The Freedom Bulletin

Back in December, Tarek Mehanna was convicted in federal court of supporting Al Qaeda and conspiring to murder U.S. troops in Iraq. He had posted numerous writings and videos on the Internet that the government characterized as pro-Al Qaeda and pro-jihad. In 2004, he traveled to Yemen, allegedly looking to attend a terrorist training camp (which he never attended).

On Thursday, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for these actions. He also gave a long, defiant speech in which he described his upbringing, the books and historical figures that influenced him, and his dedication to defending people who are being oppressed, which he says is happening to Muslims at the hands of the U.S. Here are some excerpts:

Continue reading…

If a military board gets its way, Sgt. Gary Stein will receive an “other-than-honorable” discharge from the Marine Corps just months before his enlistment is set to end. He will lose all of his military benefits, will be banned from re-enlisting or even entering a military base, and his reputation will be forever tainted. What did he do to deserve this? He criticized President Obama on Facebook. According to the New American:

Stein attracted the scrutiny of his superiors after he created an “Armed Forces Tea Party” group on Facebook in 2010. According to prosecutors, he used the group to post “contemptuous” comments and images of Obama — including a picture of the President superimposed on the “Jackass” movie poster…

Stein also used his Facebook account to blast Obama as a “coward” and an “economic and religious enemy” of America, according to the prosecutor. He allegedly sold “Nobama” bumper stickers from a personal website, too.

Military policy bans soldiers from publicly making partisan political comments or expressing contempt for the Commander-in-Chief. But Sgt. Stein’s lawyers argued that his comments were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in his personal capacity as opposed to him speaking on behalf of the military. He posted while off duty, and the Facebook page contained a disclaimer stating that the Armed Forces Tea Party is not affiliated with the military.

“Think about how dangerous this could be if the U.S. government can prosecute you for something you say on your private Facebook page,” said his lawyer, Capt. James Baehr. “How can we expect Marines to participate in citizenship if they cannot join political discussions?”

He makes a good point. I believe that people should be able to work at the job that they choose without having to sacrifice their First Amendment rights. Of course there can be some limits to what employers allow their employees to post via social media. It is justifiable for an employee to be fired for divulging confidential information or publicly criticizing their co-workers or bosses. If Sgt. Stein had used Facebook to criticize the soldiers he worked with, then it would make sense for him to be dishonorably discharged. Similarly, it would make sense for him to be fired if he was working as a personal advisor to Obama, or for his re-election campaign, and made the anti-Obama comments that he made. But with the exception of people who work in an explicitly political job, everyone should be able to express their political views without retribution from their employer. What a person does on their own personal time is not their employer’s business. This definitely includes the soldiers who help to defend the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Judge Richard J. Leon made an excellent ruling today, declaring that for the federal government to force cigarette companies to display graphic, anti-smoking propaganda violates the First Amendment:

“The government’s interest in advocating a message cannot and does not outweigh plaintiff’s First Amendment right to not be the government’s messenger,” Judge Leon wrote.

His ruling largely echoed arguments he made in a preliminary injunction he issued in November. The significance of Wednesday’s ruling is unclear, since the Obama administration has appealed the injunction.

Read the rest at the New York Times.

Every day on the way to work, I pass not too far from the tent city created by the Occupy Boston protesters. It covers an entire block of the Greenway, a public park, and contains a food tent, logistics tent, legal tent, media tent, Gandhi statue, fire alarm, security volunteers, and of course countless signs and banners. I decided to pay it a visit on a couple of occasions, and it’s an interesting place – except for one person who yelled at me for taking a picture (maybe a bit of hypocrisy given Occupy’s enthusiasm about the First Amendment?).

The residents of the tent city were certainly diverse. There were lots of teenagers and young adults, many middle-aged and older people, and even a little kid or two. Some people fit the grubby hippie stereotype, while others looked like the average person you’d see on the street. On one occasion, a man addressed a large crowd of protesters. On another occasion, people marched with signs and flags down a nearby street. And on another, a large group of people sang while others played drums. Protesters held signs by busy Atlantic Ave during the evening commute, a man on a bicycle distributed apples, staffers of the food tent doled out supper, people took part in religious ceremonies, and at all times various people just milled around, sitting alone or conversing with each other.

It’s hard for me to decide what I think of the Occupy movement, because they don’t have any official leader or official platform. They are generally considered a left-wing movement due to some of their widely held beliefs, such as higher taxes on the rich, forgiving student loans and other debt, health care for all, and a stronger social safety net. But the Occupiers do have some things in common with the Tea Party movement. Neither is fond of the Federal Reserve, and in general both are all about the rights of everyday people and against the status quo and centralized authority, whether that be big banks or big government. I even saw a Gadsden flag, widely regarded as a Tea Party emblem, in the Occupy Boston tent city.

