, Research Paper
How many rights do you have? You should
check, because it might not be as many today as it was a
few years ago, or even a few months ago. Some people I
talk to are not concerned that police will execute a search
warrant without knocking or that they set up roadblocks and
stop and interrogate innocent citizens. They do not regard
these as great infringements on their rights. But when you put
current events together, there is information that may be
surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The
amount of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is alarming.
Let’s take a look at the Bill of Rights and see which aspects
are being pushed on or threatened. The point here is not the
degree of each attack or its rightness or wrongness, but the
sheer number of rights that are under attack. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances. ESTABLISHING
RELIGION: While campaigning for his first term, George
Bush said “I don’t know that atheists should be considered
as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” Bush has
not retracted, commented on, or clarified this statement, in
spite of requests to do so. According to Bush, this is one
nation under God. And apparently if you are not within
Bush’s religious beliefs, you are not a citizen. Federal, state,
and local governments also promote a particular religion (or,
occasionally, religions) by spending public money on
religious displays. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION:
Robert Newmeyer and Glenn Braunstein were jailed in 1988
for refusing to stand in respect for a judge. Braunstein says
the tradition of rising in court started decades ago when
judges entered carrying Bibles. Since judges no longer carry
Bibles, Braunstein says there is no reason to stand — and his
Bible tells him to honor no other God. For this religious
practice, Newmeyer and Braunstein were jailed and are now
suing. FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given
the government an excuse to interfere with free speech.
Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the
government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news
and public and local service programming) and what not to
say (obscenity, as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission [FCC]). The FCC is investigating Boston PBS
station WGBH-TV for broadcasting photographs from the
Mapplethorpe exhibit. FREE SPEECH: There are also laws
to limit political statements and contributions to political
activities. In 1985, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce
wanted to take out an advertisement supporting a candidate
in the state house of representatives. But a 1976 Michigan
law prohibits a corporation from using its general treasury
funds to make independent expenditures in a political
campaign. In March, the Supreme Court upheld that law.
According to dissenting Justice Kennedy, it is now a felony
in Michigan for the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties
Union, or the Chamber of Commerce to advise the public
how a candidate voted on issues of urgent concern to their
members. FREE PRESS: As in speech, technology has
provided another excuse for government intrusion in the
press. If you distribute a magazine electronically and do not
print copies, the government doesn’t consider you a press
and does not give you the same protections courts have
extended to printed news. The equipment used to publish
Phrack, a worldwide electronic magazine about phones and
hacking, was confiscated after publishing a document copied
from a Bell South computer entitled “A Bell South Standard
Practice (BSP) 660-225-104SV Control Office
Administration of Enhanced 911 Services for Special
Services and Major Account Centers, March, 1988.” All of
the information in this document was publicly available from
Bell South in other documents. The government has not
alleged that the publisher of Phrack, Craig Neidorf, was
involved with or participated in the copying of the document.
Also, the person who copied this document from telephone
company computers placed a copy on a bulletin board run
by Rich Andrews. Andrews forwarded a copy to AT&T
officials and cooperated with authorities fully. In return, the
Secret Service (SS) confiscated Andrews’ computer along
with all the mail and data that were on it. Andrews was not
charged with any crime. FREE PRESS: In another incident
that would be comical if it were not true, on March 1 the SS
ransacked the offices of Steve Jackson Games (SJG);
irreparably damaged property; and confiscated three
computers, two laser printers, several hard disks, and many
boxes of paper and floppy disks. The target of the SS
operation was to seize all copies of a game of fiction called
GURPS Cyberpunk. The Cyberpunk game contains
fictitious break-ins in a futuristic world, with no technical
information of actual use with real computers, nor is it played
on computers. The SS never filed any charges against SJG
but still refused to return confiscated property.
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: The right to assemble
peaceably is no longer free — you have to get a permit. Even
that is not enough; some officials have to be sued before they
realize their reasons for denying a permit are not
Constitutional. PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: In Alexandria,
Virginia, there is a law that prohibits people from loitering for
more than seven minutes and exchanging small objects.
Punishment is two years in jail. Consider the scene in jail:
“What’d you do?” “I was waiting at a bus stop and gave a
guy a cigarette.” This is not an impossible occurrence: In
Pittsburgh, Eugene Tyler, 15, has been ordered away from
bus stops by police officers. Sherman Jones, also 15, was
accosted with a police officer’s hands around his neck after
putting the last bit of pizza crust into his mouth. The police
suspected him of hiding drugs. PETITION FOR REDRESS
OF GRIEVANCES: Rounding out the attacks on the first
amendment, there is a sword hanging over the right to
petition for redress of grievances. House Resolution 4079,
the National Drug and Crime Emergency Act, tries to
“modify” the right to habeas corpus. It sets time limits on the
right of people in custody to petition for redress and also
limits the courts in which such an appeal may be heard.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS: This amendment is so commonly challenged that the
movement has its own name: gun control. Legislation banning
various types of weapons is supported with the claim that the
weapons are not for “legitimate” sporting purposes. This is a
perversion of the right to bear arms for two reasons. First,
the basis of freedom is not that permission to do legitimate
things is granted to the people, but rather that the
government is empowered to do a limited number of
legitimate things — everything else people are free to do;
they do not need to justify their choices. Second, should the
need for defense arise, it will not be hordes of deer that the
security of a free state needs to be defended from. Defense
would be needed against humans, whether external invaders
or internal oppressors. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the
guns that would be needed to defend the security of a state
are guns to attack people, not guns for sporting purposes.
