Her story started with a blog entry after one of the prezidential debates. She has deleted the entry for reasons that will become apparent, so I wasn't able to actually read it. She sounds like a young pacifist with a sardonic sense of humor who made some disparaging remarks about the us prez W. She received many positive comments and a couple angry comments, then forgot about the entire incident. Until two weeks later, the Sekrit Service showed up at her mother's door at 9:45pm to talk to her about her blog because her jesting could be misconstrued as threats to the Prez.
A couple of her points really stand out:
"4. What you say on the Internet can affect your real life. Due to what I said online, I now have an FBI file. And due to certain policies that a certain administration has instituted, I could now be placed on the government's "no-fly" list, could be subject to random searches of private property without my knowledge or permission, and could be subject to wiretapping surveillance. I doubt that any of these things will happen (except with the "no-fly" list – according to my attorney, that's a strong possibility and is something we are looking into)... So be aware.
5. What happened to me happened because someone on LJ reported me to the FBI. This is not idle speculation on my part. The Secret Service agent told me as much last night – the reason why they were there was because the FBI received a report about my post. It was not found through Google or through keyword searches. ... because of what happened to me, I am now going to have an FBI file following me around for the rest of my life. This may cause future problems for me in several different aspects of my life, and that kind of damage is permanent. "
This completely freaked me out. What happened to the First Amendment? The whole damn bill of rights? What about the third amendment: "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."
Number Nine should take care of the rest: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If rights are not explicitly given in the Constitution that doesn't mean they can be denied.
True, this girl was not searched or seized from, to her knowledge, but hers is a cautionary tale. If you're going to dish the prez, you damn well better have a giant corporate media conglomerate backing you up and ready to pay the legal fees. Don't kid yourself that free speech applies to the plain folk.
The most troubling part of anniej's story is that someone 'done brought the law down on her' because they disagreed with her. People who admire the current administration are taking as their example ruthless Rove-ian tactics. In a recent article, Neal Gabler writes "This election is about Rovism, and the outcome threatens to transform the U.S. into an ironfisted theocracy. ...Rovism is much more. It is a philosophy and practice of governing that pervades the administration and even extends to the Republican-controlled Congress."
"There is no dissent in the Rove White House without reprisal."
Dissenters: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Where are they now?
This administration silences dissent with scare tactics, and the people who support this administration apparently use the same tactics to frighten people who have differing views. Sadly, it works. Little Annie took the offending words off the internet. Remember "you're either with us or against us."
Where does it end?
No comments:
Post a Comment