maybe its a distraction from the Great White fire....

February 21, 2004

R.I. governor withdraws homeland-security bill

By The Associated Press

02.20.04

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Gov. Don Carcieri yesterday withdrew a

homeland-security plan criticized by scholars and

civil-libertarians as a threat to freedom of speech and

assembly.

The bill introduced last week would have included acts of

terrorism under existing law that makes it illegal to

"speak, utter, or print" statements in support of anarchy or

government overthrow. It also would have included terrorism

under current law that makes it unlawful for any person "to

teach or advocate" a government overthrow, or display "any

flag or emblem other than the flag of the United States" as

preferable to the U.S. government.

"What Governor Carcieri proposes is to take the state of

Rhode Island back 200 years," Paul McMasters, a nationally

recognized expert at the First Amendment Center in

Arlington, Va., told The Providence Journal.

Carcieri said the negative reaction, which included

criticism from the state chapter of the American Civil

Liberties Union, was overblown.

"State government has a responsibility to ensure the

public's safety by assessing and responding to new and

evolving threats," Carcieri said. He sought to amend

existing laws to define terrorism and include penalties for

such acts.

But by reviving rarely used laws first enacted in 1919 that

criminalize the advocacy of anarchy, his intentions became

lost in a public debate over civil liberties, which he said

he has no desire to limit.

The bill, which never had a public hearing, also would have

created new exemptions to open-records laws, including

fire-safety records.

Carcieri said he's "not interested in trying to keep things

secret. The idea is to not provide information a terrorist

may use to his advantage."

"It's clear we need to step back and take a look at all of

this," Carcieri said, including possibly repealing any

outdated laws.

Carcieri acknowledges he did not read the entire bill before

it was introduced and said he'll seek input from civil

liberties groups and others before introducing a new version.

ACLU state director Steve Brown said the bill attempted to

broadly define and penalize acts of terrorism.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has held for decades that the First

Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to advocate

violence, as long as it is not directed to imminent unlawful

action," he said.

A similar effort to define terrorism was dropped from

another bill last year.

Brown said he'll accept Carcieri's offer to consider

repealing laws criminalizing advocacy of anarchy.

"I am very pleased the governor recognized . . . the dangers

contained in his bill," Brown said.

*****

ACLU criticizes R.I. homeland-security bill

By The Associated Press

02.18.04

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Legislation intended to strengthen the

state's security measures drew criticism from a civil rights

group that said the measure threatens free speech and

academic freedom.

Gov. Don Carcieri's new homeland security bill would create

new felony charges, require annual safety audits of every

public school and close some public records, including those

that show whether businesses comply with state Fire Safety

Code requirements.

The bill, which Carcieri introduced last week, also would

resurrect World War I-era laws that made it illegal to

"speak, utter, or print" statements in support of anarchy;

speak in favor of overthrowing the government; or to display

"any flag or emblem other than the flag of the United

States" as symbolic of the U.S. government.

The director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American

Civil Liberties Union, Steven Brown, called the proposal

"extraordinarily dangerous" and "a return to McCarthyism,

when people had to be careful what they said or what

organization they belonged to."

The organization released yesterday a 13-page critique of

Carcieri's proposal.

Jeff Neal, the governor's spokesman, said the legislation is

based on laws that have been enacted in several states

including New York, Virginia, Florida and Massachusetts.

"In a post-9/11 America, state governments have a

responsibility to update their homeland security laws in

order to protect their citizens," he told The Providence

Journal.

Paul McMasters, a nationally recognized expert at the First

Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said, "What Governor

Carcieri proposes is to take the state of Rhode Island back

200 years." McMasters was quoted in The Providence Journal.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the

University of Minnesota, has monitored state and federal

initiatives in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist

attacks. "But I haven't really seen anything like this," she

said. "Frankly, it is a throwback to World War I."

The ACLU's Brown wrote in his critique that the bill has

"enormous ramifications for political protest, freedom of

association, academic freedom and the public's right to know."

One issue is Carcieri's definition of terrorism. The

governor's bill defines terrorism as "a violent act or an

act dangerous to human life" that is "intended to:

intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the

policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion;

or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder,

assassination, kidnapping or aircraft piracy."

