|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2002 : 03:13:09
|
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll.
The sentiment that the First Amendment goes too far was already on the rise before the terrorist attacks a year ago, doubling to four in 10 between 2000 and 2001.
The poll released Thursday found that 49 percent think the First Amendment goes too far, a total about 10 points higher than in 2001.
``Many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism,'' said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, based in Arlington, Va., which commissioned the survey. Almost half also said the media has been too aggressive in asking the government questions about the war on terrorism.
The center, which also has offices in Nashville, asked the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis to measure views about the First Amendment.
The poll of 1,000 adults was taken between June 12 and July 5, and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The researchers said they designed this year's survey, in part, to test the ``public's willingness to tolerate restrictions on the First Amendment liberties during what they perceive to be wartime.''
They found that 48 percent of respondents agreed the government should have the freedom to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security - even if that means infringing upon the religious freedom of the group's members. Forty-two percent said the government should have more authority to monitor Muslims.
The survey also found a significant dip in the number of people who believe newspapers should freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance. Fifty-seven percent were supportive this year, compared to 69 percent in 2001.
Seven in 10 respondents agreed newspapers should publish freely, a slight drop from 2001. Those less likely to support newspaper rights included people without a college education, Republicans, and evangelicals, the survey found.
Republican respondents also were more likely than Democrats or Independents to see the news media as too aggressive in seeking war information from government officials.
Among other poll findings:
- About four in 10 favored restrictions on the academic freedom of professors to criticize government military policy during war. Twenty-two percent strongly supported such restrictions.
- While 75 percent considered the right to speak freely as ``essential,'' almost half, 46 percent, supported amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning.
- Sixty-three percent rated the job the American educational system does in teaching students about First Amendment freedoms as either ``fair'' or ``poor.'' Five percent rated the educational system's job in this area as excellent.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3199581.html
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 09:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Clearly those people should not be allowed to express such undemocratic and unconstitutional opinons. 
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 09:19:14 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like an SFN poll on the subject might be interesting.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 11:03:23 [Permalink]
|
Polls always make me slightly queasy. So much is dependent upon the wording of the questions.
For example: Should the government monitor the activities of religious groups?
I think any intelligent thinking person would answer "no".
But how about this: Should the goverment monitor the activities of religious groups, who in the past, have advocated overthrow of the government?
Sort of opens up a can of worms, doesn't it?
We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 13:42:25 [Permalink]
|
There is a difference between advocating the overthrow of the gov and actually doing something about it. But yeah. That article worried me when I first read it, who decides who should be watched? Who decides what should be allowed to be spoken and heard? It's a dangerous place to go, censorship.
Somehow, Lisa, I don't think that was what we signed up for either.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)
Edited by - Trish on 09/01/2002 13:49:17 |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 18:40:15 [Permalink]
|
I think this poll clearly demonstrates that 49% of Americans are idiots. Just my opinion freely expressed in accordance with the first amendment. Hmmm...Does this response make a response on my part to a poll on the subject kind of redundant?
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 23:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, we don't know what the question was, I guess. It was reported by AP. There are those on these boards that wish sedition laws were passed.
In fact, the Espionage Act, I'm told, is still on the books.
4. The Espionage Act, 40 Stat. 219 (1917), as amended 40 Stat. 553 (1918)
[Statutes at Large of the United States of America from April, 1917, to March, 1919, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919, Vol. 40, pp. 217f, 553-554], provided in part:
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or bring the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing,
publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of the war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or
favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/01/2002 23:21:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 23:34:40 [Permalink]
|
Regarding Jefferson's ideas on the subject:
----------------------------------
Understanding Power: Chapter One Footnotes -- 16
On Jefferson's and other Revolutionary War leaders' repressive attitudes and actions, see for example, Leonard W. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1985, chs. 7-10, especially pp. 177-181, 297, 337-348
(reviewing the writings and speeches of the leaders of the American Revolution and Framers of the U.S. Constitution, and documenting that none of them -- including
Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine -- opposed criminalization of speech critical of the government and its officials; pointing out that Jefferson himself authorized the internment of political critics, and that the Continental Congress urged the states to enact legislation to prevent the people from being "deceived and drawn into erroneous opinion."
