I wrote a post in April of 2007 regarding Luis Posada Carriles, a known terrorist who killed 73 innocent people when he blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976. Since the victims were Cubans, they don’t count, and the U.S. has elected to shield Carriles, refusing his extradition to face charges. We are harboring a terrorist.
I concluded the post with the words “We should **** Washington.” I was referring to the fact that Bush (and Clinton before him) reserves the right to bomb any country that harbors terrorists.
I was reminded by commenter Sally Ramage that my closing words could (“should”) be construed as inciting terrorism. I quickly redacted. In viewing Ramage’s bio, I suspect that she is not a friendly offering counsel. This was not a warning to take lightly.
It’s a reminder of our repressive climate – “terrorism” is the new “communism” and is used as a lever to not only conduct aggressive wars and hostile activities abroad, but also to collar and silence our citizenry domestically. And it will continue for so long as Americans are cowed in fear.
Shame on us. Our founding fathers weep.
Piece of Mindful 
Reply to the post, “Mind what you say”
Friday 16th May 2008.
Despite insinuations, I do not work for the FBI or the CIA.
But please allow me to expand.
Obviously you have the human right of freedom of expression.
This right includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information without interference from public authority and regardless of frontiers. But in exercising this freedom, you have duties and responsibilities and you are subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions and penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of your country’s national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals and for the protection and reputation or rights of others. So as a balance to ‘freedom of expression’, there are court injunctions that can be applied when this right impedes on others’ rights.
Freedom of expression is of particular importance as far as the Press is concerned, though it is debatable whether a blog may be regarded in law as ‘Press’. In the instance of your criticism of politicians Bush and others, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the private individual, the politician inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and so he must display a greater degree of tolerance, even though he also does have rights to be protected too. In cases of high criticism of politicians, the requirements of protection o his human rights have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues, regard to be had to the background against which this blog post was written on 12 May 2008 at https://pieceofmind.wordpress.com.
With especial regard to the final sentence in this 12 May post, containing the words, “bomb Washington”, I draw your attention to the United States law, ’Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001′, sections 411(F)(4) and (I), which states that “engage in terrorist activity” means ” in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization. (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity..”.
There is the criminal justice system to deal with terrorists and we ought not allow “free speech” to be “judge and jury” for fear of anarchy, not “Big Brother”.
I hope you agree with me. Have a nice day.
Sally Ramage,
Editor, “The Criminal Lawyer”.
LikeLike
Sally-
Can the law be amended to exclude tounge-in-cheek remarks?
Oh wait, that probably doesn’t need to happen because anyone with an IQ over 70 can tell that he wasn’t genuinely inciting terrorism.
So, get off your high horse and find something better to do with your time. Is this seriously what you do with your free time? You go around to tiny blogs with 100-150 visits a day and operate as the speech police?
That’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.
LikeLike
Fighting “terrorism” is, so far as I can see, a back door method of suppressing free speech and otherwise legal dissident activities at home. This was never more clear to me than when I saw that Nelson Mandela was on a terrorist watch list. They’re not so concerned with legitimate terrorist activities, which are not a large threat, as they are with people protesting and organizing and openly and strongly criticizing those in power. They are far more concerned with activities of the domestic population than they are with terrorists. It was the same when the bogeyman was “communism”. Please read the Mencken quote under the name of our blog on the top of the page.
Our government uses fear as a means of controlling the population. It’s a tool of tyrants. I suggest that you use your considerable talents protecting domestic freedom rather than going around acting as an enforcer for those who hold power.
LikeLike