Firearms regulations also empower local officials, such as
police chiefs, to grant or deny permits. This results in towns
where only friends of people in the right places are granted
permits, or towns where women are generally denied the
right to carry a weapon for self-defense. Amendment III No
Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in
a manner to be prescribed by law. QUARTERING
SOLDIERS: This amendment is fairly clean so far, but it is
not entirely safe. Recently, 200 troops in camouflage dress
with M-16s and helicopters swept through Kings Ridge
National Forest in Humboldt County, California. In the
process of searching for marijuana plants for four days,
soldiers assaulted people on private land with M-16s and
barred them from their own property. This might not be a
direct hit on the third amendment, but the disregard for
private property is uncomfortably close. Amendment IV The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN
PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES: The RICO law is making a mockery of the right
to be secure from seizure. Entire stores of books or
videotapes have been confiscated based upon the presence
of some sexually explicit items. Bars, restaurants, or houses
are taken from the owners because employees or tenants
sold drugs. In Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff Robert Vogel
and his officers stop automobiles for contrived violations. If
large amounts of cash are found, the police confiscate it on
the PRESUMPTION that it is drug money — even if there is
no other evidence and no charges are filed against the car’s
occupants. The victims can get their money back only if they
prove the money was obtained legally. One couple got their
money back by proving it was an insurance settlement. Two
other men who tried to get their two thousand dollars back
were denied by the Florida courts. RIGHT TO BE
SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND
EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES: A new law goes into effect in Oklahoma
on January 1, 1991. All property, real and personal, is
taxable, and citizens are required to list all their personal
property for tax assessors, including household furniture,
gold and silver plate, musical instruments, watches, jewelry,
and personal, private, or professional libraries. If a citizen
refuses to list their property or is suspected of not listing
something, the law directs the assessor to visit and enter the
premises, getting a search warrant if necessary. Being
required to tell the state everything you own is not being
secure in one’s home and effects. NO WARRANTS
SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION: As a
supporting oath or affirmation, reports of anonymous
informants are accepted. This practice has been condoned
by the Supreme Court. PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING
THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Today’s warrants do not
particularly describe the things to be seized — they list things
that might be present. For example, if police are making a
drug raid, they will list weapons as things to be searched for
and seized. This is done not because the police know of any
weapons and can particularly describe them, but because
they allege people with drugs often have weapons. Both of
the above apply to the warrant the Hudson, New
Hampshire, police used when they broke down Bruce
Lavoie’s door at 5 a.m. with guns drawn and shot and killed
him. The warrant claimed information from an anonymous
informant, and it said, among other things, that guns were to
be seized. The mention of guns in the warrant was used as
reason to enter with guns drawn. Bruce Lavoie had no guns.
Bruce Lavoie was not secure from unreasonable search and
seizure — nor is anybody else. Other infringements on the
fourth amendment include roadblocks and the Boston Police
detention of people based on colors they are wearing
(supposedly indicating gang membership). And in Pittsburgh
again, Eugene Tyler was once searched because he was
wearing sweat pants and a plaid shirt — police told him they
heard many drug dealers at that time were wearing sweat
pants and plaid shirts. Amendment V No person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject to the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation. INDICTMENT OF A
GRAND JURY: Kevin Bjornson has been proprietor of
Hydro-Tech for nearly a decade and is a leading authority
on hydroponic technology and cultivation. On October 26,
1989, both locations of Hydro-Tech were raided by the
Drug Enforcement Administration. National Drug Control
Policy Director William Bennett has declared that some
indoor lighting and hydroponic equipment is purchased by
marijuana growers, so retailers and wholesalers of such
equipment are drug profiteers and co-conspirators. Bjornson
was not charged with any crime, nor subpoenaed, issued a
warrant, or arrested. No illegal substances were found on his
premises. Federal officials were unable to convince grand
juries to indict Bjornson. By February, they had called
scores of witnesses and recalled many two or three times,
but none of the grand juries they convened decided there
was reason to criminally prosecute Bjornson. In spite of that,
as of March, his bank accounts were still frozen and none of
the inventories or records had been returned. Grand juries
refused to indict Bjornson, but the government is still
penalizing him. TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR
LIMB: Members of the McMartin family in California have
been tried two or three times for child abuse. Anthony
Barnaby was tried for murder (without evidence linking him
to the crime) three times before New Hampshire let him go.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF: Oliver North was forced to testify against
himself. Congress granted him immunity from having anything
he said to them being used as evidence against him, and then
they required him to talk. After he did so, what he said was
used to find other evidence which was used against him. The
courts also play games where you can be required to testify
against yourself if you testify at all. COMPELLED TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: In the New York
Central Park assault case, three people were found guilty of
assault. But there was no physical evidence linking them to
the crime; semen did not match any of the defendants. The
only evidence the state had was confessions. To obtain these
confessions, the police questioned a 15-year old without a
parent present — which is illegal under New York state law.
Police also refused to let the subject’s Big Brother, an
attorney for the Federal government, see him during
questioning. Police screamed “You better tell us what we
want to hear and cooperate or you are going to jail,” at
14-year-old Antron McCray, according to Bobby McCray,
his father. Antron McCray “confessed” after his father told
him to, so that police would release him. These people were
coerced into bearing witness against themselves, and those
confessions were used to convict them. COMPELLED TO
BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Your answers to
Census questions are required by law, with a $100 penalty
for each question not answered. But people have been
evicted for giving honest Census answers. According to the
General Accounting Office, one of the most frequent ways
city governments use census information is to detect illegal
two-family dwellings. This has happened in Montgomery
County, Maryland; Pullman, Washington; and Long Island,
New York. The August 8, 1989, Wall Street Journal reports
this and other ways Census answers have been used against