Racism, Terrorism, Protecting Nike's Trademarks—It's All Connected, Dammit

This is outrageous.

Comments

[david f]

... and these were the same cops who busted up that indian restaurant a few weeks ago...

equal opportunity bashing, here!

jeez.

drf

[dude]

If you support trademark infringement, you're supporting terrorism!

Actually, this is pretty routine stuff. If the cops are looking to "get" someone, there's nearly always something that will work. Busting Al Capone for his taxes is a classic example.

There's so many vague laws, rules, and regulations from so many different levels of government (fed, state, county, city, etc.), we're all probably breaking the law all day and don't even know it.

[JDM]

"This is outrageous."

That's why no one listens to civil libertarians.

[scott]

I thought warrants were specific in what they were for. Maybe they were looking for those airplanes the pentagon can't find. The more information I am exposed to, the more I am convinced that the only solution is revolution.

[Anonymous]

"The more information I am exposed to, the more I am convinced that the only solution is revolution."

That's why no one listens to civil libertarians.

[scott]

Who said I was a civil libertarian, dumbass.

[kid c]

Oh, that poor little white supremacist Nazi. How dare They harass him so?

[PLC]

Why is this outrageous? Have you seen the warrant? Did it specify that they were looking for weapons. That is not clear from the article.

The government is justifiably suspicious, gets a proper warrant, does a peaceful search, finds illegal material and charges the homeowner with possession of that material - I can't seem to find anything to get upset about here....

[JDM]

Even if this were an example of law enforcement over-reaching, the example you picked would be demonstrating to 95% of people reading it that such over-reaching can be a good thing.

[Jesse Walker]

An anti-terrorism unit raids a guy's house on a fishing expedition, finds absolutely nothing that demonstrates he's planning crimes against other people, then cooks up a bullshit charge for a minor infraction that shouldn't be illegal in the first place, all because of his political associations.

The only problem with calling that "outrageous" is that the word seems a bit too weak.

[david f]

hey JDM!!

even if 95% think that a white supremicist should get his ass handed to him, when the gov't starts playing rough with that group, what's to stop it from going after all of us.

seriously, if the gov't does overstep its powers, being against the group that receives gov't wrath shouldn't justify the violation. compare this story with the (assumed truthful -- probably a HUGE leap of faith) indian restaurant tale from earlier. jackbooted gov't thugs are just that, regardless if they do pick on someone whose views are so awful that even jerry springer wouldn't masturbate on top of their manifesto.

cheers-and-confused,
drf

[Chris Howell]

The cavalier attitude of a lot of law officers is demonstrated in the quote:

"You prosecute what you can prosecute."

Giving the government and it's police force too much power is a mistake free people make only once.

[david f]

off topic question

has anybody seen or heard of reports that us interrogators have been blasting heavy metal and children's music into cells of high ranking prisoners as part of psych-ops?

man. could you imagine the barney theme over and over again???

phew.
drf

[JDM]

drf,

The government followed the law in this case. According to the Washington Post, they were looking for the t-shirts.

Comparing cops who arrest a neo-Nazi they say is dangerous based on at least a violent criminal history to the original jack booted thugs (who were Nazis) doesn't fly with me.

[JDM]

My question is this: why is this more outrageous than arresting someone who's only crime is copyright violation?

[The Mountain Goat]

A "pre-dawn raid" for trademark infringement?

[Anonymous]

As disgusting as it is, there is some irony in the government henchmen harassing a neo-nazi. You'd think they'd be natural allies. I guess if the word nike was replaced by DOHD (Department Of Homeland Defense Department), then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Semantics.

[david f]

hey JDM!

jackbooted not in the sense that they're nazis (as we all know, that's the favorite insult for the perma-indignant types) -- but in the sense that for however satisifying seeing a neo nazi get his, i am worried about the new extent of gov't powers. PATRIOT etc. are worrying. of course, all of this nazi talk makes me want to go watch "the Producers" again. 🙂

(tongue firmly in cheek here: since these cops did find something they were looking for, maybe we could send them out to iraq.... grin)

cheers!
drf

[Jon B.]

They say is dangerous. Violent criminal history. White supremacist Nazi? That's all I need. Lock him up!

Cummon, this is a no brainer. If the cops had a valid warrent, they get to go in and search. What I want to know is: Is this guy doing anything worse than making bogus Nike shirts which might or might not be defended as satire.

Oh, I get it. He wasn't talking about the Nazis at Nike specifically.

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"the example you picked would be demonstrating to 95% of people reading it that such over-reaching can be a good thing."

kid c wrote:
"Oh, that poor little white supremacist Nazi. How dare They harass him so?"

