Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, September 12, 2004

War and Freedom of the Press: Why are the legal safeguards slow in combatting government abuses of the Constitution?


Where's the "body of knowledge" and the "pro-rights-practice" to swiftly move against this government misconduct?

Freedom of press is there as a right to be enjoyed, not re-justified. We already justified "the right to a free press" prior to the Constitution in Valley Forge. Why do we have to refight this battle "every time the government arbitrarily decides it is going to go to war?"

Each war: Legal community act as if this is one-off

It would be nice if the legal community could "mobilize a little faster" when these restrictions are imposed. We have a free press; and war is not a new phenomenon. I'm struck that despite 200 years under this constitution and the widespread abuses, that there isn't a body of knoweldge, assocation, or legal theory that can be swiftly implemented to fight this government intrusion.

Knew of should have known

I'm most disturbed that it takes x-number of years to re-remind the goverment "what is in the constitution." Why do they have to be reminded of that which they have sworn an oath?

Delays are unhelpful

By the time this gets adjudicated, the damage is already done [intimidation to get silence; prevenign free exchange of ideas; and government agents deployed to intimidate those who dare speak their mind]

Swift intimidation vs glacial justice

The "slow movement of justice" does little to act as a shield to the swift movement of executive arrogance, intimidation despite clearly promulgated restrictions against this abuse.


They've shown time and time again that they'll commit these abuses in wartime. Why is this not enough for the Media to get an injuction against "future actions"? The possibility for abuses are not speculative, but certain.