[governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US

[Paul Lehto]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> wrote:

> I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland
> Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me.
> The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why
> are the monitoring tweets in the first place?
>

Good point.  Average people, at least in the USA, are sufficiently paranoid
that there is a reasonably high chance they will report something perceived
by them to be a real threat, as opposed to a joke.  But that is not the
only way the system is working nowadays.

The direct answer to the original question regarding the protection of
humor is that humor, while protected, would be a First Amendment-based
*affirmative defense*.  As such, it will not stop an arrest or detention,
but *it might work at trial with a jury*,if you can get one and are not
instead detained indefinitely based on the invocation of national security
concerns...   Of course, if one has to go to trial on a humor defense, it's
not funny at all and one has already lost.  Also, in the context of a
nationa security-related trial, I can pretty much guarantee that people
will be in a frame of mind the courtroom not to experience anything as
humorous, because the prosecutor will be portraying it as sinister or
violent, and one (as a juror) is not supposed to make up one's mind and
thereby appreciate the true humor of it until the trial is over.

Bottom line:  Humor just ain't funny (in this context).

The "better safe than sorry" attitude expressed even here on this list
operates to create some pretty grim results from time to time.  National
security agents are now supposed to "connect the dots" at all costs (to
prevent more 9/11's) and sometimes they will "connect dots" that don't
exist, and see patterns that are not really there...

Benjamin Franklin and others have tried to popularize the idea that those
who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Many forms of this
quote are attributed to Franklin but the gist is: "*Those Who Sacrifice
Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." *I.e. we've got to tolerate
significant insecurity in order to preserve liberty.

In that spirit, I'd rather trade in the regular hassle and invasion of
privacy of body searches on every plane for the glorious chance to rush a
terrorist and either succeed, or go down in a blaze of glory.  Something
like that, within reason, is the proper attitude of a freedom loving
person. (They can still scan luggage, etc, for bombs)

Paul Lehto, J.D.


> Kerry Brown
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120131/16093c29/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t