Fools! The founders stated purpose of the First Amendment was to protect speech we hate and speech
the government hates. Even if principle means nothing to you, if the government can get away with using terrorism as a pretext for this type of abuse you will have to hope they don't find your blogings too offensive some day.

[JDM]

"you will have to hope they don't find your blogings too offensive some day."

That's true. It wouldn't be one lick less true if they hadn't arrested a neo-Nazi today.

[Rick Barton]

Given the nature of this case:

"You prosecute what you can prosecute," one law enforcement source said.

should concern every freedom loving person.

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"It wouldn't be one lick less true if they hadn't arrested a neo-Nazi today."

Good Point! One step we can take now to make the USA safer for free speech is to get on congress to
roll back the Patriot Act! Before it's too late...

[JDM]

This is the sort of thing the Patriot Act was meant for - finding and arresting suspected terrorists. If that's the only effect the Patriot Act has, it's good. Save your outrage for when they arrest the wrong guy.

In all likelyhood, this guy was not arrested for political reasons, but because he was thought to be a threat to public safety by the FBI. Or do you think that out of millions of skinheads that they chose this guy at random?

If it turns out otherwise, I'm sure Jesse will let us know.

[Anonymous]

"An anti-terrorism unit raids a guy's house on a fishing expedition, finds absolutely nothing that demonstrates he's planning crimes against other people, then cooks up a bullshit charge for a minor infraction that shouldn't be illegal in the first place, all because of his political associations."

That's quite a leap based on the Washington Post article I read... perhaps you have another source?

To me this is a simple case of - idiot breaks the law, gets caught, is charged with breaking the law. I still don't get the outrage. Is he wrongly accused? Did the agents search his house without a proper warrant? Was he beat up by the cops? No - nothing of the sort seems to have happened, so far as I can tell. No one's rights were violated here.

[stel]

But there are many (myself included) who believe it should NOT be within the governments power to arrest someone who is suspected of causing a terrorist act in the future. By that reasoning all vegans who publicly speak out for their cause should be arrested, because they are more likely to be part of an eco-terrorist group in the future. (I personally think vegans are a bunch of morons, but its their right to believe what they will.) The same can hold true for any cause which has terrorist groups which come from the extreme of that cause....

[PLC]

Stel - So.... you're saying that if the government found out about T. McVeigh a couple weeks before his act, that they should have just waited until he actually planted the bomb before arresting him?

[Harry Tuttle]

JDM, you sound like you HATE neo-nazis. Maybe the feds should look into YOUR background, you hateful bastard!

[JDM]

stel,

It's just as easy to say that by your reasoning, if Mohammed Atta had been captured on September 10, 2001, they would have to immediately set him free, and anyone involved with his arrest would be fired and charged with violating his civil rights.

I don't really think you're saying that. I would be happy if they arrested Vegans who were planning to blow up a meat processing facility, or closely associated with a group that was planning criminal acts.

[Rick Barton]

I don't know that this particular abuse is a direct out growth of the Patriot Act or not but Patriot abuses continue to occur. Most recent to come to light is the governments going through peoples library records en masse. Even if you trust Bush, think about a Clinton (remember the FBI files?) or a Nixon with these expanded Patriot powers. As for the assurance that:

"If it turns out otherwise, I'm sure Jesse will let us know."

Remember that the government was just asking for the power to put Jesse away (out of the country, no questions asked) if they thought his telling us these things was getting in their way.

[JDM]

Harry,

I do hate neo-Nazis. I also hate brainless reductive arguments.

[JDM]

If they arrest Jesse for what he says here, I and I imagine 200 million or so other Americans will be calling for their heads. No one has been arrested for simple political speech. Even if that law had passed, the first time it was used inappropriately would have been the end of it.

[Anonymous]

Do Nazi/Nike t-shirts count as simple political speech?

[Stel]

Its ok to arrest if there is proof someone will do something, not because something is "suspected". That is two completely different things. If Mohammed Atta had been arrested for "suspected future terrorist acts" on Sept 10 and there was no proof, then yes, I would have let him free. Harrassing and arresting hundreds in the general populace in the attempt to stop a Mohammed Atta trounces on our individual freedom, and does little to actually stop terrorist acts.

[JDM]

Stel,

So you require proof before trial? How does that work? People are ALWAYS arrested on suspicion. That's why they hold trials. Cops aren't prosecuted every time someone is found innocent.

No one has arrested hundreds of the general populace. People are still "outraged" when the Feds nab the guy they seem to be aiming for.

[Anonymous]

the only way to defeat the nazis is to love them, heheh. they're not bad people, they just do bad things, hehe.