Jefferson's statement that "a traitor in thought, but not in deed" should be punished is quoted at p. 178). See also, Leonard W. Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties: the Darker Side, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 25f. An excerpt (p. 25):
During the Revolution, Jefferson, like Washington, the Adamses, and Paine, believed
that there could be no toleration for serious differences of political opinion on the issue of independence, no acceptable alternative to complete submission to the
patriot cause. Everywhere there was unlimited liberty to praise it, none to criticize it.
David Kairys, "Freedom of Speech," in David Kairys, ed., The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, New York: Pantheon, 1982 (revised and expanded edition 1990),
pp. 237-272. An excerpt (p. 242):
[T]he experience of revolution and the emergence of the new nation generated a
wave of intolerance immediately before and after the adoption of the Constitution. . . .
Belief and pride in the attainment of freedom were turned against itself; nonconformity and dissent were greeted with extreme, legally sanctioned, and sometimes violent intolerance.
Although the issue of the relationship of the colonies to England was hotly and publicly debated before and during the war, any sign of even an early questioning of
independence tended to be viewed as disloyalty. Many people had sentimental,
familial, and economic allegiances to England, which was often also their birthplace.
Because they believed or hoped differences could be settled without war, they were
treated as traitors, regardless of whether they had actually acted or sided with
England during the Revolution. They were subjected to special taxes, loyalty oaths,
banishment, and violence; and laws in most states prohibited them from serving on
juries, voting, holding office, buying land, or practicing certain designated professions.
Chomsky comments (Deterring Democracy, New York: Hill and Wang, 1991, p. 399): "It
was not until the Jeffersonians were themselves subjected to repressive measures in the late 1790s that they developed a body of more libertarian thought for self-preservation -- reversing course, however, when they gained power themselves." See also chapter 8 of Understanding Power and its footnote 3.
from http://www.understandingpower.com
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 23:43:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeah, we don't know what the question was, I guess. It was reported by AP. There are those on these boards that wish sedition laws were passed.
Talk about coming from left field. Where'd this come from? We may disagree on politics - but as for sedition laws, I don't think any of us would consider an outright unconstitutional law as appropriate to the laws of this land. Or have you forgotten that the Sedition Act was declared unconstitutional. Say what you will about the US, and you've the right to your opinion, however, your right to your opinion in no way infringes or abrogates my right to my opinion and to openly express it either.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2002 : 00:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Didn't mean to paint anyone in particular with that brush, and I hope I'm wrong about everyone here. Just an impression I've had for some reason.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2002 : 02:58:58 [Permalink]
|
You might want to check out a thread called "This Ain't Your Daddy's War" under "Media Issues" for comments that sound a lot like some people would like to have a shot at changing the First Amendment. Again, maybe just my erroneous impression.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2002 : 22:32:13 [Permalink]
|
Um, not sure that is the intention Gorgo. Regardless of our disagreeances on political issues, I would never presume to tell you that you can't have your say. That also means that I may or may not agree with you.
That ability to disagree about and issue and debate it is what I enjoy most about the First Amendment. Even if I sometimes play 'devil's advocate' for shits and grins.
No, I'd fear more trying to 'shut you (or anyone) up' than I'd fear hearing your words and thinking about your position in regards to politics.
---
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2002 : 06:26:15 [Permalink]
|
No, you've never said that, and while I've heard some people scream about sedition, I don't recall anyone ever crying treason about any of the ideas that I've discussed. What I did hear people say was that the press ought to be censored.
Having said that, I do think some people here would like to see the Espionage Act enforced in full.
quote:
Um, not sure that is the intention Gorgo.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
