SNIPER SUSPECT SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF
John Allen Muhammed took his free-speech rights rather seriously today and insisted on his right to defend himself in his trial on charges of capital murder. In his opening statement, Muhammed seemed to be laying the groundwork for a defense that he had nothing to do with the shootings that terrorized the Washington area a year ago. Perhaps Muhammed has been reading his press clips a little too uncritically.

Some news outlets, for example, have made much of the "triggerman rule" on capital murder in Virginia, which, in the formulation most favorable to the defense, says: "One who is present, aiding and abetting the actual murder, but who does not actually fire the fatal shot, is a principal in the second degree and may be convicted of no greater offense than first-degree murder." So said the state supreme court in Frye v. Commonwealth back in 1986. Seems clear enough. If that's all there is to it, Muhammed could simply claim that his young companion, Lee Boyd Malvo, fired the shot, and at least that would keep him off death row.

But not so fast: The court has also ruled that "[t]here may be more than one principal in the first degree" in a murder case (Hancock v. Commonwealth), and has further stated that if "two or more persons take a direct part in inflicting fatal injuries, each joint participant is an 'immediate perpetrator' for the purposes of the capital murder statutes" (Strickler v. Commonwealth). That's not so clear. If Muhammed bought the gun and the car, taught Malvo to use the weapon, planned the crime, bought a map, drove to the shooting site, and drove the getaway car, doesn't that go well beyond "aiding and abetting" to the point of joint responsibility?

Since a death penalty conviction is automatically appealed to the state supreme court, the court will have the chance to clarify its position on the matter, but Virginia is notorious as a hanging state and Muhammed shouldn't count too much on the "triggerman" defense. The court would very likely find him equally responsible for the murder.

Nor should he be counting on another word being misused in the news coverage, and that is "circumstantial." CNN has repeatedly described the case against Muhammed as "circumstantial" because there is no witness. But the "circumstantial" means a case in which there mere circumstances point to guilt -- that a certain person was known to be in a certain location at a certain time, and that the fatal shot could only have been fired from that spot at that time. That isn't the case at all. In fact, the state has hard evidence -- fingerprints and ballistics -- that link Muhammed to the crime. There was a case in northern Virginia some years ago in which a man was convicted of murder based on a single boot print in the snow; in comparison, prosecutors have plenty of evidence against Muhammed.

One can only wonder why Muhammed decided to defend himself. Presumably he is following the example of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has quite successfully tied the legal system in knots while defending himself against a 9/11 conspiracy charge. But Moussaoui got a big boost from the government, which refused to let him interview potential witnesses. Muhammed won't have that luxury. And Moussaoui's successful machinations will probably do him little good, anyway, since the government will probably just declare him an enemy combatant and fly him off to Guantanamo Bay, never to be seen again.

Muhammed might better have studied the example of Colin Ferguson, who acted as his own attorney during his trial for killing six people on the Long Island Railroad in 1993. Ferguson made a hash of his defense and was convicted and sentenced to 200 years in prison.

A CRIME OR A BLUNDER?
The alleged leaking of a CIA employee's identity by the White House was probably not a crime, but it was most certainly a blunder.

The facts of the case are somewhat obscure, but columnist Robert Novak apparently found out for himself that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee who who probably set up his trip to Niger. At about the same time, someone at the White House telephoned journalists to call attention to the wife's role. Apparently none of the other journalists bit on the leak. After the Novak column in July, CIA duly filed a routine leaking complaint with the Justice Department, which it does about 50 times per year.

Wilson heard about the attempted leaking, and did his best to call attention to it. He finally hit the jackpot when the Washington Post quoted an unnamed "senior administration official" as saying that "two top White House officials" did the leaking and that the leak was "meant purely and simply for revenge."

The leak was immediately interpreted by Democrats as a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime, under certain circumstances, to blow the cover of a "covert agent." This particular leak may not be any kind of a crime, however. The law has several specific conditions that must be met for the leak to be considered criminal. CIA will have to be able to prove in court that Mrs. Wilson was a "covert agent" and that she has spent time abroad recently, among other conditions, before prosecutors could hope to make a case. A successful prosecution seems highly unlikely.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that someone in the White House -- and probably someone high up in the chain of command -- made a huge mistake in doing the leak. The CIA is supposed to be above politics, even when it isn't, and dragging it into a partisan brawl was stupid. The White House, which has cultivated an image of businesslike control, clearly blew a gasket over Wilson's public naysaying.

Even worse was the amateurish quality of the attempt to plant a story. Anyone with any experience in political media relations knows that this kind of mission is a fool's errand, more likely to blow up in your face than to result in the desired story. When the opposition is an aggressive publicity hunter outraged by an attack on his wife, the effort is almost doomed to catastrophic failure.

What tipped the White House into the disaster zone, however, was the role of the "senior administration official" who spilled the beans to the Washington Post.

The paper did not further identify the official, but the "administration" apparently means "the executive branch," not just the White House. The suspicion here is that the unnamed official is either a State Department bureaucrat in touch with Wilson or a CIA official striking back on behalf of his wife. Either that, or someone at the White House is about to resign in disgust.

Since a professionally conducted investigation will probably lead to the conclusion that no crime was committed, the political pressure will be enormous to set up an independent probe that is more likely to bring an indictment. An independent investigation could lead to virtual paralysis at the White House just as the Bush re-election campaign ought to be gearing up (not that it has ever been in low gear).

There is almost no good option for President Bush, since it is hard to believe that the leaking campaign could have been conducted without the order of someone very close to him. Bush may soon face a choice between forcing someone to walk the plank and putting up with a debilitating investigation. The prospect is extremely ugly.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- OR IS IT ELEVEN?

Alabama officials rolled a granite monument to the Ten Commandments out of the lobby of the state Supreme Court building today, hopefully bringing an end to a rather silly legal wrangle over the display on public property of a religious message.

The imbroglio raises an interesting question -- which "Ten Commandments" were on display? After all, it is a well-known fact that Protestants and Jews number and express them one way, while Catholics do it another.

The short answer is that these are the Protestant commandments, which undercuts the claim that the display represents merely the Judeo-Christian underpinning of today's civil law. The Protestant version keeps the Catholic first commandment -- " I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me" and adds a second, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." The Catholic second commandment -- "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" -- becomes the Protestant third. The Protestant version also combines the Catholic ninth and tenth commandments -- "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" -- into a single ban on covetousness.

The confusion arises from the fact that while there are clearly around ten precepts in the Old Testament version, they are quite lengthy and hard to remember. So teachers long ago shortened them into ten short, memorable statements. Protestant reformers, relying on some early Christian commentators, made the revisions noted above. Many Jewish texts use the same division as used by the Protestants. Jews also note that counting everything, there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament, although all of them are based on the original ten.

People who take these things seriously use the different numbering systems to denounce Catholicism as a false religion, particularly because the Catholic system leaves out the ban on "graven images." Some Protestants feel this prohibits the displays of statues and stained-glass pictures so beloved by Catholics.

Oddly enough, the Alabama marker clearly shows eleven paragraphs, with "I am the Lord thy God" apparently serving as a sort of introduction. In Catholic teaching, it is part of the first commandment.

Thus, the Alabama display can be said to be taking sides in a religious dispute and therefore arguably constitutes a violation of the separation of Church and State.

Better to leave the Ten Commandments in church.