WikiLeaks noted these similarities, tweeting, ”Grass roots Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians must continue to join #occupy. Keep it central: 99% vs corrupt institutions, patronage” and then added, “#occupy Don’t fall into the trap of more taxes. The security state will just spend it on their pals. We need accountability, local taxation.”

Regardless of what you think of Occupy, it’s never right to argue against a political movement by insulting its members with offensive stereotypes. But that’s what far too many commentators, many of whom I usually agree with, are doing. Howie Carr called them “spoiled rich kids,” and “trust-fund hippies,” and ridiculed their names, ages, hometowns, and occupations. Michael Graham dubbed them “clueless college anti-capitalists” and accused them of “stealing all the soap in the South Station bathrooms.” How exactly do they know these things?

Even if I don’t agree with them 100%, I’m glad that the Occupy movement is around and welcome their contributions to political discourse across the world.

Last week federal judge Marcia Cooke overturned the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act, a Florida law restricting doctors from asking people about guns unless there is a compelling medical reason.

The debate over this law involves an interesting conflict between the First and Second Amendments. The founding philosophy of America (and one that I strongly believe in) is that people have the right to live their lives however they please, as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same. The right to bear arms is part of this and is specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, and so is freedom of speech. One person’s right to free speech should only end when another person’s liberty begins. But where exactly do you draw the line?

In my opinion, speech designed to pressure another person into acting as you want them to violates that person’s right to live their life as they please. Doctors, motivated by the desire to make people healthier, are one of the biggest culprits of this. When doctors ask people questions, or tell them what to eat, how much to exercise, or what medical tests to have, they are not using physical force, and people are not obligated by law to comply. But I still believe that this is coercive and therefore should not be protected by the First Amendment. Due to doctors’ elevated status in our society, it is difficult, if not impossible, especially for shy people, to refuse to answer a doctor’s questions or to decline medical procedures that a doctor firmly instructs them to have. Doctors need to treat their patients more like customers, only performing the medical procedures that the customers indicate they want and only giving advice when it is asked for. This might sound like a radical proposition, but a customer’s gun ownership is not a doctor’s business, nor are their eating habits, exercise, emotional state, sex life, drug use, or really any aspect of their life. What we need are more laws restricting doctors, however well-intentioned, from using their authority to pressure people into giving up their privacy rights or their freedom to live as they choose.

The Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act doesn’t even go as far as the laws that I would support – it still allows doctors to ask about guns if there is a compelling medical reason, and it doesn’t outright ban such questions but merely says that doctors “should” refrain. It was wrong to overturn this law. Florida Governor Rick Scott is appealing the decision, and I hope he prevails.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that people have the right to videotape and record police officers performing their duties. The ruling came in the case of Simon Glik, a Boston lawyer who filmed police arresting someone on Boston Common. He was charged with disturbing the peace, aiding in the escape of a prisoner, and illegal wiretapping, as he recorded audio of the arrest without permission. The charges were (thankfully) dropped, and Glik sued law enforcement officials for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals agreed with him, writing:

“Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.”

Read the rest at MassLive.com.

Remember when the FDA decided to require all cigarette packages to display graphic warning labels? Five tobacco companies  - R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands, Ligget Group, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co – are suing in federal court to stop this. Although tobacco companies are far from sympathy-evoking, and although they are almost certainly motivated at least in part by financial gain in this lawsuit, the fact is that they are right. These warning labels are paternalistic and are an affront to individual liberty.

The lawsuit reads,

“Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products.”

It continues,

“This is precisely the type of compelled speech the 1st Amendment prohibits.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Manufacturers should not be allowed to put lies or deceptive statements on packages. It even makes sense to require companies to provide factual information about their products, such as ingredients, risks, and benefits, on packages. But these labels – graphic pictures of diseased lungs, caskets, and dead bodies – go far beyond providing information. They are propaganda designed to disgust people and make them avoid smoking. They are also paternalistic because by requiring them, the FDA has decided against giving people the facts and allowing them to make their own decisions, and decided instead that people should be emotionally manipulated into doing what the FDA thinks is best for them.

It would be bad enough if the FDA displayed this insulting propaganda on government property or purchased advertisements with its own resources. But the new policy requires private companies – in fact the very companies that the warnings are targeted against – to use their resources to display the FDA’s propaganda. Requiring cigarette companies to speak the government’s message – an insulting, paternalistic, and anti-liberty message at that – is a violation of free speech rights.