[cheese doodle]

"Most recent to come to light is the governments going through peoples library records en masse."

yeah, cause libraries are private organizations...no wait...

"Remember that the government was just asking for the power to put Jesse away (out of the country, no questions asked) if they thought his telling us these things was getting in their way."

really, provide proof of this. Is Jesse gone then? THat is sad, I liked him. Bye Jesse, to the gulag for you. No wait, he isn't in a gulag? But that is waht rick claimed is happening...

yeah hysterical hyperbole, that is productive

[Jake]

I hate Illinois Nazis!

[Anonymous]

What French political office is Jean-Pierre running for?

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"No one has been arrested for simple political speech."

Sure there have been, but they called it something else:
"incitement to riot", "aid and comfort to the enemy", "encourgment of interracial intimacy" etc.

JDM wrote
"If they arrest Jesse for what he says here, I and I imagine 200 million or so other Americans will be calling for their heads"

Are you sure? Would we also be "calling for their heads" if they stole tens of thousands of Americans homes and sent them to concentration camps? Well, they did and "we" didn't. It was the "internment" of Japanese Americans during WWII.

"Even if that law(the expanded powers the government was asking for) had passed, the first time it was used inappropriately would have been the end of it."

This law, itself, would be inappropriate also one can imagine there would be a kind of "chilling effect" if it came to pass. People would be afraid to speak up as this Hell would very likley come to as a result of a crisis, perhaps one that the government caused.

[Rick Barton]

cheese doodle wrote:
"really, provide proof of this. Is Jesse gone then? THat is sad, I liked him. Bye Jesse, to the gulag for you. No wait, he isn't in a gulag? But that is waht rick claimed is happening..."

I said that the government was asking for these powers, not that they already possess them but that they were asking for them is still very concerning.

[JDM]

"Sure there have been, but they called it something else:
"incitement to riot", "aid and comfort to the enemy", "encourgment of interracial intimacy" etc. "

Yes, yes. I was referring to this particular case.

"Would we also be "calling for their heads" if they stole tens of thousands of Americans homes and sent them to concentration camps? Well, they did and "we" didn't. It was the "internment" of Japanese Americans during WWII"

We are not talking about anything similar. This seems to be a single individual suspected of endangering the public in one way or another. If it turns out instead to be planted evidence, or the result of personal vendetta, the offending parties risk prosecution.

As for the internment, the fact that it came to an end, and is still used as a cautionary tale, especially after 9/11 show how unlikely this sort of thing is to occur today. At the time, it was perfectly all right with most people to send blacks to separate schools. Do you think that would happen now?

Internment of innocent Japanese in the culture of 1942 is in no way similar to arresting a dangerous Nazi. Or to sending Jesse to the Gulag in 2003.

"People would be afraid to speak up as this Hell would very likley come to as a result of a crisis, perhaps one that the government caused."

In this Hell which does not yet exist, why wouldn't this law pass if it hadn't been passed already? If its abusers could enforce it differently in this post-crisis environment, they could also get it created in the first place.

[Henrik Mintis]

Did I miss something? When did "arrest" become a synonym for "prosecute"? Arrest is not a pleasant experience, but isn't the whole point of American justice to give the defendant as much opportunity to defend themself as possible?

It's intellectually lazy to compare American police action to the actions of true fascist governments, such as Iraq's or Palestine's, where police attest, imprison and/or execute people summarily.

One stray bullet at Ruby Ridge and the country is still talking about it. This country makes mistakes, without a doubt, some of them large ones, and it's true the current administration is more strict than the last liberal Democratic administration (by which I mean Jimmy Carter's --- you didn't think I was talking about Janet Reno, did you) but c'mon.

We live in such luxury and ease in America today, I guess any tiny violation is an "outrage" or a "rights violation". Not to say this arrest wasn't a rights violation of some sort, perhaps it was, but to conclude from an arrest that the government now wears "brown shirts" is superficial at best.

[Anonymous]

Henrik: The act itself is an outrage, and so is the larger police strategy that the Post article is about. It isn't fascism, and the original post didn't say it was fascism, but hey: Yelling "Nazis!" at the drop of a hat is part of how we keep our freedoms. :>

[Henrik Mintis]

I admit, I exaggerated a bit to make a point, but I do think it's oversensitive to consider the police the last link in the chain of justice. "Give me my day in court", isn't that the expression? Too, yelling "Nazi" runs the danger of crying "wolf" if overdone.

My larger point really is, it's society that convicts you, not government. It's ultimately a jury of your peers. A comment above mine asked who cares about these Nazis anyway. Rough opinion, but it's allowed in a democracy.