CHIEF MOOSE SEEKS HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Charles Moose, chief of police of Montgomery County, Maryland, is laying the groundwork for what could be a legal action against the county for trying to stop him from writing a book about the sniper episode last fall. Moose has asked a circuit court for its opinion of the country ethics board's action denying him permission to write the book.

The ethics board ruled that the book would violate a county ordinance prohibiting country officials from "profiting" from their offices. Moose is expected to earn at least $100,000 from the book, to be published by Dutton.

Moose was head of an inter-jurisdictional task force investigating the shootings, which began in Montogmery County but soon spanned the District of Columbia and Virginia. Moose. Two men were arrested and are awaiting trial in Virginia.

Montgomery County is a wealthy, liberal community with a squeaky-clean image. The ethics board says the book project would be a violation even if Moose wrote it for free, and has threated him with a jail term and a fine.

Moose is right to challenge the ethics board decision. Ethics codes like MoCo's are intended, or should be intended, to punish public officials who let the promise of remuneration affect their work or their decisions -- i.e., graft and corruption. Moose is just trying to write a book and make some money on his own time. The county is making a fool of itself, and putting pressure on Moose to quit his post, by harrassing him over the book.

Moose was not available for comment. He is a member of the National Guard and was recently called to active duty. Perhaps he will wonder what he is doing defending other people's freedoms while Montgomery County is denying his.

CNN ADMITS HIDING TRUTH ABOUT SADDAM

CNN has finally admitted that that its news operation in Iraqi was extremely limited in its reporting as lraq as long as the Saddam Hussein regime was in power. Chief news executive Eason Jordan wrote in an op-ed column entitled "The News We Kept to Ourselves" in the New York Times on Friday (4/11/03) that he knew of numerous atrocities committed by the regime but permitted the network to remain silent about them. He said CNN suppressed the truth in the interest of keeping open its bureau in Baghdad. Apparently CNN never seriously considered closing the bureau, retreating to another country, and doing a blockbuster story based on what its reporters claimed they knew.

Running a news operation in a totalitarian society is always tricky. William Shirer wrote a book ("Berlin Diary") about his difficulties in reporting from Nazi Germany. But he encountered mainly interference by the propaganda ministry, not the outright atrocities that Jordan claimed to know about.

CNN has a history of chummying up to dictatorships. Ted Turner himself sponsored the "Goodwill Games," an Olympic knockoff featuring athletes from the U.S. and the old Soviet Union. Also, CNN carried a 24-part documentary on the Cold War that was widely criticized for an attitude of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the USSR.

Jordan's article was remarkable, though, in acknowledging that CNN hid what it knew to be the truth about the Iraqi dictator -- that the regime routinely threatened, tortured and brutalized its own people. This would probably not be very newsworthy to American audiences, but might be a revelation to CNN's non-American audience. The network's foreign channels have been even more standoffish about the war than the domestic channel.

"I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me," Jordan wrote. "Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely."

Can be told . . . but will they be told on CNN? Or will the network drop them down the memory hole and get on with the job of criticizing the "U.S. miliary occupation," as some people are already calling it? We'll see.

IMAGES FROM IRAQ CAUSE CONSTERNATION IN ARAB WORLD

Bitterness, consternation, amazement, and paranoia are among the emotions apparently felt by millions of Arabs watching television images from the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, especially in contrast to the spin being given by the official media. Arabs are being told that the U.S. forces are brutal occupiers, no better than the Israelis, but then why are the people of Baghdad cheering the American soliders?

"From the Atlantic to the Arabian Gulf, television images of crowds rejoicing at cheering US Marines toppling a Saddam statue in central Baghdad, broadcast repeatedly since Wednesday afternoon, caused consternation and a sense of shame," said a news story posted to the web site of the Arab TV network al-Jazeera.

Al-Jazeera did its best to put a grim face on the happy news by focusing on the looting that followed the collapse of the Saddam regime and the humanitarian crisis that followed three weeks of bombing and combat.

But the propaganda could not hide the fact that the dictator of a one-party police state not unlike several others in the Arab world had been deposed, and probably killed, by the U.S. and British military while the Iraqi military melted away or surrendered en masse.

"This is a tragedy and a bloody comedy. We cannot believe what we see. What happened? It seems that the Iraqis have given up Baghdad without a fight. Where is the Iraqi army? Have they evaporated?" said Walid Salem, a Ramallah shopkeeper.

Some Arabs speculated that Saddam himself had sold out to the Americans in exchange for his life.

"If a deal was struck with Saddam, then that proves that he staked his people and the hopes of all Arabs in order to survive," said a Yemeni. "He is one of the traitors we have known throughout history and he will not be the last."

Others noted the obvious parallels between Saddam's regime and the assorted authoritarian, unelected regimes that hold power in nearly all Arab lands.

Egyptian political commentator Salama Ahmed Salama told Reuters: "The gap between Arab governments and the people represents a source of anxiety for different Arab regimes. But whether they'll learn the lesson or not, I don't know."

Some commentators argued that Saddam's regime was unique.

"The Iraqi situation is exceptional, we can't compare it with Iran or Egypt . . . or a country like Saudi Arabia. This is . . . a regime outside history," Saudi commentator Jamal Khashoggi said.

The state-controlled media in countries such as Egypt harrumphed that the war will "provide a favorable environment for the cultivation of violence and terrorism," but ordinary people can see for themselves that the selfish men who rule them are not, in fact, immortal.

ANALYSTS TAKE COVER FROM SHOCK OF U.S. VICTORY

That loud grinding noise you hear is the sound of analysts and commentators frantically shifting gears to get on the right side of history in Iraq. War skeptics who have been proven wrong are trying to cover up their mistakes, usually with even more predictions.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington, for example, said last October that a U.S. strategy of selective bombing would probably not win over the Iraqi peopole.

"I think anyone who wants to count on that is making a big mistake," he said. "The idea that suddenly Arabs will see Westerners as liberators as opposed to occupiers is a hope at best."

A hope that has come true in Baghdad and other cities, where newly freed citizen are blowing kisses to our soldiers.

O'Hanlon also rejected the concept of the "rolling start," by which the war would be launched with the troops on hand with others to come as reinforcements. It isn't clear if this was actually the U.S. strategy or just Pentagon chatter, but O'Hanlon didn't like it.

"I think the problem with this is that a few tens of thousands of American forces probably cannot take Baghdad, probably cannot by themselves defeat the Republican Guard and probably won't intimidate the Iraqi conscript army into quickly capitulating or turning against Saddam," he told Canadian Broadcasting in January. "So I think you give away a lot of your potential political benefits by going in with a small force."

Ahem. No wonder at least one of his articles has been pulled out of the Brookings Institution web site.

O'Hanlon is now grudgingly complimenting General Franks and his planners on a "fine job" while casting doubt on Vice President's Cheney's description of their battle plan as "brilliant." O'Hanlon notes that none of the individual elements of the plan -- "shock and awe," special operations raids, the race to Baghdad, precision bombing -- is particularly new. (See his article here.) That's true as far as it goes, but what is stunningly new is the way all these elements were brought together and the astonishing degree to which air power was used for tactical purposes.

Whatever the critics want to make of it now, the U.S. victory in Iraq is stunning and is probably causing some second thoughts in Pyongyang, among other places. It's said that Kim Jong-Il likes to watch western TV. Let's hope he has been tuned in.

ARAB LEADER POOH-POOHS CHANCE OF DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

Amr Moussa, secretary general of the League of Arab States, said on CNN today he is "pessimistic" that democracy can take root in Iraq.

