It's not wrong to ask questions, right?

[Zhade]

Please understand I am not trying to be a pain in the ass, and I'm not trying to be pushy. I fully accept that the decisions of the moderators are final.

I've been informed that my newest poll on resistance was deleted because it "could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president, or that could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government of the United States."

I don't think my question advocates violence. It asks if the elimination of our right to vote would result in some people, somewhere, theoretically might decide to use armed resistance. This is not the same as my endorsing violence. I am, by and large, a pacifist who only holds the ability to commit violence as a last life-and-death resort. Like if, say, someone threatened my five-year-old son.

If the test of acceptable debate is "what may be construed" by the government, where is the line drawn? To many, such as Ashcroft, even disagreeing with the administration can be construed as treason.

Again, I am not advocating armed resistance (if I did, I would never put it into the public record!). I do think, though, to ignore a question that I know others have asked themselves is to do everyone a disservice.

I'm not going to bitch about the post being removed, or demand it be reinstated - the mods' decisions are theirs to make. I just wanted to bring up the larger issue of self-censored speech. You know, to turn this into a positive discussion, instead of being annoyed that my post was deleted.

[punpirate]

1. It's a limitation meant to protect the board from...

... you know who. Anything construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government has always brought the attention of you know who.

A poll asking about revolution in the event of snatched elections in 2004 could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government.

If you stood on the streetcorner, saying the same thing, people would come and visit you--the board operators probably don't need such visits, just as you would not welcome them.

Whenever this subject arises, I always try to speak in very clearly hypothetical terms. Perhaps you might, as well.

Cheers.

[Zhade]

2. I understand that.

Of course, my quoting the Declaration of Independence (especially the beginning) could be construed as such.

For the sake of avoiding unwanted visits, I'll be extremely careful from now on.

A part of me still feels that, in censoring ourselves from asking (not advocating) such questions, we are doing exactly what the criminals in power want us to do - stay silent and be afraid.

WWPD (What Would Paine Do)?

[punpirate]

5. The Declaration of Independence...

... however much it is a revered document (to some, anyway), was not law in 1776, and is not law today.

It was a statement of intent. Law governs today, and that law is the Constitution and its accumulations of legal language to date, some of which is directed specifically at violent overthrow of the government.

It's not self-censorship. As I said, if you want to stand on the streetcorner and advocate overthrow of the government in 2004 because you believe the election might be rigged, that's your choice. Posting here obligates you to the local rules, one of which is that you don't broach this subject in any way, shape or form which can be construed as advocacy of revolution.

Ultimately, this is about opinion, and reasoned opinion. If you throw out what might be construed as a challenge, that attracts attention, to you, and the board. The board doesn't advocate what you say, but they can be enjoined because you suggested something you should not have in their bailiwick.

Your opinion about armed revolution is just that--yours alone. Maybe many others, for reasons more well thought out than yours, believe otherwise--that we are not yet at the point you suggest. That's not self-censorship--that's common sense, in much the same way that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a protected exercise of free speech.

In truth, I don't know how the general population would react if elections were suspended in 2004. If that happens, there would be a Constitutional crisis, no doubt. But, your poll does not consider that Congress (yeah, I know, I know), would finally get its back up and do something. Does not consider that a suit before the courts might resolve a bald-faced power grab of the Executive branch in the people's favor.

Presented as it was, your poll could have been construed as an either/or condition, encouraging people to act in a way which is now illegal, or without just cause. After all, who decides when the election is rigged? You? On what basis? The results weren't to your liking? God forbid, maybe a majority of the people in this country really do want to elect Bush....

It's more complicated than you would like it to be, I fear.

That said, if you want to avoid all you imagine, you have to be smarter than the assholes in charge of this country now. Being smarter first means not doing something dumb that gets you thrown in Ashcroft's pokey.... Contrary to radical popular opinion, no one gets much accomplished while in jail.

Cheers.

[Zhade]

6. Still not advocating violence...

"Does not consider that a suit before the courts might resolve a bald-faced power grab of the Executive branch in the people's favor."

That was already decided in 2000, remember? We lost.

Anyway. I'm not advocating violence, I don't like violence, I won't ask any more questions that could possibly by misunderstood (as this one was?) as advocating violence.

[punpirate]

7. I remember....

I remember well. But, that was then.

And, no, these days, violence very likely won't work. What is more likely to happen in the event of what you contemplate is various forms of civil strife, but more general than in the past. Work slowdowns, strikes, civil disobedience, consumer actions, massive debt default.

Cheers.

[Zhade]

8. Maybe this will ease people's minds.

It's a piece I wrote a while ago. Note the title, and smile. :)

Unarmed Resistance

[Adjoran]

3. It's true

Almost any post that can possibly be construed as a threat to a public official will get the attention of the FBI. If the official is the Prez or VP or a covered candidate for those offices, the Secret Service has jurisdiction.

None of them play around. They don't care if they are found guilty of excesses and fined three years from now. They just don't want to answer the "why didn't you act" questions if something happens. So the board takes steps to protect itself, and you, too.

[Zhade]

4. Fair enough.

Perhaps I should have couched the poll thusly:

"If our right to vote was eliminated, do you think there would be riots in the streets?"

[rock]

9. Questions imply

In linguistics, it's called presupposition. Politicians use this as their favorite rhetoric device. So the bottom line is that a question can be inappropriate. I'd go on, but I'd bore everybody.