One hopes for impartiality, and one hopes minorities are not suppressed, but I'll say again, it's society's work the police are doing, not vice-versa. (BTW, I'm American, born and raised. My name gives people the idea I'm they need to splain things to me. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"We are not talking about anything similar"(to the
internment)

I was comparing it to the expanded powers the government was asking for which could cost Jesse his citizenship, if they thought his postings were getting in their way, (I hope all this talk is not going to cause Jesse to lose sleep) at a whim with out "due process" because if the government got what they were asking for there would literally be no process due him.

"This seems to be a single individual suspected of endangering the public in one way or another."

But the police found no evidence of this so they are contiplating charging him on a "trademark" violation with the comment "You prosecute what you can prosecute." The founders of our republic would be weeping if they knew this was going on.

"Internment of innocent Japanese in the culture of 1942 is in no way similar to... sending Jesse to the Gulag in 2003."

They are similar in that they are both outrageous
deprivations of liberty, the former tolerated in a time of crisis, the later,(actually the government was asking for the power to ba able to deprive any one they said was "aiding terrorists" of their citizenship and deport them with out due process, not send them to the Gulag) something that the government sought to make "legal". The important thing is not to let the government have the latitude so that in times of crisis it will not violate liberty and/or use these expanded powers to repress dissent and political opposition which it is liable to do at any time not just in periods of crisis. Remember the lessons of the Nixon and Clinton Regimes! So, at the least, we should tell out congress person and senators not to repeal the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act and not to pass Patriot II.

[Rick Barton]

Henrik Mintis wrote:
"It's intellectually lazy to compare American police action to...Palestine's, where police attest, imprison and/or execute people summarily."

What's "intellectually lazy" is not to be as vigilant as we need to be so as to keep our official's actions very far from these horrors. And, the afore mentioned actions are good reason for our government to quit funding the Palestinian
Authority and since the Israeli government engages
in the same actions and they receive billions of tax dollars we should cut them off as well.

"My larger point really is, it's society that convicts you, not government. It's ultimately a jury of your peers."

But, in the Patriot Act as well as the other expanded powers the government has tried for this
"due process" does not exist.

"but I'll say again, it's society's work the police are doing, not vice-versa."

I don't think the "vice-versa" quite works here, but anyway, always remember, government is not the same as "society". Government is that part of society that has a monopoly on the initiation of force which is why George Washington called it a "dangerous servant and a fearful master"; Something we need to keep bound tight by the chains of law, lest it enslave us.

[JDM]

Rick,

Suppose the government shaves Jesse's head and dunks him in a vat of green paint. That would also not have anything to do with arresting a neo-Nazi on reasonable suspicion, then holding him on a minor charge until they build a case against him, or release him. (Which is a tactic the FBI uses all the time.)

I think it is important to keep in mind that laws are written to serve an end - somebody's idea of a just society. It does no good to fetishize the law above its end. Arresting suspected neo-Nazi terrorists is by any sensible person's definition a good feature of law enforcement.

Saying "look how outrageous this law is, the leader of a white supremicist group has been arrrested by an anti-terror task force," is not going to do much for convincing anyone that the government is overstepping its bounds.

No one has been deprived of due process (in this instance) and people will only listen to so many cries of wolf.

I'll restate my other point. If the public is going to allow an administration to abuse its powers in a crisis under existing laws, it doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't also allow that administration create the laws after the crisis, and then abuse them. There were no Japanese interned before Pearl Harbor, and no law I'm aware of which would have allowed them to be.

[Rick Barton]

"Arresting suspected neo-Nazi terrorists is by any sensible person's definition a good feature of law enforcement."

But in their raid they found no evidence he was a terrorist! A creep maybe, but that's legal.

"I think it is important to keep in mind that laws are written to serve an end"

The end the Patriot Act(s) will serve is the repression of dissent.

"it doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't also allow that administration create the laws after the crisis"

The public is much less concerned with freedom, post-crisis. Look at the mood after 9/11. Also remember how the administration rammed the Patriot Act through Congress in a wee-hours-of-the-morning session.

Was the internment of the Japanese done as result of a law being passed or was it an executive order of the Roosevelt administration?

[History student]

Help me out here, if you will. I'm not sure, but for there to be any "copyright infringement," shouldn't there first be a charge? (by the entity that holds the copyright. In this case, the Nike company.)

Did the Nike company press any charges? No? Then what business do the cops have to enforce any kind of "copyright infringement."

The cops don't own the Nike company, do they?

That said -- Naziism, as a group, is a force to be reckoned with, only when it is institutionalized. When such a group acquires the political clout to actually enact laws in the land (laws that result in persecution and oppression, en masse) that's when Naziism presents a danger.

