Please Sign and Share
and Share, if in agreement. Thank you, Lynn, Kelb, Inc.
… A claim can be initiated upon an information made by a private individual. The opportunity thus present for the indulgence of personal spite and hatred or for furthering some selfish advantage or ambition need only be mentioned to be appreciated. Defense of the Nation by law, no less than by arms, should be a public, and not a private, undertaking. It is important that punitive sanctions for sedition against the United States be such as have been promulgated by the central governmental authority and administered under the supervision and review of that authority’s judiciary (Page 350 U. S. 508).
If that be done, sedition will be detected and punished no less, wherever it may be found, and the right of the individual to speak freely and without fear, even in criticism of the government, will, at the same time, be protected. ” 18.
This is a contradictive statement. If one who voices support methods, of helping the poor gets one on a surveillance list, this has a chilling effect on free speech.
In his brief, the Solicitor General states that forty-two States plus Alaska and Hawaii have statutes which, in some form, prohibit advocacy of the violent overthrow of established government. These statutes are entitled anti-sedition statutes, criminal anarchy laws, criminal syndicalist laws, etc. Although all of them are primarily directed against the overthrow of the United States Government, they are in no sense uniform. And our attention has not been called to any case where the prosecution has been successfully directed against an attempt to destroy state or local government. Some of these Acts are studiously drawn, and purport to protect fundamental rights by appropriate definitions, standards of proof, and orderly procedures in keeping with the avowed congressional purpose “to protect freedom from those who would destroy it, without infringing upon the freedom of all our people.” Others are vague, and are almost wholly without such safeguards. Some even purport to punish mere membership in subversive organizations, which the federal statutes do not punish where federal registration requirements have been fulfilled. (Page 350 U. S. 509)
The law that was passed in 1974, FISA, did not meet the standard expressed here, and of concern, of protecting Constitutionally protected rights, especially the right to due process and to Fourth Amendment protections.
Part of our work concerning repealing FISA.
Please Sign, Share, if you are in agreement.Thank you, Lynn