That may be because Mr. Moussa represents a group of 20-some countries that know little about democracy. The Arab League's members include Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Comoros, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Yemen.

Not a single one is a functioning democracy. Most are kingdoms, oil-rich principalities, or one-party police states. They wouldn't know democracy if it fell on them.

The only functioning democracy in the Middle East is Israel. (Turkey is a democracy, also, but is not usually counted as "Middle East.")

The idea that Iraq could be a democratic demonstration project for the Arab world is probably far-fetched, but the mere prospect gives the neighboring regimes the willies anyway. Look for them to try desperately to undermine the attempt to transition Iraq to democratic rule.

Saudi Arabia won't be too happy about the development of Iraq's oil potential, either, since more oil means lower prices, and the vast Saudi ruling family is said to be running out of money.

Rocky soil for the seeds of democracy and freedom.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ERUPTS IN BAGHDAD

Freedom of speech broke out in Baghdad today as Iraqis cheered the U.S. soliders and Marines who rolled their tanks into the center of the city to liberate its people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Men scaled a staute of the dictator in a city square to beat it with shoes, a big insult in the Arab world. Americans were indeed greeted as liberators, just as top U.S. officials predicted. War skeptics are in full retreat, clinging to the obivous humanitarian problems in the city as the last vestige of their position.

In the meantime, Iraqi citizens are reportedly jeering the westerners who stayed in the city as "human shields" but had little to do since the Coalition did not target the power plants and other facilities where they were stationed.

Today is the greatest day for freedom in the world since the Berlin Wall came down. And once again, it is being marked by ordinary people hitting the symbols of tyranny with sledgehammers. Long live freedom!

IRAQI SPOKESMAN DEALS IN FANTASY

The undisputed title of Worst PR Man in the World goes to Iraq's Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who denied that American troops were in the city as the whole world watched U.S. soldiers poking through the ruins of Saddam's main palace. U.S. troops on Sunday made a "thunder run" thorugh the city to assess resistance and returned Monday, apparently to stay.

"They are sick in their minds," al-Sahhaf said of American forces and media. "They say they brought 65 tanks into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true," al-Sahhaf said. "There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad, at all."

One of these infidel-manned tanks -- named "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue" after Toby's Keith fighting song -- blew an equestrian statue of Saddam off its pedestal on the main parade ground in Baghdad. Other infidels shot videotape of the gold-plated fixtures in Saddam's palace. Not bad for guys who weren't there.

Iraq's propaganda plan early in the war was to try to maintain the regime's credibility by being reasonably accurate about casualty figures and the like. As U.S. troops closed in on Baghdad, however, sheer desperation seems to have taken over. The hapless al-Sahhaf seems to be the only top government official willing -- or able -- to meet the press. With no actual good news to report, has resorted to utter fantasy. No doubt some people in the viewing world will believe him, but the fantasy can't last too much longer, and Minister al-Sahhaf is doing little more than punching himself a ticket to Guantanamo Bay. Get out of town, Mohammed, the red white and blue is looking for you.

READERS MOURN DEATH OF MICHAEL KELLY

A unique voice in American journalism was stilled Thursday when Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly was killed in an accident in Iraq. Kelly was "embedded" with the Third Infantry Division and apparently died when the vehicle in which he was riding plunged into a canal.

Kelly brought a conservative voice to his commentary and editing while respecting the need for a diversity of viewpoints. Under his editorship, the venerable Atlantic was on the way to being one of the country's intellectually most important magazines. He was also a columnist for the Washington Post.

There are many conservative columnists out there, but few could match Kelly as a writer. He had honed his skills at the New York Times. National Journal, and New Republic, among other outlets, before taking over the Atlantic. He will be very hard to replace.

CAN ANTIWAR PROTESTORS READ MINDS?

The deeply moronic nature of way too many people on the Left was on display today as antiwar protesters in San Francisco insisted that police officers should not be allowed to wear red-white-and-blue bandanas under their riot helmets.

According to Bonnie Weinstein, a spokesperson for Bay Area United Against War, the fact that cops at a recent protest wore the bandanas showed that they were in favor of the war and were trying to intimidate the antiwar protestors.

Yet she also said that many antiwar folks also displayed the flag. So how does she know that the cops are in favor of the war based on their headgear? Police regulations allow officers to wear bandanas under their helmets, and the choice of bandanas is up to them. Ms. Weinsein evidently did not actually ask the officers their opinions, so, if she knows what they think, she has a rare gift of mind-reading.

On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who said Peter Arnett ought to be prosecuted for treason on the basis of his notorious remarks that the U.S. war plan had failed and that his broadcasts from Baghdad were strengthening the antiwar movement. Mr. Arnett's remarks may have been stupid (he judged the war plan a failure a few days before the Third Infantry seized the Baghdad airport), but they were not treasonable. Fortunately the Constitution defines treason very narrowly, precisely to avoid these types of prosecutions. (Arnett is a native of New Zealand, and unless he became a U.S. citizen, he is not subject to a treason charge anyway.)

Let's hope the war is won soon, before the Left and the Right can find more ways to narrow our freedoms.

DO REALLY SMART KIDS NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM FREE SPEECH?

Students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a nationally known magnet school in Fairfax County, Virginia, are having their egos protected by the principal, Dr. Elizabeth Lodal, who is concerned that some might be offended by the author of a law-review article questioning the school's affirmative-action policies.

Admission to Jefferson is highly prized among Northern Virginia's overachievers, since the school regularly places graduates at MIT and many other top colleges. A pool of 800 qualified applicants is selected every year on the basis of test scores, and faculty committees choose 400 lucky admittees. It is widely believed in the county that the faculty select more female, black and Hispanic students than would be admitted on the basis of test scores alone.

Lloyd Cohen, a professor at the nearby George Mason University law school (which is well known for a distinctly conservative faculty), conducted a study using test scores obtained under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act and concluded that at least some of the ten blacks admitted to this year's freshman class had lower test scores than some of the whites who were rejected. Cohen wrote an article on his study in an upcoming issue of the Albany Law Review. Presumably it follows the lines of a presentation to gave at a symposium in November 2002 in which he described Jefferson's policies as "invidious discrimination."

The student council president, Matt Wansley, invited Cohen to speak to a student assembly but was promptly overruled by Dr. Lodal.

"How could any educator approve of allowing a situation where a group of their students would be publicly demeaned?" Dr. Lodal said. "These are very worthy kids. They passed the test. They passed 15 screeners. This is a place that is enriched by our diversity."

Students are not unaware of the controversy, however, since the student newspaper carried a lengthy, front-page article on the furor. (See it here.)

Parents had the opportunity to hear Dr. Cohen when he turned up at a meeting for parents of black students called by the school administration. The student newspaper was not permitted to attend the meeting, but participants said "heated words" were exchanged.

Cohen is no stranger to controversy. He has also published an article suggesting that a "futures maket" in human organs would help ensure a steady supply of organs for transplantation.

GERALDO STILL STANDING AFTER MAP FLAP

Geraldo Rivera appeared live on Fox TV from Iraq this morning to deny reports that he had been expelled from the country for disclosing the location of the 101st Airborne Division. Rivera said the divisional commander had decided that a map Rivera drew in the sand during a broadcast contained nothing new and was not a threat to the division.

Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said Monday that Rivera would get the booot, but then backed off after Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes complained. Rivera is not "embedded" with the 101st, but gave the impession this morning that he had been virtually adopted by the unit.

Geraldo sketched out what he said was a plan for the junction of coalition forces in the vicinity of An Najaf.

If Pentagon officials were annoyed by Rivera's sand-sketching, however, they must have been aghast at a story on the front page of Monday's Washington Post which, in its second paragraph, gave the location of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infanty Division as "a stretch of Highway 9 about 14 miles west of the town of Hilla and 20 miles southwest of the ruins of Babylon . . . six miles from the Euphrates River . . ." So far there has been no official notice of the article by William Branigin.

NBC's motives in firing Peter Arnett became clearer when Erik Sorensen, president of MSNBC, said the reporter clearly had "pro-Iraqi or anti-Ameircan viewpoints."

LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH IN MEDIA ARE DEMONSTRATED

Journalists who speak their minds about the war or about politics are in danger of getting the boot, as three recent incidents make clear:

-- Peter Arnett, one of the few Western correspondents left in Baghdad, was fired by NBC-TV after giving an interview to Iraqi TV in which he said the original US war plan had failed due to Iraqi resistance. NBC tried to stand by him at first, saying his remarks were "analytical," but folded after sharp criticism by politicians.

-- Henry Norr, who writes about technology for the San Francisco Chronicle, was suspended after getting arrested at an anti-war demonstration. Norr apparently claimed he was taking a sick day to go to the demonstration. The paper said its issue was "avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest."

-- Steve McLinden, a real estate writer for a suburban edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was fired after he described a group of conservative activists as "fascists" and used other unflattering terms. McLinden expressed himself in an e-mail to the group rather than in the newspaper. The paper had no comment on the firing.

The incidents remind us that freedom of speech is highly situational -- it depends on who one is, who one works for, what one is saying, and where one is saying it. There is no generalized right of free expression in society, only legal protections against government coercion to some extent. Expansion of the zone of free expression is a constant battle.

The incidents also demonstrate that working journalists are frequently more left-wing than their bosses, who are more attuned to business and social realities and are quick to protect their investment in publishing and broadcasting properties. Where you stand, as the saying goes, often depends on where you sit.

TV VIEWERS SAID NOT INTERESTED IN PROTESTS

Antiwar protestors may have a harder time geting coverage on some television stations if the stations take the advice of consultants who say viewers don't want to hear more about the protests. Only 13 percent of viewers responding to a survey said TV news should pay more attention to "antiwar protestors and peace activists," according to Frank N. Magid Associates, a major TV news consulting firm.

McVay Media, a radio consulting firm, is urging stations to play the National Anthem every day and use patriotic music as "production pieces."

Major cable TV channels didn't wait for the memos to decorate their coverage with patriotic themes.

The patriotic flavor of the coverage is obvious on Fox News, which keeps a U.S. flag flying in the upper left-hand corner of the screen and whose commentators are cheering on the fighting forces. MSNBC has an "America's Bravest" display of photos of service personnel sent in by their families. CNN's U.S. service is attempting to play the news relatively straight, while its international service leans in a more skeptical direction.

National Public Radio would sooner die than support a war, of course, and is maintaining an even-handed tone with lots of news of civilian casualties in Iraq. NPR reported unskeptically an Iraqi claim that the U.S. is deliberately targeting civilians.

On the print side, war coverage is offering proof of the claim made by journalists that news coverage is (usually) independent of editorial commentary. The Washington Post, which editorially supported the war, is devoting much of its news coverage to the theme that the campaign is already bogged down and could last for months. On the other hand, the New York Times, which was editorially opposed to the war, is offering far more upbeat news coverage. While the Post is predicting a lengthy war, for example, today's Times introduces the subject delicately with: "The United States military now faces a series of difficult calculations in its efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government."

Quite possibly, both are correct.

UPDATE: Phil Smucker, the freelance journalist who broadcast the location of the 1st Marine Division on CNN, is being escorted out of Iraq by the military. Smucker is not being allowed to use his cell phone until he reaches Kuwait. (Even there, he could be arrested by the Kuwaiti police since he apparently does not have a visa.) Smucker is writing for the Christian Science Monitor, which defended him by saying he gave its readers "valuable insights into the campaign." Just a bit too valuable for Iraqis monitoring western TV, the Marines decided.

FREE-LANCE JOURNO GETS SPECIFIC, GETS NABBED

A free-lance journalist in Iraq has learned that the U.S. military isn't kidding when it says that reporters aren't supposed to give out sensitive information. A writer named Phil Smucker was apparently detained by military police after giving details of his geographical location while traveling with the 1st Marine Division.

Smucker is not one of the "embedded" journalists, who have to agree in advance to abide by certain restrictions on their reporting. According to one of his articles in the Monitor, Smucker and other independent journalists evaded Kuwaiti and U.S. military police and slipped into a column of Marines heading north.

Interviews Smucker gave to CNN and National Public Radio apparently raised the hackles of U.S. commanders as Smucker gave out details of the unit's location. Shocked by the level of detail provided by Smucker, CNN anchor Carol Costello told him, "Don't be too specific. We don't want exact specifics."

After the broadcasts, military police showed up and apparently seized Smucker's gear and may have detained him. As an independent journalist, Smucker can be treated like any other civilian in the war zone.

Smucker's father is an antiwar activist who has been arrested twice during antiwar protets in recent weeks.

NEW FRONT OPENED IN BATTLE . . . AGAINST RUMSFELD

U.S. military officers have opened a new front in their battle against the Donald Rumsfeld regime currently dominating the Pentagon, launching a surprise attack on the front page of The Washington Post (read it here).

The Post article, by Thomas Ricks, reports that senior U.S. military commanders are saying that the shooting war in Iraq is bogging down and could last for months instead of the weeks that most analysts expect.

Officers quoted -- anonymously -- in the article sound positively despondent about the course of battle, predicting that it will take quite a while to mop up the Republican Guard divisions and various paramilitary units and goon squads between the U.S. forces and Bahgdad.

The officers are obviously upset that Rumseld chose to go to war without the overwhelming superiority of force that conventional military doctrine recommends. Despite all the pre-war hype about 200,000 or 300,000 allied forces in the region, the fighting is being done mostly by 20,000 soliders of the 3rd Infantry Division, 80,000 U.S. marines of the Marine Expeditionary Force, and 25,000 British marines and soldiers. The allies are strung out for hundreds of miles and their supply lines are being harassed by scattered Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, the 4th Infantry Division is still at home while its equipment is being shipped to Kuwait, a result of Turkey's refusal to join the fight, and the mighty 1st Armored Division is in Fort Hood, Texas, and hasn't even put its equipment on ships yet.

Rumsfeld and his advisors felt all along that commandos and light forces could overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, one of the theories that have not endeared Rummy to the military. Many officers in the Pentagon regard Rumsfeld and his advisors as unbearably arrogant and disdainful of professional advice. The Ricks story is part of their counterattack. One wonders how Rumsfeld will respond.

WAR COVERAGE: SKEPTICISM AND JUDGEMENT NEEDED

The need to separate rumor and supposition from fact isn't always being remembered by journalists covering the war in Iraq.

Headlines today blared the news that a thousand tanks and vehicles of the Republican Guard were rumbling toward the U.S. Marines in southern and central Iraq.

Not.

"We've not seen any significant movements of the type of force you've described," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks. U.S. Central Command, said when asked about the report. "There have been local positionings and survival positionings, but not serious attacks and we certainly remain, we believe, well in control of the situation at hand."