But one lone nut case, spouting off bile, couldn't be much of a threat. Could he?

[Hoarwang Zinshi]

Sounds like both parties benefited to me. The Nazis look bad ass in the news to young recruits while law enforcement gets the nod from black supremecists.

[PLC]

I'm not sure where the idea came from, but several people have claimed that he could not be charged with copyright infringement unless Nike pressed charges. This is not true. Unless Nike specifically gave him permission, or he was attempting to parody Nike, he is clearly guilty.

Personally, I would not buy the parody excuse in this case, because his intent was obviously not to parody Nike but to promote Nazism. I'd find him guilty, but ultimately, it'll be up to a jury.

He broke the law, he's going to get punished.

[Anonymous]

It's a trademark case, not a copyright case.

[Rick Barton]

Lazarus,
Bush has much "bashing" due him from the "limited government" segment of the political spectrum as well.

Lazarus wrote:
BTW- snooping isn't against unconsitutional, as long a government agent abides by Bill of Rights

Government snooping can definitely be unconstitutional. The founders of our republic considered some rights so basic that they were not even covered in the Bill of Rights although they wrote about them.(See: "James Madison and the future of Limited Government" John Samples Ed.) Privacy and travel are among these rights.

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Rick Barton]

What is now called the "right to privacy" is also covered in amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Radley Balko]

Just a clarification:

I'm fairly certain that when the Washington Post reporter wrote "they found what they were looking for," he meant "they found something -- anything -- they could arrest the guy for." I'm pretty sure he did not mean "they found the trademark violating t-shirts which were the reason they went in there in the first place."

It's clear earlier in the article that the warrant was issued because they suspect he had weapons and/or terrorism connections, not a stash of illegal t-shirts.

[Lazarus]

Rick: So Congress gets a walk? And I would love to see your justifcation of the "rights" of privacy and travel from a limited government perspective....

"Gimme an airline ticket, its my right to travel! Don't look in my windows! The shades are up? Well I gotta right to privacy! Bad hair day, don't look at me when I cross the street - its my right dammit!"

BTW - I am just speaking from a philsophical perspective, as I hold there are no such "rights." From a legal perspective, the 9th and 10th Ammendment are not held up by a single court -- so don't hold your breath.

[amr]

shouldn't this be fair use? Nazis can use parody too, right?

[Lazarus]

Actually the ammendment gives no such right. What right does it give? It gives:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[PLC]

"It's clear earlier in the article that the warrant was issued because they suspect he had weapons and/or terrorism connections, not a stash of illegal t-shirts."

Actually, that is not at all clear from the article. If you think it is, you have obviously never personally dealt with the press.

[PLC]

In fact, if the warrant had been issued because they suspected that he harbored weapons/terrorists, the article would have screamed this fact several times. It would have been the headline. The fact that it is mentioned in passing indicates that the warrant was almost certainly given in order to search for the T-shirts and that the weapons possibility was only tangentially related.

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"There were no Japanese interned before Pearl Harbor, and no law I'm aware of which would have allowed them to be."

The point is to keep the government from violating
individual liberty even in times of crisis, when they are more likley to do so.

[JDM]

Radley,

The sentence in question form the article:

"Agents found no weapons, but they found something they were looking for -- T-shirts with a Nike swoosh logo that substitutes the word "Nazi" for Nike."

That means that among the things they were looking for were T-shirts with a Nike Swoosh logo. The writers may have screwed up, but the sentence as written is fairly unambiguous.

The earlier sentence:

"In an affidavit seeking a warrant for the pre-dawn raid this year, an agent wrote that Cecchini had a "violent criminal history" and probably owned weapons."

in no way means that the warrant was issued for those reasons only. It looks more to me like the writers are giving some background on the suspect, and identifying the source of it.

[Sandy]

"shouldn't this be fair use? Nazis can use parody too, right?"

And that's assuming the t-shirts were originally created for white supremacists by white supremacists. I could easily see a mass run of these being snapped up at the next World Bank protests or at a Kathy Lee Gifford appearance.

This is pretty much harassment. Maybe to a guy who we can all agree deserves harassment, but that's what your free speech is for (or his). It's not the government's place to do it for you. If he has an attorney that can stay awake (not a given, mind you), he will get the infringement charge thrown out, and the prosecutor damn well knows it.

[geophile]

Sure joe, the ACLU has probably defended a Nazi here or there, in other words the type of person they'd call Republicans racist for defending. But to be fair, let's extend my statement across the spectrum: the mainstreams of the Right and Left won't defend this guy for a variety of reasons, and so far I still haven't seen specific support for his cause from the ACLU either, though I suppose it's not impossible. I won't be soiling my web browser by going to their site to find out.

