Another First Amendment Right Under Attack

There are five rights protected in the First Amendment. The most commonly known one, and probably the one most discussed by many, is freedom of religion. But ever since the Bush-Cheney regime took office in 2000, freedom of the press and freedom of speech have been under increasing attack. Bush-Cheney supporters argue that protesting the regime's policies was unpatriotic. Bush himself said that if you weren't with "us", you were against "us" and "we" would be coming after whomever was against "us".

To that end, the Bush-Cheney regime made great use of "free speech zones" wherever either was going to be publicly speaking. While the courts have upheld the right of governments (or their "agents" (ie, elected officials or police departments etc.)) to determine where, when and how (that is, you can protest on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic but not block the doorway or interfere with patients/staff coming and going or block traffic) for reasons of security, the Bush-Cheney regime took it to new heights. Protesters against the regime were often "penned" into small enclosures far from the crowds and even further from the press. The constitutionality of these free-speech zones has been challenged, but results have been mixed.

There have been other attacks on free speech through attempts to limit hate speech, particularly with respect to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. This hate speech (or as I like to call it, verbal feces), as repugnant as it is, is a protected right, although the fact that US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to a case involving Phelps and the father of a young Marine killed in Iraq might signify that they're willing to put a cap on hate speech. I personally hope not, for although I find Phelp's beliefs disgusting, his right to share those beliefs through public discourse must not be abridged.

Recently, two cases in the news have dealt with free speech and freedom of the press.

The first happened at James Madison University in Virginia. A student block party got out of control and in the process, several police officers were injured and property was destroyed. More than 600 pictures were taken by photographers for the student newspaper, including pictures taken after the "riot" started. Police obtained a search warrant and raided the offices of the student paper, demanding that the pictures be turned over to police, who wanted to use them to determine who was to be held responsible for damages and injuries to the officers. If the pictures were not turned over, the police planned on taking the computers in the paper's office, effectively shutting down the entire paper. Protests against the actions by police resulted in authorities agreeing to seal the photos and put them in the hands of a "trusted third party" until the constitutionality of how they obtained them can be determined.

While I applaud the authorities for correcting their error so quickly, the fact that they made the "error" to begin with is rather frightening. It means either a.) that the law enforcement personnel in Harrisonburg, VA (home of James Madison University) are uneducated on matters of the constitution or b.) knew perfectly well that their actions were illegal and hoped that they wouldn't be called on it. I tend to think the latter because of how quickly they "gave in" and agreed to seal the pictures. In either case, there's a big problem! (I also tend to think that part of it was due to the fact that several officers were injured and the drive many officers feel to take down those who hurt one of their own led them to act hastily and without forethought. Not an excuse, by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact, points to another problem (ie, finding someone to blame even if it's the wrong person/people because of public or internal pressure) but that's beyond the scope of this article.) As law enforcement personnel, they are held to a higher standard than the average Jane/Joe because they are supposed to know the law! For them to so casually toss it aside, especially on a matter that involves the Bill of Rights, needs to be addressed and resolved!

The second case involves the new Apple iPhone. One of Apple's engineers left his top-secret iPhone in a bar in mid-April. Another patron of the bar picked it up and apparently attempted to find the owner. When s/he could not, he "sold" the exclusive rights to leak the story about the phone to a technology blog. After carefully examining the phone, and verifying that it was indeed the new model to be released later this summer, they wrote about it and then returned the phone to Apple. A week later, the police raided the home of the blogger and took all his computers, severs and other gadgets based on a complaint by Apple that a felony theft had been committed.

Now, whether a crime has been committed or not is not really the point here. If things went as it is alleged (ie, the individual found the phone, tried to get hold of the owner and Apple and could not), then I don't see any sort of theft. They individual who found the phone could have showed it to any number of people and that he was paid to show it to only one techno blog may or may not be a crime. But there are several issues here that need to be addressed.

Are bloggers protected by journalism shield laws since they do the same thing in writing (ie, informing the public about issues of importance) as journalists who publish on paper? If they are (and I believe they should be), then police would need more than just a search warrant to seize any computer equipment and the blogger would have had a chance to show why seizing his computers was unconstitutional.

But for me, the bigger issues can best be illustrated by a quote from another blogger. According to an ABC News story, lukewind, a commentator for Digg, wrote:

I have to say that I have no sympathy for this guy. He took what he knew was a product that was secret and meant millions if not billions of dollars and posted it all over the Internet. I am glad he did it, but it was still irresponsible and dumb. Iknow the excitement of it all might have caused some bad judgment, but this guy was a moron if he thought Apple was not gonna make an example out of him.

Does lukewind realize what he's saying? That a big corporation will be allowed to violate the US Constitution to make an example out of someone who crossed them? I doubt there's a journalist out there that doesn't hope for this kind of exclusive scoop. And I'd be willing to bet that many news organizations would have paid more than $5000 for an exclusive look at the new iPhone. Even a respectable news organization like ABC reported on the changes it saw in the phone and speculated on what it could mean. I'd also bet that if the tables had been turned, and Apple had a chance to get information on their competitors newest phone, they'd be more than willing to get it from a blog like Gizmodo. What lukewind seems to be actually saying is that "I'm glad the other guy's gonna have to pay the price for something I wish I could have done."