holocaust denier gets 3 years

as annoying as a holocaust denier can be, is this the right thing ?  sending a human being to jail for writing unpopular books and making really annoying unpopular speeches ?  the man got three years in prison for just that ... for writing books and giving speeches saying that the holocaust never happened.  i thought the goal was to protect the most annoying speech to insure that everyone gets to talk.  i hope the thought police never get so mad about something i write.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_o n_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial

There's more...


As you may or may not know, I made a documentary film entitled THIS DIVIDED STATE. The film chronicles Michael Moore's controversial visit to Utah Valley State College 2 weeks before the 2004 presidential election. Protests, bribery, and death threats descended upon the school in a fanatical effort to cancel Moore's speech.

One of the key players of the documentary was Joe Vogel. Joe was the Student Body Vice President and was ultimately responsible for inviting Michael Moore. In the end, Joe was forced to resign from his office and lost a scholarship because of his involvement in the Moore fiasco. As facts began to emerge about Joe's resignation, it became clear that it was because of a "tell all" book that Joe was writing that caused many people in the college administration and Utah legislator to get extremely angry at Joe. They asked Joe to "vow on oath of silence" about the book. Joe said "no". They said, "You must resign".

You see, Joe had been present in many secret meetings and had heard first hand the corruption that lied under the surface of the quiet Utah town of Orem. Now, that book, full of explosive facts and extremely frightening accounts is hitting book shelves nationwide. Joe has called it FREE SPEECH 101. And he's naming names and pulling no punches.

Not only does it talk about the Moore controversy, but expounds on the growing trend of colleges and universities becoming corporations owned and controlled by those with money, power, and agendas. A very important book...

There's more...

Shorter Bush Administration -- Journalism Is Illegal

Early on, when it came out that Pentagon analyst and Douglas Feith ally Larry Franklin had passed sensitive American intelligence on Iran to Israel via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, quite a few of us in the progressive blogosphere were giddy. Finally, the hypocrisy and double-dealing of the Bush administration was going to be exposed. At the very least, this would be the first domino to fall. Franklin was charged and eventually found guilty, just recently being sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison. I still think that's a good thing. He broke the law by leaking classified intelligence to a foreign government. It doesn't get much more illegal than that.

But in a piece posted at Slate, Fred Kaplan makes an interesting case as to why it may not be such a good idea to prosecute the two AIPAC analysts to whom Franklin passed the intel. Going into Kaplan's analysis, I expected not to agree with him. Honestly, for whatever reason, I figured it was going to be a too-broad take on the administration's case that would somehow loop back around to defending Judy Miller, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby. After digesting this story a bit, I'm pretty sure I was wrong. Kaplan's argument is as solid as it is damning of the administration. Once again, it seems that the Bush administration's unified legal theory of everything is based on the idea that anything the President says is the law of the land.

The section of the indictment titled "Ways and Means of the Conspiracy" finds that Rosen and Weissman

would cultivate relations with Franklin and others and would use their contacts within the U.S. government and elsewhere to gather sensitive information, including classified information, relating to national defense, for subsequent unlawful communication, delivery and transmission to persons not entitled to receive it.

Take a close look at those final words. They're charged with giving classified information not to foreign governments or spies but rather "to persons not entitled to receive it."

This is what journalists do routinely every day. They receive information from insiders, write it up in a story, send it to editors, who publish it in newspapers, magazines, wire services, or on Web sites, all of which are seen by readers who have not been officially authorized to view that classified material.

Rosen and Weissman are indicted as having joined in a "conspiracy" with Franklin--not because they bribed, coerced, or even solicited Franklin for the information (there's no charge that they did that, anyway) but rather because they merely received it.

If they are convicted under this legal theory, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus or The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh could be next. ...

If the White House or the Justice Department wanted to push these restrictive espionage statutes to the max, if they wanted to create an Official Secrets Act in America, the ground is well-plowed for them to do so.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. If this is all way off the mark and Rosen and Weissman can easily be prosecuted without endangering the whole of American journalism, then by all means, they should be. However, under no circumstances am I comfortable with the idea of giving the Bush administration official cover to implement their "because I said so" legal agenda. They're already claiming they have all sorts of extraordinary powers. The last thing they need is actual precedent backing them up.

There's more...

Gays can't say 'Israeli apartheid' in Toronto

Let them in the parade and let people along the parade route judge for themselves. I've booed and shouted opinions at a few organizations in gay pride parades.

Do we have to act as if everyone with a sign in a gay pride parade has to follow a certain script?

Geena, June 9, 2010 12:29 PM

It's strange that the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' is now banned at a major political event in Toronto. This involves a pro-Palestinian group that has marched in Toronto's gay pride parade for many years, as have groups supporting Israeli government policies. That 'both sides' approach seems so civilized and democratic, but times are a-changing and not for the better.

Pride festival bans 'Israeli apartheid'

Toronto parade marshal resigns in protest
By Carmen Chai
Windsor Star
June 8, 2010  

This year's Toronto Gay Pride Parade Grand Marshal has resigned and 23 former Pride Toronto activists announced on Monday they have pulled out of Pride festivities after organizers banned the term "Israeli apartheid" from its 10-day event.

"Pride's recent decision to ban the term 'Israeli apartheid' and thus prohibit the participation of the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in Pride celebrations this year is a slap in the face to our history of diverse voices," said Alan Li, a co-founder of Gay Asians Toronto who rejected his appointment as grand marshal.

"Pride's choice to take a pre-emptive step to censor our own communities' voices and concerns in response to political and corporate pressure shows a lack of backbone to stand up for principles of inclusiveness and anti-oppression." . . .

There's more...


Advertise Blogads