[fredH]

JDM:

That's as may be. A civil jury sure thought he was in the wrong. Wouldn't you think that an employee whose malfeasance cost his employers (in this case us taxpayers) $3 million should at least be fired. He would be in the private sector.

[geophile]

I'm not overly disturbed by these events, but clearly the Patriot Act must go no further, and the sunset provisions should stay, for now.

The charge of copyright violation and the justification for the raid are two somewhat separate issues. I'm completely against the copyright charge, for reasons stated by "History student," among others. The level of criticism the raid itself has gotten is mostly appropriate, a certain vigilance is always necessary. The crying of "wolf" will pay off when really extreme excesses arise. People will know true abuse when they see it, despite the popular myth on this board (and elsewhere) that FOX News has turned everyone into witless Republozombies.

This is a case where a truly, completely despised minority is being targetted, as opposed to the usual groups that the Left claims are being held down by capitalism. For all their sanctimony about the oppressed and voiceless, they're nowhere to be found on this one (am I wrong? Someone please provide a link of a left-oriented site defending this guy).

Apparently, only Libertarians have the balls to speak out on behalf of Nazis, and even if this guy isn't the best poster boy for liberty-based advocacy, when it truly does become necessary to defend a hateful, law-abiding prick, the ACLU will be AWOL.

[Rick Barton]

Lazarus wrote:
"Rick: So Congress gets a walk?"(for the Patriot Act)

No walk at all for congress. I just hold the administration much more responsible and am glad for the conservatives in congress who roused some opposition to it.

"And I would love to see your justifcation of the "rights" of privacy and travel from a limited government perspective"

What? All rights limiting government action against the will of the individual (they are sometimes called "negative rights" in political theory) advance freedom.

"Actually the ammendment gives no such right." (to privacy)

Amendment IX:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

That people should "be secure in their..." and that searches can be "unreasonable" lays out a stake in privacy which was clearly the founders intent as evidenced by their writings but number IX supports it even more solidly.

[Lazarus]

Rick: Negative rights has little to do with government's actions and everything between the proper interaction of individuals. E.g. The government obstructing the will of an individual trying to kill or rob me preserve my freedom. Maybe you are trying take a simplized version of liberal theory to the masses -- but I ain't buying it. Privacy is not a negative right anyway.

Legally all the IX does is lie out a procedure for violating people's privacy. Intentions are not Law (though they have been used to verify Law) and IX and X is toilet paper at this point.

You will have to do better than this to convince me...

[Rick Barton]

Lazarus,
"negative" is a name given by some to rights that restict certain actions of governments or persons which impinge on the freedom of another person.
I don't beleive in "positve" rights such as "right to health care " "right to a job" etc.
These "rights" don't make sense because they would have to obligate others to take action rather than refrain from certain actions. For this reason, I don't find the designation of rights as negative (or positive) very useful and believe me, I wish I never brought it up.

"Privacy is not a negative right anyway."

The right to privacy is most certainly a "negative" type of right as it entails a restriction of action by government or others.

"Legally all the IX does is lie out a procedure for violating people's privacy."

No Way! Its very central to our liberty. For a better understanding, Check out: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIX.html

[Lazarus]

Rick: I agree that IX protects liberty in a very practical way, but people's privacy (rightly) is violated all the time -- with warrents.

You are playing with a dangerous abstraction. Yes privacy does exist, but it is constructed from actual rights to life, liberty and property. But in order to enforce those rights, privacy often needs to be broken.

[Rick Barton]

"people's privacy (rightly) is violated all the time -- with warrents."

Yes, but it was in part their regard for privacy as well as other individual rights that led the framers of the constitution to limit these warrants. (from Amend. IX):
...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Rick Barton]

Sorry, that was Amend. IV not IX.

[Lefty]

Check this story out. The dude, Steven Hatfill is a "person of interest" in the anthrax cases. The FBI has been on his ass constantly and he's lost his job. Now, one of the FBI tails runs over his foot and Hatfill gets a ticket for walking in the street.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usanth203293593may20,0,320884.story?coll=ny%2Dnationalnews%2Dprint

[Croesus]

Rick,

Getting a warrant is fairly easy in this country; that is probable cause is not that difficult to establish (and hasn't been for quite sometime). If folks don't like these "gestapo" tactics, think about how much worse it was back in the 19th century, when cops didn't even bother with warrants.