The language is similar to the USA Patriot Act, a federal

law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Critics contend that law, which clarifies and increases the

powers that federal agents have when investigating crimes,

threatens civil rights.

Neal said despite the similarities, Carcieri's definition of

terrorism was based not on the Patriot Act but on a state

law passed in 1996.

Brown also criticized the bill's expansion of laws on the

books since World War I that make it illegal, for example,

to teach or advocate anarchy.

Brown said the laws are "blatantly unconstitutional" and

"dormant."

Four pages of Carcieri's 18-page bill deal with weapons of

mass destruction, making it illegal for anyone to employ a

weapon of mass destruction, a crime punishable by life in

prison.

Brown said federal law already prohibits the release of

weapons of mass destruction, and cases of that magnitude

would be more properly tried as federal crimes.

But Neal said: "We cannot assume that someone else will take

care of this problem for us. We have a responsibility to

enact laws for ourselves."

*****

CounterPunch

Weekend Edition

February 20 / 22, 2004

Rhode Island's War on Anarchism

You Could Get 10 Years in Prison Just for Reading This

By DAVID GRENIER

You could get ten years in prison just for reading this.

I have on my desk right now a copy of the new Rhode Island

"homeland security" bil proposed by Governor Carcieri. It's

an 18 page document, and right on the first page, before

talking about weapons of mass destruction or poisoning the

water system or anything else that a rational person might

consider "terrorism", it says "any person who shall teach or

advocate anarchy" will go to prison for ten years.

Let me make this clear. I am an anarchist. I write an

anarchist blog. Don't be fooled by the pop-culture

references and the fact that I maybe don't fit whatever

rock-throwing stereotype is the current popular view of

anarchism. I am facing ten years in prison for writing if

this bill passes, because I am not going to stop being an

anarchist just because some dumbass politician wants to tell

me what I'm allowed to believe.

In addition, my wife will go to prison for ten years because

she runs an anarchist book club that reads the likes of

Alexander Skirda's Facing the Enemy: a History of Anarchism

from Proudhon to May 68 and Alexander Berkman's Now and

After: the ABC of Communist Anarchism.

Moreover, anyone who flies any flag other than the U.S. flag

will also go to prison for ten years. Technically, this

headline is inaccurate, though.

For reading this website there's not a specific penalty.

You'd only go to jail for reading the Rhode Island

Anarchists site. Since that would be "associating" with an

"organization [that] teach[es] and advocate[es] disbelief in

or opposition to organized government." Welcome to the land

of the free.

Of course, we're not just going to roll over and let the

government fuck us. We're going to fight this the right way,

the anarchist way. We're not going to beg politicians to

make the right decision. We're not going to be content with

yet another bullhorn-and-chanting rally. At this point,

we're the ones on the front lines, and we're going to do

things our way.

They want to make it illegal to teach anarchy? We'll hold a

teach-in and get 2,000 people to show up.

We'll call every union who's picket line we've walked (HERE,

1199, UNAP, Steelworkers, and SEIU I'm looking in your

direction), we'll call the Narragansetts who we stood in

solidarity with over the smoke-shop showdown, we'll call

every anti-war activist whose protests we've attended, every

Democrat and Green I met as the coordinator for the Kucinich

campaign, everyone we stood side by side with on the Living

Wage and Rising Sun Mills campaigns. We'll not only remind

them that we've stood with them in their struggles, but that

while we are on the front line of this fight for freedom, if

we are allowed to fall, they'll have their freedoms picked

off one by one. We'll get them all to show up, we'll give

lectures on the theories, history, and current practice of

anarchy and we'll force the State to either give out 2,000

ten year sentences (which it can't afford) or back the fuck

down.

That's how you fight with direct action. That's how the IWW

won similar "free speech fights" 100 years ago when

government had similar laws against dissent. Anything less

is just begging for your freedom, which is yours by right.

And I'm through begging.

David Grenier is an anarchist from Providence, Rhode Island.

His website is http://www.davidgrenier.com/

February 21, 2004

it leaves me feeling cold that anyone could believe an oppression so blatant might be acceptable. i'll see you all through my cell window as i brandish a soiled makeshift american flag (colored---and discolored---toilet paper on a plastic spork) while shrieking promises of further upheaval, promoting uncensorship, and blaming it all on imaginary WMD's and the Atkin's diet.

