There are a lot of people who claim to support free speech but tend to qualify it with weasel words about "harming children" or "offending minorities" or other blather which boils down to not supporting free speech at all. [..] Supporting free speech means you don't want to prohibit people saying things like:This is an important point I don't think enough people fully understand. Once you start making exceptions to free speech, it's no longer free.
[..] Of course no government ought mandate any of these as education or pass laws in favour of any (hello Iran) but any government that believes in liberty for its citizens will not attempt to censor people who say these things or anything else.
- Mohammed was a paedophile
- Niggers are stupid
- The only problem with Hitler was that he didn't finish the job
- Homosexuals should be hung from the lamposts
- It isn't rape if you screw your daughter
- The chinks kidnap cats and dogs to make food for their restaurants
Defending the right to vile speech is similar to how criminal defense lawyers will tell you that "by defending the guilty we protect the innocent". Both are important, because if you allow the state to ban vile speech or convict guilty without due process, inevitably it will infringe on legitimate speech and the rights of the innocent to defend themselves.
And this is part of why some of us are so concerned with the rights of terrorists and illegal aliens, for example. If you eliminate due process for anyone, it puts everyone else's rights at risk as well.
Because without due process, who gets to decide whether someone is being legitimately detained? Hence, the habeus writ.
Without protecting all speech, who gets to decide whether some speech is too vile? Hence, total freedom of speech.
On a related note, the Economist has a good piece explaining why freedom of speech must include the right to defame religion, contra the recent U.N. resolution
"If you eliminate due process for anyone, it puts everyone else's rights at risk as well."
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't, if that person isn't even part of your society. It's quite possible to protect the rights of American citizens without extending those rights to enemies. We've done it throughout our entire history. What risks our rights is diluting them and cheapening them, but extending them to people who are not and should not be entitled to them.
that "but" in the last sentence should be "and."
ReplyDeleteBtw, I agree with the rest of the post. Offensive speech is the speech that needs to be protected. No one wants to silence non-offensive speech.
Who decides if you're a citizen? Who decides if you're an enemy? habeus allows a court to examine these questions when someone is detained by the U.S. gov and wishes to contest the legitimacy of the circumstances. That's the whole effin point.
ReplyDelete"Who decides if you're a citizen?"
ReplyDeleteUh, we have established rules that determine citizenship. If someone is a citizen, or claims to be one, that can be easily verified. We have these things called birth certificates & certificates of naturalization.
"habeus allows a court to examine these questions when someone is detained by the U.S. gov and wishes to contest the legitimacy of the circumstances. That's the whole effin point."
No, the point is that hostile or presumed hostile aliens should not have rights -- and that this doesn't affect the rights of U.S. citizens one bit. If we capture someone, we determine if he is a U.S. citizen. If he is, then his consitutional rights apply. If not, it's up to his home country to represent him.
So if I rip up your birth certificate and put you behind bars I can detain you indefinitely?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. I just wrote:
ReplyDelete"If we capture someone, we determine if he is a U.S. citizen. If he is, then his consitutional rights apply."
If we have a U.S. citizen in custody, then his constitutional rights should be respected - period.
"Should be" respected? Of course they should be.
ReplyDeleteBut you would eliminate the mechanism to ensure that they are, by telling us that if a branch of the executive asserts someone is a enemy or asserts they are not a citizen, it's automagically an indisputable fact.
Do you not understand what habeas is for?
"But you would eliminate the mechanism to ensure that they are, by telling us that if a branch of the executive asserts someone is a enemy or asserts they are not a citizen, it's automagically an indisputable fact."
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't. I specifically said we should check to determine if someone is a citizen. You are assuming bad motives on the part of the government.
"if a branch of the executive asserts someone is a enemy or asserts they are not a citizen, it's automagically an indisputable fact."
Nonsense. That would require a government conspiracy to erase all evidence that someone is a U.S. citizen, or to willfully ignore their own records and treat a citizen as a non-citizen. If the government is willing to do that, no law or right is going to stop them anyway.
"Do you not understand what habeas is for?"
I'm arguing that it should not apply to non-resident, non-citizens, particularly ones presumed hostile. It doesn't take a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether someone is a citizen. It's a simple records check, part of IDing a prisoner.
> we should check to determine if someone is a citizen.
ReplyDeleteWho is "we" ?
