“The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.”
That’s a quote from a Supreme Court ruling in 1972. It’s also apparently a state secret, as the Justice Department tried to black it out on a court document.
It’s part of a complaint brought by the ACLU (.pdf file). One aspect of the Patriot Act is a gag provision that prohibits anyone who receives a National Security Letter (a request for information) from “disclos[ing] to any person that the [FBI] has sought or obtained access to information or records.” The ACLU is contesting this, and their legal documents are subject to redacting by the Justice Department. This quote from the Supreme Court was one of many portions redacted.
If you’ve ever thought about becoming a member of the ACLU, this might be a good time.
The ACLU was the first social action organization I ever joined (at 19) and now, nearly fifty years later, I’m thankful every day that they’re still around.
Hey, no problem. I’ve pledged to join the ACLU the instant they stop lying about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And not one second sooner.
So maybe they better decide whether they really hate the 2nd amendment more than they love the 1st. Because it really ought to be the ACLU that has 4 million members, not the NRA. And that’s the reason that it isn’t.
Gee, Brett, you could join both. Then you could have lots of fun, particularly once you laminated the two membership cards back-to-back.
it was a nice democracy while it lasted. this is how the rule of law dies; death by a thousand cuts.
francis
Nope, Barry, I’m not into abusive relationships like that, getting defended with one hand, and attacked with the other. Fortunately, the NRA is against gun control AND the “patriot” act.
Im with Brett on this one, tho I cant say I am a member of the NRA either, I dont buy into all of what they say. The ACLU is definately taking the proper side on this issue, I wholeheartedly applaud them. I just wish they fought for the rest of the constitution with the same fervor. I do find it encouraging, however, that so many people of differing views oppose the patriot act. That means that at least one aspect of government growth is universally unacceptable, and that is a good sign that perhaps all of government growth will be seen as a negative.
I have my own reservations about the ACLU. But their view of the second amendment is hardly out-of-the-ballpark, I’d have thought. Do you think that they are really lying, Brett, as opposed to being mistaken in a sincere disagreement with you? I often disagree with the approach they take to the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment is often wrong, but I don’t think they are insincere or unreasonable about it.
Of course, I say that as someone who finds the idea that there is a fundamental individual right to bear arms ludicrous; even if I thought second amendment absolutists were interpretively right I’d think they were normatively wrong.
“But their view of the second amendment is hardly out-of-the-ballpark, I’d have thought.”
True, but only because afer a few decades of revisionist constitutional “scholarship” specifically intended to rationalize the constitutionality of gun control, the ballpark is about the size of North Dakota. Look, even Tribe, when he finally deigned to look at the evidence, had to admit that it’s an individual right. It’s rather difficult to explain the use of the phrase “right of the people”, otherwise.
Nope, Barry, I’m not into abusive relationships like that, getting defended with one hand, and attacked with the other. Fortunately, the NRA is against gun control AND the “patriot” act.
So, how do you ever vote for anyone?
voter -
I dont know how Brett votes, but I vote for the candidate that will try to give me the most possible freedom to run my own life, rather than try to run my life. Unfortunately, this election that means voting third party, and hope for enough fellow voters to shake up the big parties.
Thats why Im voting for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party, see www.badnarik.org
seriously though, I like what the guy says, who knows if he would actually do what he says. I do know that if a man says things that mean true freedom and gets enough support for it, then other politicians will start to see what they are missing.
Brett-
Let me suggest that you read “Arming America,” by Michael A Bellesiles. This book does an excellent job of setting the context in which the Second Amendment was written, debunking a few myths in the process. The early government of our country was actually trying to find ways to make people keep and maintain guns. Perhaps it will persuade you to view the amendment differently, perhaps it won’t. But as President Bush tells us, you can’t make good decisions without good information. Check out this good information, then see what you think.
Uhh, Badnarik is a little much for me, and I have voted Libertarian four out of the last six times.