The Marines no doubt wish that the Republican Guard would rush towards them, since that would expose the RG to withering attacks from the air and ground. A frontal assault by an Iraqi division would be a quick way to get rid of it. That's pretty obvious to any armchair general.

So why didn't the reporters see that? Probably a combination of misunderstood information and a desire to be first with a big story.

The press can be skeptical when it wants to be, however. The apparent murder of two U.S. Army soliders -- shown dead with bullet wounds to the head -- has been handled in a low-key manner by most media. Presumably they are waiting for the postwar investigation.

Journalists are also quick, as usual, to interpret facts according to their presupppositions. Everyone is waiting to see if the Iraqi populace will revolt against Saddam's regime. So reports of shooting inside Basra were quickly turned into an uprising.

Maybe, maybe not.

"We saw fighting in the city between Iraqis - some of them in uniform, some not," General Brooks said. "It was a very confusing situation, to say the least."

Some of the less reliable news accounts are originating with British and other non-U.S. journalists. At the risk of sounding xenophobic, it must be said that American journalism is usually far more accuracy-oriented than British or European journalism. Some really wild stuff is printed in British newspapers that would never get past the copy desk in any big American city.

Best advice: watch for hard facts. Best source so far: The New York Times.

PRIVATE SECTOR DOING MORE WAR CENSORSHIP THAN GOVERNMENT

Censorship, it appears, is not limited to government. MTV in Europe is avoiding videos that include "representations of war, soldiers, bombing, destruction of buildings and public unrest at home." All songs by the unfortunately named group B-52s are temporarily banned.

MTV has confirmed that a leaked memo containing the guidelines is accurate, and says that similar efforts are underway in the United States. In addition to the original MTV channel, the company owns MTV2, VH1 and CMT.

Songs that include words such as "bomb, missile or war" in their titles should be kept off the air for the time being, according to the memo. Artists or groups whose names include the forbidden words are also kept off, which presumably is the problem with the B-52s.

The video of "Miss Sarajevo," a tune by politically hip Irish rocker Bono, is also off the air, because it "contains missiles, guns and buildings being blown up," according to the memo.

Ironically, the U.S. government is making it possible for the media to show pictures of war actually taking place by carrying journalists along with fighting units. It is the private sector that is banning even artistic allusions to war and fighting.

The entertainment industry in general is anti-war, but is apparently petrified of offending public opinion. Several stars at the Academy Awards wore pins, flashed peace signs, or otherwise expressed low-key anti-war sentiments. But the audience booed documentary filmmaker Michael Moore when he unloaded on President Bush while receiving an Oscar. Many of them probably agree with Moore in private but didn't want to hear his criticism in public.

The film community is well aware that 70 percent of the nation supports the war and doesn't want to antagonize filmgoers. As the saying goes, in Hollywood, the answer to all your questions is money.

PROTESTS GROW -- SO DOES SUPPORT FOR WAR

People protested the war in Iraq from coast to coast today, apparently to no avail. Some 70 percent of respondents to one survey expressed support for President Bush's handling of the crisis, according to NBC-TV.

Demonstrators complained that their rights were being violated, but in fact police and local authorities seemed to be giving them every opportunity to express their views. The greater problem seems to be that protestors are relying exclusively on marches and other public demonstrations, to the exclusion of political organizing.

Our political system pays little attention to street demonstrations unless they are absolutely enormous, and the peace parades are not in that category. For the most part, the demonstrations and parades are probably little more than the latest occupation of a protest community that springs into action at any suitable provocation. Politicians have little trouble ignoring it.

The current war cannot be stopped by street demonstrations of any size. People who are truly opposed to U.S. action abroad, who truly think that the U.S. can act only pursuant to a United Nations decision -- if then -- should go far beyond peace parades and organize a political movement dedicated to their principles. They should lay out these principles, hold candidate for office accountable, and otherwise engage in the daunting political tasks required to change national policy.

One doubts they are up to it.

SPEAKING OF TYRANTS . . .

Saddam Hussein, in power for almost 20 years, is a newcomer compared to Fidel Castro, who has held Cuba in an iron grip for more than 40. The Castro regime's latest outrage demonstrates that freedom of speech is far closer to reality in Baghdad than in Havana.

Castro's agents recently have arrested at least 65 members of the opposition, including at least a dozen independent journalists, plus organizers of the Varela Project, a citizens' petition calling for freedom of speech and association, amnesty for political prisoners, and free elections. The Cuban National Assembly, a rubber stamp for the regime, has officially rejected the petitions.

The regime cited the dissidents' meetings with the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba, James Cason, as evidence they are engaging in the crime of distributing "subversive" material from the U.S.

Former President Jimmy Carter called attention to the Varela Project during a trip to Cuba last year. Carter said this week he is "disappointed" by Cuba's handling of the petition project. Carter apparently was not asked to comment on the fact that the Cuban dissidents each face 10 years in prison.

Other American have been openly scornful of the brave attempt by Cubans to secure their rights. USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, writing almost a year ago, said the Varela project was a "dead letter" and said democratic change in Cuba, if any, would have to be initiated by its leaders, not by dissidents. Wickham's disdain for an attempt to win basic human freedoms is chilling. (read his column here.)

Cuba's leaders have clearly given their answer -- they will not tolerate democratic change. Castro's intransigent attitude raises the question of the best American strategy for liberating the island nation. Perhaps the U.S. should offer normalization of trade relations in exchange for domestic liberalization. Or perhaps we will just have to wait until Castro shuffles off to join Saddam in some dictators' Valhalla, and someone less fearful of freedom comes into power.

ANTIWAR PROTESTORS MOBILIZE IN DC

Subway stops and other locations in the Washington, DC, area were the scene of hastily organized antiwar protests this morning in reaction to the opening shots of the Second Gulf War. Police have closed the square opposite the White House but are otherwise facilitating the protestors within the usual rules. So far, no one can complain that their rights of free speech have been violated.

The antiwar movement has strong support in the political sector, with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and others offering caustic criticism of President Bush's policies. Daschle, who voted last year in favor of the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, is now castigating the Administration for failing "miserably" in its diplomatic efforts. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, is working the same line.

Democrats and their supporters in the media are on high alert for any attempt by the Republicans to shut them up. Today's Washington Post claims that the GOP plans to "hammer" the Democrats for their criticism, but if anything the Republican comments seem rather mild. The Republicans seem content to let the Democrats put themselves on the minority side of public opinion, which is running strongly in favor of Bush.

Perhaps they are hoping that the public will emulate the country music fans who reacted strongly to what they perceived as an unpatriotic comment by Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, who told an audience in London that the trio was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." This did not play well with the flag-waving hard core of country music, which promptly began burning tickets to Dixie Chicks concerns and organizing demonstrations in which their CD's were run over by bulldozers. Dozens of country music stations have stopped playing their songs.

Oops. Ms. Maines now says her comment was "disrespecful" and was motivated by her concern for the children of Iraq, who have allegedly suffered during the sanctions since the first Gulf War (a claim that has never been documented, by the way). It will be interesting to see how long it will be before the fans forgive their waywardness.

Maybe they will write a song about it -- "We know we've strayed from the path that's true, but we're all together now for the red, white and blue."

FUZZY THINKING WEAKENS CASE AGAINST WAR

One of the great values of free speech is its ability to expose blowhards and fools. This is especially so at a time of great national crisis, such as now, with the nation on the brink of war.