Of course all of this is an abstraction. The main issue here, and I don't think Jesse, or anyone else, has adequately articulated this yet, is whether the warrant was a pre-text to squelch this man's speech, or as a vehicle to arrest someone simply because they happen to hang with groups that are now considered unpopular (if not downright immoral). I think this a prime example of how deviance is largely not tolerated by the majority; and of course how attitudes about types of deviance change (juxtapose what was happening to gay nightclubs forty years ago in comparison to Klan groups). Foucault could write a book about this, if he were alive. 🙂

Lazarus,

"But in order to enforce those rights, privacy often needs to be broken."

This may be true, but the point remains: how much are you willing to break, and who bears the burden of what is broken?

[Anonymous]

They came for the Nazis, and we did nothing . . .

You can only fight hate with love. That is the most important lesson.

[Lazarus]

Croesus: That is why defending "privacy" is defending a dangerous abstraction. From property rights viewpoint, it becomes much clearer.

[Jesse Walker]

Isn't anyone going to stick up for sending me to the Gulag?

[PLC]

Someone please explain to me how anyone's rights were violated in this case or what this case has to do with the Patriot Act? Due process was followed - there was a warrant, a peaceful search, and a proper arrest.

I still have no idea what the hell everyone is so upset about....

The guy broke the law and he'll pay his fine and then he can go back to being a Nazi... whoopdee-doo.

[google]

the innate contradiction of goo-goo liberalism: everybody has a rights, but most especially those who would destroy these very rights.

this is the weimar republic, 1930, all over again.

"I defend to the death your constitutional right to overthrow the constitution and bill of rights" -- liberalism, 2003

[JDM]

Firstly, the progression of "they came fors" makes no sense whatsoever. Do none of you see the difference between "first they came for the mass murderers" and "first they came for the Jews?"

Secondly, there is no evidence at all that this guy is being arrested for simple political speech. It is very likely that he is not. If it comes out that the FBI had no foundation to suspect him of anything criminal, then complain. The officers responsible will, if there is not enough evidence for reasonable suspicion, be fired and tried for violating the guy's civil rights.

Thirdly, according to the Washington Post, the FBI was looking for the t-shirts. It seems very unlikely that they could get a conviction on that alone, which makes it all the more likely (though not certain) that there is more here than we now know. You can only wrongly arrest a white person so many times without getting into trouble.

The sky is not falling, and more importantly, if it were, there would be no reason to think that this is evidence of it. But I imagine you've all already filed this away as certain evidence that Bush is shredding the Bill of Rights.

[david f]

hey Jesse!

not only is nobody sticking up for you, it seems that suggestions like the "dunking in green paint" aren't picking up steam, either. 🙂

plus, if we were to stick up for you, wouldn't we get busted on PATRIOT violations, too?

ha ha,
drf

[Harry Tuttle]

The people on this board have such a great sense of humor!

JDM says, "The officers responsible will, if there is not enough evidence for reasonable suspicion, be fired and tried for violating the guy's civil rights."

My sides are still split after that one. Bravo!

[joe]

"when it truly does become necessary to defend a hateful, law-abiding prick, the ACLU will be AWOL."

Nice try, geophile. Here in the real world, the ACLU has taken the cases of dozens of Nazis, and has taken quite a bit of grief for it.

[Anonymous]

People like JDM think Naziism is bad but "Fascism Lite" is A-OK!

[Rick Barton]

JDM wrote:
"But I imagine you've all already filed this away as certain evidence that Bush is shredding the Bill of Rights."

The Bush administration's lack of concern for individual liberty has been evidenced by the Patriot Act, many draconian items in the the proposed Patriot II, the proposed big government snoop programs such that "Stazi" type "snoop on your nieghbors and report initiative" and the very intrusive "Poindexter" info-harvesting initiative. Fortunately, some opposition to this frightening stuff came from the leadership of a few conservatives in congress, notably Bob Barr and Dick Armey. (both not there any more and also both were so concerned with these threats that they joined the ALCU !) It was due to Barr and Armey that some items of the Patriot Act have sunset provisions.

[martin]

Seems like many of the previous posters who think this police action so innocuous and believe so trustingly in the "authorities'" good intentions might want to ask themselves some questions:

1 Do you find the following statement acceptable to yourself: In order to keep us all safe, it is regrettable but inevitable that some people are deprived of their rights and I am willing to be one of those people.

2 Do you think the threat of pre-dawn raids, home searches and detention and questioning are not intimidating and should be used in cases where only a person's history raises suspicion of wrong-doing or do you think there should be same basis in fact for these actions?

3 Do you think law enforcement does a proper job when they put the spin on an issue to get a judge to sign a warrant?

4 Do you think the playing-field between law enforcement and an accused citizen is in fact level or is not the citizen at the disadvantage of having to pay for competent legal counsel, losing work time and suffering from loss of reputation, not even to mention the stress?