Brett: A) I am a 2nd amendment absolutist, and will discuss personal nukes in a theoretical argument. The laws have gone way too far already. But most people take a more moderate position than myself, desiring rifles, shotguns, and pistols of restricted firepower. I would ask for examples of actual restrictions on the rights of decent citizens to arm themselves. All I really hear is fears and doomsday scenarios.
B) There is a certain division of labor, the ACLU not necessarily getting into cases the NAACP is attracted to. Since the NRA seems to be doing a decent job on 2nd Amendment issues, why can’t the ACLU take a position that pleases its contributors while having little real-world consequences?
“Let me suggest that you read “Arming America,” by Michael A Bellesiles” …I think the NRA crowd thinks his research shoddy. It was he that lead me to my current position: that since there many many state laws restricting gun ownership on the books at the time of ratification, the meaning of the 2nd amendment by original intent is that there shall be no Federal laws restricting firearms. The ratifiers certainly did not assume that all the state laws were immediately voided. This, however, does not translate into a Federal Right to gun ownership, unless by some application of the 13th and 14th or whatever.
Eugene Volokh is an expert on the 2nd Amendment, and last time I checked, had his work at his site.
“Let me suggest that you read “Arming America,” by Michael A Bellesiles.”
Ah, right. Bellesiles. The guy who got caught making up sources and altering quotes to fit his theisis. Who cited probate records that were destroyed in a fire before he was born. Who had to quit his job at the university in order to escape being sacked. Who became the first person in history to have the Bancroft prize for historical writing taken back by reason of fraud. THAT Bellesiles.
Geeze, you’re not just gullible, you’re positively clueless.
Bob, his research wasn’t “shoddy”; That’s a pathetic defense people raise to avoid facing the fact that he committed academic FRAUD. Proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If you’re at all familiar with the source material, reading “Arming America” is a real Alice in Wonderland experience.
The thing that really freaks me out, thinking about Bellesiles, is that I, not exactly a professional historian, noticed some of the altered quotes. The degree of willful blindness necessary for the pros to take him seriously as long as they did is positively frightening.
Bob, you are of course correct that the 2nd amendment, as originally adopted, applied only to federal laws. (Keeping in mind that most of the states had similar provisions in their state constitutions, of course.) But if you’ll look at the Congressional debate over the 14th amendment, you’ll find that it was indeed, explicitly, intended to apply the 2nd amendment to the states. In order to stop Jim Crow gun laws from keeping freedmen defenseless against the KKK, as a matter of fact. Along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. “Selective” incorporation was invented by a racist court to sabotoge the 14th amendment. It’s in no way a good faith reading.
I wasn’t aware the ACLU even had opinions on gun control. For example:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
As to the NRA’s opposition to the Patriot Act: what have they done about it?
I wasn’t aware the ACLU even had opinions on gun control. For example:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
As to the NRA’s opposition to the Patriot Act: what have they done about it?
Brett -
Thank you for pointing out the controversy around “Arming America.” I was not aware of this.
But why do you feel you need to finish up by hurling insults at me? “Geez, you’re not just gullible, you’re positively clueless.” Like you I’m not a historian. If he could fool the Bancroft prize people, I don’t feel all that clueless just because he fooled me, too. Why do you choose to be so rude?
I got a 20-gauge shotgun on my 12th birthday. I joined the ACLU just a few years later. The application back then stipulated that fascists and communists could not apply for membership, which even now appears to be an implicit bar to some.
I’ll grant you that calling you clueless wasn’t very nice, but how else can you describe somebody citing “Arming America” almost four years after it was exposed as a fraud? Your exposure to this debate has to have been remarkably circumscribed to have not known that. Heck, if you’d just done a search on his name, or the title of the book, you couldn’t have avoided knowing.
Never assume any one source is being honest with you. Both sides in any sizeable debate will include fraudulent sources. Search engines, though, are wonderful resources for becoming genuinely informed. If you use ‘em.
Jason, the ACLU doesn’t “officially” have an opinion about gun control. Except that they’ve lent their good name to furthering the gun control movement’s lies. And why they’d put their credibility in hock like that, if they didn’t care?