>EBbrewpunx > >lettuceheads , homstead_solarium , Teale765, TFHB , , northern_california_punklist > maybe its a distraction from the Great White fire.... >Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:49:47 EST > > > >R.I. governor withdraws homeland-security bill >By The Associated Press >02.20.04 > > >PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Gov. Don Carcieri yesterday withdrew a >homeland-security plan criticized by scholars and >civil-libertarians as a threat to freedom of speech and >assembly. > >The bill introduced last week would have included acts of >terrorism under existing law that makes it illegal to >"speak, utter, or print" statements in support of anarchy or >government overthrow. It also would have included terrorism >under current law that makes it unlawful for any person "to >teach or advocate" a government overthrow, or display "any >flag or emblem other than the flag of the United States" as >preferable to the U.S. government. > >"What Governor Carcieri proposes is to take the state of >Rhode Island back 200 years," Paul McMasters, a nationally >recognized expert at the First Amendment Center in >Arlington, Va., told The Providence Journal. > >Carcieri said the negative reaction, which included >criticism from the state chapter of the American Civil >Liberties Union, was overblown. > >"State government has a responsibility to ensure the >public's safety by assessing and responding to new and >evolving threats," Carcieri said. He sought to amend >existing laws to define terrorism and include penalties for >such acts. > >But by reviving rarely used laws first enacted in 1919 that >criminalize the advocacy of anarchy, his intentions became >lost in a public debate over civil liberties, which he said >he has no desire to limit. > >The bill, which never had a public hearing, also would have >created new exemptions to open-records laws, including >fire-safety records. > >Carcieri said he's "not interested in trying to keep things >secret. The idea is to not provide information a terrorist >may use to his advantage." > >"It's clear we need to step back and take a look at all of >this," Carcieri said, including possibly repealing any >outdated laws. > >Carcieri acknowledges he did not read the entire bill before >it was introduced and said he'll seek input from civil >liberties groups and others before introducing a new version. > >ACLU state director Steve Brown said the bill attempted to >broadly define and penalize acts of terrorism. > >"The U.S. Supreme Court has held for decades that the First >Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to advocate >violence, as long as it is not directed to imminent unlawful >action," he said. > >A similar effort to define terrorism was dropped from >another bill last year. > >Brown said he'll accept Carcieri's offer to consider >repealing laws criminalizing advocacy of anarchy. > >"I am very pleased the governor recognized . . . the dangers >contained in his bill," Brown said. > >***** > >ACLU criticizes R.I. homeland-security bill >By The Associated Press >02.18.04 > >PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Legislation intended to strengthen the >state's security measures drew criticism from a civil rights >group that said the measure threatens free speech and >academic freedom. > >Gov. Don Carcieri's new homeland security bill would create >new felony charges, require annual safety audits of every >public school and close some public records, including those >that show whether businesses comply with state Fire Safety >Code requirements. > >The bill, which Carcieri introduced last week, also would >resurrect World War I-era laws that made it illegal to >"speak, utter, or print" statements in support of anarchy; >speak in favor of overthrowing the government; or to display >"any flag or emblem other than the flag of the United >States" as symbolic of the U.S. government. > >The director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American >Civil Liberties Union, Steven Brown, called the proposal >"extraordinarily dangerous" and "a return to McCarthyism, >when people had to be careful what they said or what >organization they belonged to." > >The organization released yesterday a 13-page critique of >Carcieri's proposal. > >Jeff Neal, the governor's spokesman, said the legislation is >based on laws that have been enacted in several states >including New York, Virginia, Florida and Massachusetts. > >"In a post-9/11 America, state governments have a >responsibility to update their homeland security laws in >order to protect their citizens," he told The Providence >Journal. > >Paul McMasters, a nationally recognized expert at the First >Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said, "What Governor >Carcieri proposes is to take the state of Rhode Island back >200 years." McMasters was quoted in The Providence Journal. > >Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the >University of Minnesota, has monitored state and federal >initiatives in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist >attacks. "But I haven't really seen anything like this," she >said. "Frankly, it is a throwback to World War I." > >The ACLU's Brown wrote in his critique that the bill has >"enormous