President Bush has had a great advantage in the national debate over war because he has stuck to his basic position and expressed his views with steely determination. He has demanded "regime change" from the start and has never shrunk from the fact that "regime change" in Iraq can only be accomomplished through gunfire and bloodshed. He has backed his words with action.

As a result, according to polls cited by The Washington Post, some 70 percent of the citizens support his policy. Anti-war spokesperson, who have been far less clear about their objectives and means for accomplishing them, have failed to rally much public support.

One reason for their failure is that so much of what they have to say doesn't make sense. The Episcopal bishop of Washington, John Bryson Chane, recently laid out a six-point plan to liberate Iraq without war. His very first point was, "Remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power." He and Bush can agree on that! But how to do it? Why, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Hussein for war crimes! That, apparently, would cause him to be resign or be overthrown.

Not likely.

Bishop Chane went on to call for "coercive disarmament" carried out by U.N. inspectors backed by the U.S. military. "The force would accompany inspectors to conduct extremely intrusive inspections, retaliate against any interference and destroy any weapons of mass destruction it found. There should be unrestricted use of spy planes and expanded no-fly and no-drive zones."

Well, yes. That will probably start next week.

Less sophisticated thinkers than Bishop Chane will probably fail to see the difference between the overthrow of Saddam and his party, "extremely intrusive inspections" backed by troops . . . and outright war. It is highly unlikely that Saddam would see the difference, either.

People who seek to influence public opinion at a time like this have got to think and speak clearly. It is perfectly all right to be against war on moral grounds, or to say that the U.S. must not launch a war before it is attacked. But to suggest that the objective of regime change and disarmament can be accomplished without armed intervention is merely to invite disbelief and ridicule.

PUBLIC TO GET CLOSE LOOK AT WAR

When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq begins later this week, the public in the United States and around the world will get an extraordinarily close-up look at military operations thanks to the presence of as many as 600 journalists assigned to units of all four military services. The Pentagon is betting that the coverage will give the public a favorable impression of the war.

The press contingent will be the largest in history and the most extensively deployed since the Second World War. Journalists assigned to units ("embedded" is the military buzzword) will accompany them on the lunge into Iraq and will face some restrictions on reporting but will have far more opportunities to report the sights and sounds of war than if they stayed in the rear.

The "embedding" policy was suggested in the first Persian Gulf War by officers who thought the journalists would have a better understanding of the conflict if they actually lived with the troops for a period of time before the shooting started. Senior commanders, however, still annoyed by hostile press coverage in Vietnam, refused to permit close coverage.

The Pentagon changed its tune this time around, and the "embedding" policy has already yielded a bonanza of sympathetic, up-close-and-personal coverage. Exactly what will happen when the war starts, and nerve gas shells -- the ones the UN can't find -- start raining down, is another matter.

Some journalists have insisted on attempting to maintain a separate, civilian identify, contrary to the advice of veteran war correspondent Joseph L. Galloway, who says that journalists ought to look as much like private soldiers as possible in order to avoid drawing the attention of enemy snipers.

"Those on the recent media exercise who declared that they had to look different, and donned brightly colored shirts and vests or stripped the camo cover off their Kevlar helmet and substituted white tape with a large Press emblazoned thereon," Galloway wrote recently, "are idiots. It is not worth dying to make a statement about your civilian status."

Some journalists camped out in the Kurdish-held region of northern Iraq will atempt to cover the war "unilaterally," without affiliation with an allied unit. Owing to Turkey's refusal to permit U.S. forces to transit its territory, the journalists may not have any choice but to be on their own. Some of them strike a hopeful note about their chances to see some action.

"I think we will have opportunities to hook up with forward units," said Karl Vick, a correspondent for The Washington Post. "The downside is that the American military shoots a lot of people. You might want to be on their side of the line when that happens."

The Pentagon is urging "unilateral" reporters not to "roam the battlefield" but isn't saying it will stop them from trying to do so. They may want to remember the example of CBS correspondent Bob Simon, who went off on his own in the first Gulf War and was captured by the Iraqis. They eventually let him go unharmed, but one can only wonder if Saddam's agents will be so forgiving this time around.

NATIONAL POLICIES ON IRAQ REFLECT EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE(S)

Voters often complain that the government doesn't listen to the views of "ordinary people" and doesn't do what they want. But in the Iraq crisis, governments in the U.S. and Europe are closely mirroring the public opinion that has been freely expressed in recent months.

In Europe, according to polls in various countries cited by the BBC, majorities from nearly 70 percent to around 90 percent oppose intervention without fresh UN support. Sizeable minorities, or even majorities in some countries, oppose intervention even with UN sanction.

In the U.S., in contrast, a solid majority are in favor of war with Iraq. According to the Gallup Organization, some 59 percent of respondents answered "yes" to the question, "Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" Support for the war has been in the high 50's since President Bush went to the United Nations in September to demand action.

The support for invasion is probably linked to the fact that 84 percent of respondents answer "No" to the question, "Do you think Iraq is complying with what the United Nations has required it to do so far?"

If there is no doubt in the majority's mind that Saddam has defied the UN, then it is no suprise that the majority favors dealing with Saddam directly. The can-do American spirit lives on.

A grumpier spirit prevails in Europe. A Forsa poll found 57% of Germans held the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers." Historically, of course, it was the Germans who were the warmongers, but that attitude was apparently beaten out of them by the last big war.

In France, the public strongly opposes action without UN support, but, interestingly enough, less than 30 percent are opposed to war if the UN gave its blessing. The French government seems determined to block that possibility, however, creating something of a self-fulfilling condition.

In the UK, less than 20 percent are opposed to war if the UN goes along, which explains why Tony Blair is so desperate for a second resolution. In Spain, nearly half the respondents oppose war even if the UN approves, which has led some observers to speculate that Jose Maria Aznar could fall from power if the crisis is prolonged.

Politically, the best thing to do now is go in there and get it done. Military victory could do more to win the war of public opinion than anything that could now be expected from the United Nations. Which is exactly why Bush, Blair and Aznar are going to meet this weekend, shake hands, and pull the trigger.

VIRGINIA TECH TO RESTRICT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

Students at Virginia Tech may soon have the same rights of peaceful assembly as the citizens of Singapore, where free-speech rights have been traded for political stability. The university's board of visitors (trustees) voted unanimously to give the university president the power to block anyone or any group that advocates domestic violence or terrorism from speaking or demonstrating on campus or in university-affiliated buildings. The resolution reads:

"No person, persons or organizations will be allowed to meet on campus or any facility owned or leased by the university if it can be determined that such persons or organizations advocate or have participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and/or terrorism. All requests for meetings will be submitted for approval to the President of the university at least 30 days in advance. The President will have final decision-making power to determine who can meet on university property."

The board was apparently reacting to a talk on campus last month by a representative of Earth First!, a radical environmental group that has sought to prevent logging by booby-trapping trees with spikes, which can damage or destroy chain saws and injure the men operating them. The Earth First speakers at Tech apparently did not advocate outright violence, however. The Earth First event was attended by the director of the Virginia Tech forestry resources research center, who challenged the Earth Firsters and provided some mainstream views to the student newspaper.

The resolution presumably would ban speakers from arson-prone groups such Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front and possibly supportive groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The Ku Klux Klan would also presumably be banned.