Here is the ACLU’s official stance on the 2nd ammendment.
“We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. “
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
They also have this statement:
“ACLU POLICY
“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.” —Policy #47 “
Not an accurate interpretation of US vs. Miller .
pseudosophist - Don’t feel to bad. A 9th circuit court judge also used “Arming America” as a cited reference after the scandal broke. The work is a proven fraud but its still being used by pro-gun control advocates.
Um, guys, interesting and important as the gun control/2nd amendment debate is, could we not have some constructive comment on the substance of the post? This is, after all, a case of the government censoring the judgement of its own Supreme Court on dissent and executive power. I thought 2nd Amendment “absolutists” were supposed to be concerned about this sort of thing.
Governator said that the right to dissent was one of the reasons he’s a great american in a great party… WTF?
SCRUTINY HOOLIGANS has more…
I don’t see how the Supreme court could rightfully complain about being censored, after the BCRA ruling. What’s sauce for the goose…
Neither Bush NOR Kerry have any particular respect for freedom of speech. We’re in for a rough patch however the election comes out, and I suspect it’s going to get a LOT worse before the backlash amounts to anything.
Addressing the topic at hand. The tone of the article seems incorrect. Its not an attempt to restrict speech by the Supreme Court. Its an attempt by the Justice Department to creatively edit an opponents (ACLU) court papers. Not papers to the court, but court papers released to the public. There could be a gag order on the whole proceedings and not really effect freedom of speech.
The real concerns over freedom of speech are those restrictions committed at the local level. Restrictions on the right to assemble, restrictions on type of speech in schools and universities, restrictions of type of speech in public forums. These are the ones that need immediate action. These attacks on first amendment rights are being done by both parties and both political leanings.
“There could be a gag order on the whole proceedings and not really effect freedom of speech.”
That’s the most glaring contradiction I’ve seen in print in ages. “Gag orders” are attacks on freedom of speech, and nothing else. It’s always amazed me the way the courts feel entitled to issue orders which if drafted as legislation they’d strike down in an instant…
Neither Bush NOR Kerry have any particular respect for freedom of speech.
Hmm, Bush pre-screens anyone who wants to attend his campaign events, Kerry doesn’t. That seems like a substantive difference to me.
It had not previously come to my attention that the First amendment guaranteed the right to attend campaign events unscreened. I’d thought it guaranteed the right to do things like publish works criticizing candidates for public office within a month of an election…
Both have done, and propose to do, grevious damage to our 1st amendment rights in the name of “reform”.
Brett - Interesting comment. I have always viewed gag orders in a similar vein as restrictions against shouting fire in a crowded theater. Namely, my protected freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or through words, cause bodily harm to another individual.
It had not previously come to my attention that the First amendment guaranteed the right to attend campaign events unscreened
It doesn’t. I didn’t say that. I wasn’t accusing the BC04 campaign of anything illegal. I was remarking on what I see as a difference in attitude.
As to your reference to prior restraint, I don’t know what you are referring to, but the First Amendment doesn’t protect libel.
Jay, just out of curiosity, has there ever been an encumbent president that did not screen who came to events? Its sort of a requirement the secret service holds them to. Granted, it might be getting abused and used to make sure no dissenters come to the events, Im afraid I dont know the answer to that. There may also be reason to question the attitudes of dissenters towards Bush versus dissenters towards Kerry. I have met people with a nearly violent hatred for Bush, but not that many with an equally violent hatred of Kerry. I know many people who are thoroughly disgusted with Kerry, but they are not trying to sabatoge him with irrational outbursts. Perhaps the difference in attitude is not related to their views on free speech.
I could be wrong, its just a thought…
That’s “falsely” cry fire, and gag orders might be similar to barring crying fire in a crowded theater… if the whole country were a crowded theater, and they were gagging statements that would cause immediate loss of life due to riots.
In other words, they’re not at all similar.
brett - Good point. Perhaps the courts should not have this power.
“The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting
.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review