ramifications for political protest, freedom of >association, academic freedom and the public's right to know." > >One issue is Carcieri's definition of terrorism. The >governor's bill defines terrorism as "a violent act or an >act dangerous to human life" that is "intended to: >intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the >policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion; >or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, >assassination, kidnapping or aircraft piracy." > >The language is similar to the USA Patriot Act, a federal >law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. >Critics contend that law, which clarifies and increases the >powers that federal agents have when investigating crimes, >threatens civil rights. > >Neal said despite the similarities, Carcieri's definition of >terrorism was based not on the Patriot Act but on a state >law passed in 1996. > >Brown also criticized the bill's expansion of laws on the >books since World War I that make it illegal, for example, >to teach or advocate anarchy. > >Brown said the laws are "blatantly unconstitutional" and >"dormant." > >Four pages of Carcieri's 18-page bill deal with weapons of >mass destruction, making it illegal for anyone to employ a >weapon of mass destruction, a crime punishable by life in >prison. > >Brown said federal law already prohibits the release of >weapons of mass destruction, and cases of that magnitude >would be more properly tried as federal crimes. > >But Neal said: "We cannot assume that someone else will take >care of this problem for us. We have a responsibility to >enact laws for ourselves." > >***** > >CounterPunch >Weekend Edition >February 20 / 22, 2004 >Rhode Island's War on Anarchism >You Could Get 10 Years in Prison Just for Reading This > >By DAVID GRENIER > >You could get ten years in prison just for reading this. > >I have on my desk right now a copy of the new Rhode Island >"homeland security" bil proposed by Governor Carcieri. It's >an 18 page document, and right on the first page, before >talking about weapons of mass destruction or poisoning the >water system or anything else that a rational person might >consider "terrorism", it says "any person who shall teach or >advocate anarchy" will go to prison for ten years. > >Let me make this clear. I am an anarchist. I write an >anarchist blog. Don't be fooled by the pop-culture >references and the fact that I maybe don't fit whatever >rock-throwing stereotype is the current popular view of >anarchism. I am facing ten years in prison for writing if >this bill passes, because I am not going to stop being an >anarchist just because some dumbass politician wants to tell >me what I'm allowed to believe. > >In addition, my wife will go to prison for ten years because >she runs an anarchist book club that reads the likes of >Alexander Skirda's Facing the Enemy: a History of Anarchism >from Proudhon to May 68 and Alexander Berkman's Now and >After: the ABC of Communist Anarchism. > >Moreover, anyone who flies any flag other than the U.S. flag >will also go to prison for ten years. Technically, this >headline is inaccurate, though. > >For reading this website there's not a specific penalty. >You'd only go to jail for reading the Rhode Island >Anarchists site. Since that would be "associating" with an >"organization [that] teach[es] and advocate[es] disbelief in >or opposition to organized government." Welcome to the land >of the free. > >Of course, we're not just going to roll over and let the >government fuck us. We're going to fight this the right way, >the anarchist way. We're not going to beg politicians to >make the right decision. We're not going to be content with >yet another bullhorn-and-chanting rally. At this point, >we're the ones on the front lines, and we're going to do >things our way. > >They want to make it illegal to teach anarchy? We'll hold a >teach-in and get 2,000 people to show up. > >We'll call every union who's picket line we've walked (HERE, >1199, UNAP, Steelworkers, and SEIU I'm looking in your >direction), we'll call the Narragansetts who we stood in >solidarity with over the smoke-shop showdown, we'll call >every anti-war activist whose protests we've attended, every >Democrat and Green I met as the coordinator for the Kucinich >campaign, everyone we stood side by side with on the Living >Wage and Rising Sun Mills campaigns. We'll not only remind >them that we've stood with them in their struggles, but that >while we are on the front line of this fight for freedom, if >we are allowed to fall, they'll have their freedoms picked >off one by one. We'll get them all to show up, we'll give >lectures on the theories, history, and current practice of >anarchy and we'll force the State to either give out 2,000 >ten year sentences (which it can't afford) or back the fuck >down. > >That's how you fight with direct action. That's how the IWW >won similar "free speech fights" 100 years ago when >government had similar laws against dissent. Anything less >is just begging for your freedom, which is yours by right. >And I'm through begging. > >David Grenier is an anarchist from Providence, Rhode Island. >His website is http://www.davidgrenier.com/ Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace.