whoze DA biggest censor of dem all ?

Censoring Protesters President Clinton has used the "bully pulpit" of the Oval Office to express his opinion on a whole range of topics--from teenage pregnancy rates and gasoline prices to human rights abuses in China[pretty much things he has no control over]. He can use the power of his office to reverse the policies of past administrations and to initiate new policies. Indeed, that is what the electoral process is all about. At the same time, however, the Constitution protects the rights of those who oppose the president and his policies. As the Supreme Court has noted, "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." The oath of office requires the president to effect change cautiously-- so as not to violate the constitutional rights of the minority party, or, for that matter, the rights of a single individual. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to use the power of government to suppress dissent. In July 1994, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development launched an "investigation" of a married Berkeley couple, Alexandra White and Joseph Deringer. White and Deringer did not want a hotel in their neighborhood to be converted into a homeless shelter, so they organized a fledgling opposition campaign. HUD managers were put off by the citizen resistance to their "fair housing" initiative. The HUD officials threatened White and Deringer with fines in order to set an example for other would-be objectors. According to defense attorney David Bryden, federal investigators asked for every article, flier, and letter to the editor that his clients (White and Deringer) had written. The opinions expressed in those publications were to be used as "evidence" of Fair Housing Act violations. When the incident began to receive national attention, HUD secretary Henry Cisneros tried to quell the controversy over his agency's tactics by pledging to protect the right of every American "to speak freely on issues of public concern." That magnanimous gesture was small comfort to White and Deringer. Censoring Doctors President Clinton also [STILL]supports a gag order on doctors who believe that drugs like marijuana can alleviate the suffering of some patients. Medical research suggests that marijuana can relieve symptoms associated with glaucoma and AIDS, among other illnesses. In November 1996 the citizens of California and Arizona approved referenda that would allow physicians to recommend marijuana for patients if the physicians deem it appropriate. But Clinton drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey['The Genius'] has threatened to criminally prosecute any physician who prescribes marijuana for a patient. Under the Clinton policy, doctors must seek the permission of the Drug Enforcement Administration before they can render forthright medical opinions. And the citizens who might benefit from the medicinal use of marijuana face even starker choices: they must forgo the drug and endure the pain and discomfort of their illness, use the drug and risk arrest and a jail sentence, or leave the United States. Censoring the Internet President Clinton supports federal censorship of the Internet. In February 1996 he signed the Communications Decency Act into law. That act makes it a crime to transmit or allow "indecent" material to be transmitted over computer networks to which minors have access. But since there is no affordable, effective way for nonprofit or low-profit speakers to restrict children's access to such a broad, ill-defined category of material, the CDA has the effect of banning much speech from the Internet[guess some people want to keep a monopoly on being able to 'help' others]. As civil liberties attorney Harvey Silvergate observed, "Overnight, the federal government transformed the newest and freest medium of communication into the most heavily censored." The Internet is a revolutionary development in communications. It has been described as "the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that [America]--and indeed the world--has yet seen." Forty million people around the world have access to the Internet. And that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by the year 2000. Computer communications networks, including the linked network of networks that constitutes the Internet, "empower anyone, anywhere, to create any kind of content and to distribute it to anyone, anywhere, who seeks it out." Never before has the ordinary citizen had the ability to reach a potential audience of millions of people. But because the sweeping provisions of the CDA add to the speaker's cost, in effort and in money, that law threatens to "chill" public discourse over computer networks. Recognizing that fact, the ACLU brought a constitutional challenge to the CDA in federal court within hours of its enactment. On June 11, 1996, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the CDA violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. We have . . . found that there is no effective way for many Internet content providers to limit the effective reach of the C.D.A. to adults because there is no realistic way for many providers to ascertain the age of those accessing their materials. As a consequence, we have found that many speakers who display arguably indecent content on the Internet must choose between silence and the risk of prosecution. Such a choice, forced by Sections 223(a) and (d) of the C.D.A., strikes at the heart of speech of adults as well as minors. Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, in his separate opinion as a member of the panel, said the CDA was no more acceptable than a "newspaper decency act" or a "novel decency act." Judge Dalzell also pointed out that concerned parents are not without options in the marketplace. Blocking software can be installed on home computers, or families can subscribe to commercial online services that provide parental controls. The Clinton Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the federal district court ruling on the CDA. The president's lawyers are attempting to persuade the courts that the Justice Department can be trusted not to violate the free speech rights of Americans. That argument misses the whole point of our constitutional safeguards. The Framers of the Constitution crafted the Bill of Rights so that Americans would not have to rely on the promises of prosecutors and politicians to respect their rights. ~~~ just say No to Big Daddy ;0) [Edited by renots on 09-14-2000 at 02:39 AM] __________________ DERELICTION OF DUTY The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch __________________ This turd of a president relishes underminding the Constitution whenever possible.