Edited by author 03-17-2003 08:09 PM
That's the argument that you have nothing to fear from government intrusion, constant surveillance, etc. as long as you are innocent. This classic argument also suggests that only the guilty would oppose such measures. So having your reading habits, your web browsing habits when you use the internet terminals at your local library, having your mail confiscated and read, and having people watch where you go and what you do are not really a problem, unless you are guilty. I disagree.

These are chilling effects (also the name of a very good web site) in that they tend to make people circumscribe their own habits. You don't need any active censorship because you censor yourself ("and he loved big brother"). This means less objection -- at least visible objection -- to government (and corporate) policy and frankly that means a nation that is less and less like the USA is supposed to be.

So it's (now) supposed just people just suspected of terrorist activity? How do we know, since it's secret. The government says it's ok, don't worry, and above all don't question it, but we're not going to tell you any information so you can tell whether or not we're even following our new lax rules -- and that's ok? Look at past people suspected by the government of being dangerous radicals who needed to be spied upon. People like Martin Luther King, Jr. People like John Lennon (*others below). The government is now talking about making it possible to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen using secret tribunals as the "court". No lawyer, no due process, no public accountability whatsoever. That's incredibly dangerous, even if it is just "them". How long do you think it's gonna be "them" and not "you"?

I'm sure you've heard the quotes "first they came for.. etc." and I don't need to repeat it here. These are real dangers in this erosion of rights. It ALWAYS starts with "them" and with the "guilty". During the Vietnam War librarians were approached to try to get them to find out who'd been reading "dangerous" books. The librarians told them to take a hike. They are not legally able to do that now. It always starts with something that sounds good -- in the Vietnam war it started with books on explosives. Who could argue with that? The librarians saw that the bigger problem is that there's no reason it can't go to the next level: who's reading "subversive books" -- what are "subversive" books -- Marx? Paul Robeson? Ken Kesey? Orwell? What if you're reading up on explosives so you can safely take out those rocks and stumps in the back 40 -- should you be investigated? When does it stop being "them" and become "you"? Liberty is a dangerous business; if you want an entirely safe country, you can't have liberty.

(*Some other people past US governments have considered dangerous radicals who needed to be spied on: Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holliday, John Lennon, Ernest Hemingway, Wilt Chamberlin, Tony Randall, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, Bill Cosby, Steve McQueen, Barbra Streisand (her career may be over, but she probably is happy to know she's still got it :), Joe Namath. Above are people spied on by the FBI and/or people on Nixon's enemies list (people who our executive branch officials were instructed to "do a job on").)