But I agree with the premise.
I don’t care if the ACLU defends horrible people along with the good. That’s the whole idea…my concept of horrible may not match yours. Why should one of us be ‘right’ over the other??
I am really hoping for peace in my lifetime. I’m also hoping for accountability in government, both local and national. Dreamer, I am.
Vote:
0 0 Oh gee, why should one of us be right over the other? I don’t know, I kinda thought that child porn and raping kids was not a good idea….I guess maybe I should be AMORAL about all that and just let it go………….You know that free speech kind of thing and while we are at it how about freedom to act out as we please. This is why many people don’t support the ACLU because they support child rapists that used a web site by the National Man and Boy Love Association for psychological support of what they were about to do (abduct, sexually assault and kill young boys–read the link I posted for the full story). That is not free speech. In fact, it flies in the face of the rights of children to live free and clear of predators. You don’t go out and support people putting crap like that on-line and expect the membership rolls of the ACLU to increase.
There are no civil liberties to encourage predators and show them how to evade detection from law enforcement. Last time I checked that was still illegal, i.e. obstructing justice and/or accomplice after the fact by providing support to a know sexual predator. And if by some narrow legal definition ACLU types think it is legal they are plain nuts (and probably don’t have kids that could be hurt by these scum). Grrr….!
Vote:
0 0 Given the reality of limited resources, I am disappointed the ACLU chose to put their resources into defending NAMBLA and not any of the numerous other free speech cases that legitimately needed defending.
Anyone know how the ACLU decides their cases? I can’t help but think their mission/purpose is noble, but the way the carry it out is not. Who is in charge over there?
Vote:
0 0 Here you go, Joe:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
“In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.”
Vote:
0 0 Baloney…..the ACLU is selective in areas it gets involved in. They even tried to limit ability of their own board members to publicly take a position critical of the full boards actions…..and lept away from full transparency of their operations.
It is apparent that they don’t believe in true free speech. Here is a nice article on a piece of legislation they are helping Democrat Carolyn Mahoney with: It deals with limiting the ability of pro-life centers to advertise their services as alternatives to abortion. Can you believe it? The ACLU is actually sponsoring this. How about that next we sponsor legislation forcing abortion clinics to advertise themselves as baby killing facilities. The government has no place in this debate….yet, that is exactly what the ACLU is advocating. Why? Because they have a political agenda that doesn’t stop at “free speech”.
Read the link:
Vote:
0 0 Free speech is bandied about so much; I am all for it, as it was intended by the framers of the Constitution; however, “free speech” admittedly has limits; I cannot use speech that will incite violence; I cannot use speech or other expression that expresses racial hatred or suggests violence toward minorities (see any “hate crime” legislation); so I am puzzled as to ACLU’s explanation re: the NAMBLA debacle; NAMBLA maintains the site at issue to promote illegal activities: it is illegal to manufacture or simply possess child pornography in every state. Moreover, the site apparently, advocates the rape (anyone under each state’s “legal age” cannot give consent) of young boys. The “freedom of speech” everyne talks about is not limitless…..
If the ACLU were advocating on behalf of a site which informed one how to manufacture methamphetamine (again, advocating an illegal activity), would this discussion still be occuring??
Vote:
0 0 Haven’t you ever noticed that many people are all for “civil rights” as long as the guy expressing his civil rights through speech, religion, privacy, guns, etc., takes a view that is opposite to ours. Then we just can’t deal. Freedom of religion is fine, as long as you’re a member of my church. Freedom of speech is just dandy, as long as the views you express are the same as mine, freedom to bear arms is fabulous as long as you keep your gun locked up in a box complete with padlocks chains and alarm systems and don’t EVER take it out for any reason and for heaven’s sake don’t ever fire it! Privacy is great unless a cop wants to break your door down and search your house without a warrant, then we better forget that right cuz we all want to be safe against criminals no matter the cost (this only applies if they’re searching someone else’s house). There are like what 300 million people living in the united states? Do people really think they can all be identical or that they should be identical so we didn’t have to debate about what rights to honor and which to ignore?
Vote:
0 0 I enjoyed Dr. Adler’s talk a great deal - our little group was sitting toward the back, near the young man who brought up the questions about David Duke’s right to free speech, which spawned an interesting discussion.
It’s like they say - “the first amendment is a b-” (don’t know how uptight the rules are on this page - not sure whether the “b” word is considered an actual naughty, nasty word, or just a plain ol’ word).
It’s true though. You know you’re really a supporter of the thing (the first amendment) when you support the right of somebody whose opinion offends the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of you to speak up.
As for me - I own a “I (heart) the first amendment” t-shirt, because, well, I DO (heart) the first amendment.
Peace.
kym
Vote:
0 0 What I said was that everyone should agree, “freedom of speech” is NOT absolute….there are types of expression that have been deemed illegal by the people…..
think about it: is kiddie porn okay? defenses for possessing and creating the same are usually raised by waving the “free speech” flag….is that type of expression truly “free”? or have we, as a society, deemed kiddie porn so objectionable that it doesn’t warrant first amendment protection?
Vote:
0 0 Babs, I wasn’t targeting your comment. Freedom of speech is restricted necessarily. You can’t shout fire in a crowded building. I was speaking generally. The restrictions against freedom of speech are often dragged out and shouted from the roof tops when we come up against someone with an opposing position. Hate speech, pornography and other speech is necessarily restricted. The problems with civil rights are this. We all have freedoms/rights, but because there are so many of us, we find ourselves in conflict with someone else all too often in the exercise of our rights. Again, all too often, we then find ourselves in court fighting out whose rights trump whose instead of acting like reasonable individuals. Does the right to the enjoyment of nudity and the right to the pursuit of happiness and personal property rights give me the right to run around my yard naked in plain view? Does my right to the peaceful enjoyment of my home trump my neighbor’s right to own a (constantly barking) dog? Does your right to not practice religion or have a state-sponsored religion, give you the right to tell my child he can’t sing Christmas Carols at his elementary school? Does your child’s allergy to peanuts give you the right to prohibit all elementary kids at his school from bringing a peanut butter sandwich in his sack lunch? These ridiculous things are happening all around us. That was my point, badly made, I admit.
We cannot allow ourselves to become so selfish and self-absorbed that we cannot see that our rights can and do conflict with someone else’s. My wish is that we can resolve these differences without trying to abolish the other guy’s rights altogether.
Vote:
0 0 Another Guest, I see your point now. Well said.
Vote:
0 0 I think the government and police are to strong to stand against. The government is very envolved with running the country. The problem is we the people arent running the country. I am sick of it and am moving to mexico or Canada, maybe even a tropical island far way.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
chill, gato, it ain't worth getting your purty fur messed up
Loading ...
Vote:
One of the audience questions asked why the ACLU was so ineffective. Adler said that defending freedom is a long term war, and that sometimes you loose small battles but you need to keep fighting. He noted that the ACLU defends both liberals and conservatives who are losing their liberties to government.