The resolution was proposed by board member Mitchell Carr, who is president of Augusta Lumber and Supply and Augusta Wood Exporters and a leader in the national lumber industry. "We need some protection from these terrorists," he said.

If implemented, the policy would be similar to that in place in Singapore, the city-state with clean streets, little crime, and a tightly controlled press. As the Kyodo news service put it recently, "Singapore's government does not allow street demonstrations without prior approval. Most applications are turned down and such activities are generally discouraged."

Virginia has a proud heritage of free speech going back to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote freedom of speech into the state's Constitution: "the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments," as Jefferson put it.

Thomas Jefferson defended the rights of man against the British army and American loyalists. He probably never figured on sacrificing those rights to the lumber industry.

OPRAH FENDS OFF CHALLENGE TO USE OF HER INITIAL

A German publisher has tried his luck in the big casino of American litigation and come up with lemons. Ronald Brockmeyer, proprietor of a pornographic website and occasional magazine, lost in his bid to extract a few dollars from American media superstar Oprah Winfrey, whom he accused of infringing on the name of his publication, which happens to be "O." Ms. Winfrey calls her own magazine "O, the Oprah Magazine."

Brockmeyer could claim first use, since he has managed to put out four printed issues since he launched in 1995. Apparently the web site is his chief stock in trade. The issue turns, however, on whether there is any possibility of confusion between the two enterprises. On this point, U.S. District Judge John Koelt found decisively in favor of Ms. Winfrey. He noted that the German web site features images of sadomasochism and bondage, whereas the Winfrey magazine features wholesome articles on self-improvement. As he put it:

"It is virtually impossible to find even a single image or article from the plaintiff's magazine that would not be jarringly out of place in O, The Oprah Magazine and vice versa. No ordinary prudent reader would view the contents of the magazines as similar and no reasonable reader seeking the contents of one magazine would turn to the other."

Brockmeyer himself is obviously guilty of stealing the title for his site from "Story of O," a sadomasochistic novel that came out some years ago. If he had won his case against Oprah, perhaps next he would have gone after Cirque de Soleil, which has a spectacular show in Las Vegas called "O." It seems to be a popular initial.

WILL KUCINICH EXPAND LIMITS OF SPEECH IN POLITICS?

The rather narrow limits of political discourse in the country might be expanded considerably if Congressman Dennis Kucinich gains any traction in his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Kucinich, known mainly as a left-of-center populist who is against the upcoming war in Iraq, is also a strict vegetarian, and, in certain circles, a proponent of airy New Age views.

"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self," Kucinich philosophized at a conference on the "Alchemy of Peacebuilding" last summer. "The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars . . . Our vision of interconnectedness resonates with new networks of world citizens in nongovernmental organizations linking from numberless centers of energy, expressing the emergence of a new organic whole." Kucinich went from this opening to a discussion of his proposal to form a Department of Peace in the federal government. (Speech is here.)

Kucinich, whose friends include out-there actress Shirley McLaine, is apparently the first major politician since California Governor Jerry Brown to move in New Age circles. His official campaign material is toned down from the excerpt above, but you can hear the echoes. His web site discusses the Peace Department idea in these terms:

"As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?" (Click here for the site.)

Well, yes, that would be fine. And it would be quite a switch from the usual yammering about Social Security and farm subsidies. Whether Democratic audiences outside of Marin County will warm to this type of thinking is yet to be determined.

More likely, Kucinich will learn quickly that the mainstream political world rolls its eyes at mysticism (as Louis Farrakhan discovered when he used live national television time to talk about numerology) and will retreat to safer grounds, which is too bad. What the heck, maybe a little soul-light magic would fix Social Security.

PROTESTORS TRY TO SHUT DOWN TALK SHOWS

Anti-war protestors in Washington have seized on a new target - the Sunday morning network talk shows. Protestors crowded the sidewalks and tried to block the narrow street outside the ABC-TV studio in an attempt to keep National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice from appearing on "This Week." They claimed that the talk shows are becoming a "platform" for Bush Administration spokespersons supporting the proposed war.

The demonstration is another example of the lack of respect for free speech over on the Left, which has gone from the home of free-speech champions to the intellectual home of its biggest opponents. The demonstrators seem to overlook two facts: first, a few million people every Sunday watch the talk shows to get the latest views straight from the newsmakers, and those people have rights, too; and secondly, the talk shows can also provide opposition views that ought to be heard.

For example, "Meet the Press" this morning also provided a "platform" for the anti-war views of ex-governor Howard Dean of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Dean got priceless airtime to project his views. Unfortunately for him, what he projected mostly was an air of incoherence and political opportunism - but that's important information, too.

[edit][3/9/2003 11:54:59 PM | Richard Lobb]

.

SPEECH NOT SO FREE IN BRITAIN

A Muslim cleric explored the limits of free speech in Great Britain and will be getting jail time for his trouble. Abdullah el Faisal has been sentenced to nine years in prison for the crime of "soliciting murder against persons unknown" by urging his followers to kill Hindus, Jews and Americans. He was also convicted on three charges of incitement of racial hatred. The judge recommended that el Faisal be deported after his sentence, presumably to his native land of Jamaica.

The conviction was the first obtained in more than a century under a British law passed in 1861.

The U.S. is more lenient on hatemongers, preferring to wait until they actually do something, such as arson or murder. However, under various "hate crimes" statutes, prosecutors can tack on an additional charge if they can show that the defendant was motivated by hatred of the victim's race, sexual orientation, or other attribute. According to the FBI, 9,730 "bias-motivated incidents" were reported nationwide in 2001.

CAMPUSES SEE UPTICK IN POLITICAL INTEREST

Yesterday's anti-war demonstrations on college campuses across the country are part of a general upsurge in interest in politics and public affairs by college students. Whether the participation level will reach the peak of intensity seen during the Vietnam war remains to be seen and is rather doubtful, considering that the Vietnam generation felt it had more of a stake because of the draft. Today's volunteer military makes the war somewhat remote from the experience of most college students.

Nevertheless, political activity has been increasing in the past couple of years, according to the annual survey of college and university freshman nationwide conducted by UCLA. (click here for the press release.) The 2002 survey showed that 33 percent of freshmen thought "keeping up to date with public affairs" is "very important" or "essential." That's not much, and well below the all-time high of 60 percent in 1966, but it's an improvement from the all-time low of 28 percent in the year 2000.

Last year's survey asked about participation in organized demonstrations, and found that 48 percent claimed to have participated in a demonstration in the past year. That was up from 45 percent in 2000 and way up from 16 percent back in 1966. So it appears that as students are less interested in keeping up with public affairs, they are more willing to participate in demonstrations. Makes you wonder how much deep thought is going into some of the demonstrations.

PETA CLAIMS CONTROL OF HISTORICAL MEMORY OF HOLOCAUST

The ever-litigious People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. PETA, which is fond of sending threatening legal letters to people who disagree with it, now stands accused of misusing photographs purchased from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. PETA is using the photos in its traveling show that compares Holocaust victims to farm animals. The Museum is not amused and has written to PETA to say:

"The Museum's Photograph Use Agreement, which governs usage of photographic reproductions, states that 'The USHMM reserves the right to restrict the uses of reproductions, to request prior review and approval of display formats and/or publication proofs, and to otherwise ensure that reproductions are used with respect and dignity.’ Consistent with this provision, this letter constitutes actual notice that PETA is required to immediately remove from PETA's website any and all photographic images and textual materials obtained from the Museum, and immediately cease using these materials in any pamphlets, public displays, and any other manner."