> You are assuming bad motives on the part of the government.
I'm assuming there are people in government who take shortcuts or have wrongful aims (see: previous administration) and that the other branches of government (courts, congress) need to keep tabs on what's going on.
> willfully ignore their own records and treat a citizen as a non-citizen. If the government is willing to do that, no law or right is going to stop them anyway
It doesn't have to be willful, it can be ignorant. And other people in government should be able to correct them, that's what this is about.
> It's a simple records check, part of IDing a prisoner.
What evidence do you have that it's simple? I don't know specifics, so I can't claim otherwise, but I've always assumed identifying and dealing with suspects is a complicated and error-prone process, even more so than domestic policing.
Bu contrast you seem to assume some savant officials can automagically determine everything important out about a possible enemy suspect, including whether they should be tortured.
"Who is "we" ?"
ReplyDeleteWhoever captures them.
"It doesn't have to be willful, it can be ignorant. And other people in government should be able to correct them, that's what this is about."
Mistakes can always be made. But how hard is it to determine whether someone is a U.S. citizen? They can be asked, and if they say yes, it can be confirmed.
"What evidence do you have that it's simple? I don't know specifics, so I can't claim otherwise, but I've always assumed identifying and dealing with suspects is a complicated and error-prone process, even more so than domestic policing."
In 5 minutes I can get online and demonstrate that there are records that show I was born in the U.S. It's not difficult, and I don't have the resources of the government. All you need is name, age and place of birth. And most Americans also have social security numbers and other identifying information.
If someone is captured and says he's an American citizen, he should be willing to provide the necessary identifying information -- especially when he's told that once citizenship is confirmed he'll be read his rights and given access to a lawyer. If he refuses then he'll be treated as a hostile alien unless further information comes to light.
What if they give false information? It's not as simple as running an online search.
ReplyDeleteBut by far most detainees aren't US citizens, and they are still deserving of due process, particularly if we (the U.S. gov) shuttled them between countries and are detaining them in our own facilities.
I understand policing insurgents to be a complicated military assignment. One day someone could be cooperating cheerfully with coalition forces, and the next day he goes and blows up half the central market square. When distinguishing friend from foe is so difficult, mistakes are going to be made.
"Whoever captures them" may or may not give it the best effort that can be expected, but either way those who do the capturing don't tend to be the jailors, especially if someone is moved between countries.
Basically I think dealing with detainees is a heck of a lot more complicated than your "should", "simple", "it's not difficult", "whoever captures them" etc. make it out to be.
I think your last paragraph was most revealing. it assumes a dichotomy between "American citizen" and "treat as a hostile alien unless further information comes to light", which is preposterous. It's especially ridiculous when you don't provide a sound legal framework for detainees to challenge their detentions and bring more information to light.
"What if they give false information? It's not as simple as running an online search."
ReplyDeleteIf they give false information in a process designed to guarantee them their constitutional rights, then they are out of luck if they get treated like a hostile alien. And I might point out that as far as I know, we haven't accidentally imprisoned any U.S. citizens and treated them like hostile aliens. The Bush administration knew Padilla was a citizen, they just decided to deprive him of his rights anyway.
"But by far most detainees aren't US citizens, and they are still deserving of due process, particularly if we (the U.S. gov) shuttled them between countries and are detaining them in our own facilities."
They aren't deserving of anything, other than having us notify their home country they've been detained.
"Basically I think dealing with detainees is a heck of a lot more complicated than your "should", "simple", "it's not difficult", "whoever captures them" etc. make it out to be."
True, but I'm not inventing an entire administrative process -- just the bare bones principles behind it. There are ways to do it and have various checks. You could even have judges review cases every couple months or whatever.
"I think your last paragraph was most revealing. it assumes a dichotomy between "American citizen" and "treat as a hostile alien unless further information comes to light", which is preposterous."
Why? That's exactly what we should do in any conflict situation. I want the government to err on the side of protecting the U.S. when handling foreign suspects.
"It's especially ridiculous when you don't provide a sound legal framework for detainees to challenge their detentions and bring more information to light."
Who cares? The U.S. government should be worried about protecting the U.S. & U.S. citizens, not worrying about accidentally imprisoning the wrong foreigners. Let their governments worry about them. For example, if we make a mistake and imprison a Canadian citizen unjustly, then it should be up to Canada to intercede.