5 Would you have the resources to get the government off your back if you were unjustly accused?

6 Don't you think that there will always be at least one example of an egregious case to drum up political support for drastic measures and do you think that good laws are passed that way?

7 Do you think that media coverage of extreme cases influences political support for drastic measures?

8 Do you support fishing expeditions by law enforcement even if only one crime is prevented?

9 Do you think it is ok if some laws are strictly enforced and others are not and do you suppose that enforcement changes with the political wind, media coverage or the opinion of the enforcer?

I could add a few more, but let this suffice.

[Rick Barton]

I mean Barr and Armey joined the "ACLU", of course. Sorry

[fredH]

JDM:

If the agents are wrong, they'll be arrested for violating the guy's rights? That incompetent sniper who killed the woman carrying a baby at Ruby Ridge still has his job. He cost us taxpayers $3 million in a wrongful death lawsuit.

[JDM]

Anon,

People like JDM think that equating the open arrest (which appeared in the Washington Post) of a neo-Nazi (under investigation by an anti-terrorism unit) according to valid laws (which were created by the elected representatives of the people) with jack-booted thugs, Naziism, or fascism-lite is willfully stupid, and morally obscene.

Rick,

There is no evidence I've seen that this has anything to do with the Patriot Act. If it did, this would have to be filed under the good category as an argument for the Patriot Act. (Which does not trump or rule out the arguments against it.)

Harry,

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0205a/judibaritrial12.html

Laugh it up. Or join the real world. Your choice. Do you want me to find more?

[Jim]

Been reading all your posts here, and it seems to me the 'it's not a civil rights violation' supporters are missing one thing. IF the cops were specifically looking for the T-shirts, pursuant to copywright violations, that would imply specifically that this person had been targetted for his opinions (i.e. because Nike does not want Neonazi's using their logo to spread hateful propaganda). Yes, he will probably get off of the charge on the 'right to parody' thing, but even that's debatable in the current climate with copywrite law, but nonetheless he will still go through a lot of grief and expense before he is cleared. Thus law enforement was specifically used to harass someone because he harbored views that people don't like, OR copywright and trademark law is now a tool used to prevent political speech protected by the constitution. These are both bad things.

On the other hand, if they suspected him of planning terrorist acts, and simply made a mistake or didn't find anything, then I guess we'd have to write that off as an unfortunate incident. To really determine whether or not it was an 'undue search' you'd have to see the warrant and the evidence the cops presented to get it. Without that, judgement could go either way. BUT, failing to find anything, I still would find it curious they used the 'trademark infringment' thing, because you can only be infringing if the owner brings charges. I think it would be a good guess that Nike would oppose this use of their trademark, but I don't think the police can legally act until they actually request it. So in this case they would be using a bogus interpretation of a potentially already unconstitutional copywright law to arrest someone who they were unsuccessful in finding any evidence against.

[Anonymous]

They came for the Mensheviks, and we did nothing . . .

Then they came for the Gypsies, and we did nothing . . .

Then they came for the queers, and we did nothing . . .

[JDM]

fredH,

The *county* prosecutor in Idaho declined to go to trial because, in his judgement, there was no chance for a conviction. The feds are not immune to prosecution, and they know it.

[Lazarus]

Rick, why do you let Congress off the hook for passing Patriot in the first place? You make some valid agruments, but they appear at first glance to be the mindless Bush-bashing so common to lefties here.

BTW- snooping isn't against unconsitutional, as long a government agent abides by Bill of Rights or a private citizen abides by relevent laws (trespassing, etc).

[Rick Barton]

Croesus,
Helping to protect various minorities from various
majorities seems to be yet another happy outcome of keeping the state smaller and its legal apparatus restrained.

"Foucault could write a book about this, if he were alive. :)"

I'll keep in the swing of things for liberty. 🙂

[mouse]

Barton said, I don't beleive in "positve" rights such as "right to health care " "right to a job" etc.

But people DO have a "right to health care." !!
Logic dictates that if others have a right to your money, then they also have a right to your services -- It doesn't matter whether you're a doctor or a salesman or an armchair philosopher.

We're not here to make a living for ourselves and our loved ones. We're here primarily to sweat and slave for the benefit of others. (I read that in "Atlas Shrugged" somewhere.)

[L.Spooner]

According to Lazarus: "From a legal perspective, the 9th and 10th Ammendment are not held up by a single court."

And so ... when Ben Franklin was asked what form of government we have here, he said, "A Constitutional Republic -- IF you can keep it."