PETA has shot back:

"PETA has informed the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that it has no intention of ceding to the museum's demand to stop displaying photos of Nazi death camps, which PETA purchased from the museum, alongside scenes of animals being herded, confined, crowded, beaten, and slaughtered on factory farms and in slaughterhouses."

PETA goes on to insist that its use of the photos is "consistent with the Museum's mission statement."

Anyone who buys photos knows that the use is frequently restricted. The seller retains certain rights (assuming the seller claims them to begin with). PETA is on weak legal grounds here. It is on even weaker political and moral grounds because it presumes to tell USHMM what the museum's mission is. Nobody ever accused PETA of any humility.

The photographs could be easily replaced from other sources that are less scrupulous about usage or less able to claim copyright. It will be interesting to see whether USHMM can successfully claim the right to control usage of the pictures. PETA, in the meantime, is committing a self-inflicted wound.

FREE SPEECH = RIGHT TO BE SILLY . . . OR WORSE

Frank DeFord, sports commentator for National Public Radio, suggested this morning that the female basketball player for Manhattanville College who turns her back on the American flag is out of bounds. DeFord argued that Toni Smith, a sociology major from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, gave up her right to free speech when she joined the team.

Now, it is true that athletes accept some curbs on their free speech rights as part of the cost of participating in sports. Coaches don't tolerate backtalk, for example, and coaches themselves are limited in what they can say about officials.

But turning away from the flag during the National Anthem is purely political speech and has nothing to do with athletics. If Ms. Smith wants to demonstrate in this matter, she should be allowed to do it. She should also recognize, however, that just because society respects her right to free speech doesn't mean that anyone has to respect her opinions, which in this case seem misplaced. Presumably she is against a specific program of our government -- the proposed war in Iraq. Hopefully she is not against the nation as a whole or against allegiance to the nation as symbolized by the flag. She would be better off writing a letter to the editor or participating in a demonstration, rather than making herself the issue. A smart and well-educated young person doesn't necessarily know what the heck she is doing in a political protest.

On the other hand, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals knows exactly what it is doing but seems oblivious to the impact of its speech. PETA is touring an exhibition that compared the massacre of the Jews in the Holocaust with mostly extreme examples of mistreatment of farm animals. Many Jews are outraged by what they view as a trivialization of the Shoah. As Rabbi Barton Lee of the Hillel Jewish Student Center at Arizona State University put it:

"I think that the moral equivalent it pretends to suggest is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the people passing by and certainly not a productive way of making any kind of case for animals," Lee said. "It is another example of the lengths of stupidity that people will go to promote a cause in an extreme fashion."

Free speech is sometimes its own punishment.

WHO SAYS WHAT'S KOSHER? COURT STRIKES DOWN STATE LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that kosher according to Conservative Jewish rabbis is just as good as kosher according to Orthodox rabbis. The appeals court had ruled that New York State cannot enforce its law treating disagreements about the specific meaning of kosher as consumer fraud. The law, which was passed in 1915, caused the state to be excessively entangled with religion, the ruling said, not to mention putting a particular faction in charge of the meaning of commercial speech.

Orthodox rabbis dominate the state board that enforces the law and sends inspectors to butcher shops and other establishments dealing in kosher food, according to the court decision. Naturally they favor their own interpretations, which are stricter than those of Conservative rabbis. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- kosher butchers from Long Island -- are Conservative. One of the issues in the case was how much salt should be applied to meat to get the blood out, as required by Jewish dietary laws. Click here to see the New York Times article on the case.

New York's kosher laws are an excellent example of an attempt by the state to control speech for the benefit of one particular party or group. By gaining control of a designation that is important to some consumers, the particular group (in this case, the Orthodox) can impose their beliefs on others.

Far better to leave this sort of thing to the market through kosher-certifying agencies that can grant, or withhold, their seal based on the establishment's adherence to clearly defined requirements. Consumers can decide which seal, if any, is important to them.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: FORBIDDEN SPEECH?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to re-hear its decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the phrase "under God." The court found this a violation of the Establishment Clause, by which the government may not "respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." The court did retreat from its previous holding that the 1954 act of Congress adding the words to the pledge was itself unconstitutional. But it stood by its ruling that the pledge must not be recited in the public schools.

The remarkable thing about this decision is that is declared a certain act of speech, by itself, unconstitutional. As far as I know, never before in history has a specific set of words, a speech, a ritual, been declared unconstitutional, as opposed to an action of government or some requirement. For example, the Supreme Court ruled many years ago that no one can be forced to recite the Pledge against his or her will. It is not an act of coercion being ruled unconstitutional, but rather a thought or a concept. It is not even an act "respecting an establishment of religion," by which was meant giving a preferred status to a particular denomination, as many colonies and states did before the Constitution was adopted. "Under God" is merely an expression of the common belief in a deity, irrespective of any particular religion or denomination. "God" could be the Lord, or Yahweh, or Allah, or any other deity one chooses. For that matter, one can simply omit the words if one chooses, and no one in government could say anything about it.

If the pledge is unconstitutional, then surely it is also unconstitutional to display the Declaration of Independence, less children be shocked by its appeal to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God."

It is wrong to force people to say things they don’t believe. It is also wrong to prohibit people from saying what they believe. Most people in America believe in the words of the pledge. In the Ninth Circuit, however, the pledge of allegiance has become forbidden speech – a concept that is itself unacceptable in the United States.

DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK DENIES CONSTITUENT SERVICES

Various Hollywood celebrities led by Martin Sheen (a make-believe President) launched a denial-of-service attack on Capitol Hill this week. The celebs depicted the assault as a "virtual protest." What it amounted to was an attempt to tie up the phone and fax lines of the House and Senate to serve a a protest against the impending war with Iraq. It was not analogous, however, to a real protest, in which people speak their minds and contact their elected representatives, exercising their right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for the redress of their grievances." It was analogous to a computer-based "denial of service" attack, in which the computer generates thousands of messages to a server in an attempt to shut it down. The celebrities DOS attack was reportedly successful to some degree and tied up the lines for some periods of time.

Now, the typical caller to Capitol Hill is not an oil baron or a Pentagon general. She is a little old lady trying to find out what happened to her Social Security check. Congressional offices fields thousands of such requests every year. They also get enormous amounts of traffic from constituents and interest groups on a host of other issues. All those folks have just as much right to petition Congress as Martin Sheen. All he and the other celebs were doing was denying other people their rights to contact the government. Why is it that some people feel they cannot exercise their rights without denying those same rights to others? No wonder America largely ignores the celebs when they attempt to speak on The Issues.

COURT AFFIRMS FREE SPEECH OF ABORTION PROTESTORS AGAINST "RICO" LAW
The Supreme Court ruled today that the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law cannot be used to suppress the free speech rights of anti-abortion protestors. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been trying for 17 years to shut down anti-abortion protests by using civil actions under the statute. NOW's attempt was typical of the efforts made by many groups these days to use legal tools, political pressure, and other means to shut off the flow of free speech.

Unfortunately, almost nobody these days really believes in free speech and most people willingly make excuses for infringements on our rights. At a time when people can communicate as never before, attacks on free speech reach more people than ever. The point of this blog will be to report and comment on the latest developments in free speech rights and expose the efforts of those who would prevent honest citizens from saying what they choose or punish them for saying it.

dick lobb