Navigation
Skin #1 Skin #2 Sign Up Log In Latest Posts Latest Articles Why We Created FU

	Lists
bang_listBrian S_listBushbinLaden_listConstitution_listdixie_listdonut_listelection_fraud_listFreeState_listFUer_essays_listHistory_listIraq_listNWO_listRecipe_listSurvival_listThievingBastardsWMD_listWOD_list

	Parties
America First Constitution Democratic Libertarian Republican

	Resources
The Iroquois Constitution The Declaration of Independence The Articles of Confederation ** The US Constitution ** James Madison Introduces the BOR The CSA Constitution The Cherokee Declaration of Causes The Emancipation Proclamation Gun Facts v4.2 -- (updated) Nationmaster.com

	Links
The White House The Senate The House of Representatives The National Archives The Library of Congress The US Code Country Profiles

	Sites
Iraq HQ ATF Abuse EaglesUp Jack Blood Online Journal of 9/11 9/11Review Center for Cooperative Research (5 star *****) American Freedom Network Fred Reed Ron Paul Claire Wolfe EverVigilant Dave Black Online The Constitution Society

One time donation:

Subscribe:

 

  �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence Is Health�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

      Loompanics Unlimited | 31 Dec 1969 | Claire Wolfe

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is Health�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

Who needs government censorship
when we muzzle ourselves so effectively?
by Claire Wolfe

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? el silencio es salud �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? is an expression that numerous Argentines recalled for me as a slogan of that time [the military junta of the 1970s]. They are both wrong and right. The phrase was coined in 1975 by the Municipality of Buenos Aires in a campaign to reduce the din of traffic by prohibiting the use of horns except in emergencies. ...After the coup �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?silence is health�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? took on a different meaning, and it was that which lodged in people's memory. Interestingly enough, the generals did not use this expression. They didn't have to. The translation they wanted was made for them �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�??reflexively �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? by the people whose minds they had set out to conquer.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? Marguerite Feitlowitz, A Lexicon of Terror

Editors of major science magazines jointly recommend that a vast variety of scientific papers simply not be published �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? anywhere, at any time.

At gun shows, vendors of books clam up about the content of their wares �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? and refuse to sell to customers who persist in asking.

Everywhere, Americans muzzle their political opinions in phone conversations and public places. Some even resort to tactics like wading waist-deep into the ocean, far from prying ears, to discuss lawful, but controversial, political issues.

And on a website with the ironic name �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Liberty Post�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? the site moderator deletes all links to Loompanics Unlimited �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? in fact, all mention of Loompanics. She claims that linking to Loompanics could put her and her webmaster in federal prison.

What's going on here? Have all these people gone paranoid crazy? Well, yes and no. They're all responding �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? rationally, they believe �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? to government whose paranoia takes increasingly brutal forms.

They fear they might be �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?detained�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? or �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?disappeared.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? They fear that gorilla-like regulators may destroy their businesses. They fear they might fall under investigation by federal agencies whose �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?investigators�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? too often arrive at 4:00 a.m. with fully automatic German MP5s, black face masks, and no patience for silly arguments about the Bill of Rights.

In this post-Patriot Act era, there's genuine reason to fear. Some forms of self-censorship are simply sensible self-preservation tactics, thanks to Draconian new laws and vicious, often arbitrary prosecutions.

But in rushing to censor themselves �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? no, let's be honest, in rushing to censor ourselves even before government censors us �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? we too often play right into the iron fists of the anti-free-speech thugs we claim to oppose. On our own, we do their willful work for them �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? and worse.

The groundwork for silence is laid

This self-censorship actually began before the 9/11 attacks and before the infamous Patriot Act. One major culprit was a 1997 law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and her frequent co-conspirator Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), that makes it illegal for anyone to publish information about explosives if they have reason to believe the information might be used by anyone who had any intent to commit �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?a federal crime of violence.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

The infamous Hit Man lawsuit against Paladin Press had already established the precedent that merely selling a book to a stranger implied that (disclaimers to the contrary) the publisher was responsible for a book buyer's actions. Other lawsuits around the country repeatedly reaffirm the same message: Third parties can be held responsible for actions by complete strangers �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? actions they neither encouraged nor knew about.

This combo of one-two body blows, law and lawsuit, caused Paladin Press to pull more than 70 titles from its catalog in the late 1990s. Loompanics pulled three. It seemed like the only way to remain in business and out of prison.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

So the climate for self-censorship already existed when the next set of one-two body blows �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? the 9/11 attacks followed a month later by the Patriot Act �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? struck America.

Self-censorship starts to become the norm

The first manifestations of post-9/11 self-censorship were innocuous enough.

Clear Channel Communications (the corporate owner of more than 1,100 U.S. radio stations) created a list of some 150 songs its stations were temporarily not allowed to play.

With the world reeling, even the dumbest radio jock would probably not have played �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Hit Me with Your Best Shot,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Jet Airliner,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Another One Bites the Dust,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? or �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Shot Down in Flames.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Even Jerry Lee Lewis' �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Great Balls of Fire�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? seemed tasteless in that moment.

But Clear Channel's list also contained an assortment of strange choices. Corporate stations were not to air Simon & Garfunkel's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Bridge over Troubled Waters,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? John Lennon's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Imagine,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Louis Armstrong's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?What a Wonderful World,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? or even Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels' �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Devil with the Blue Dress.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Even without the bizarre no-play selection, many people found the very existence of such a list ominous.

Unfortunately, Clear Channel's no-play list was only the harmless-looking tip of a very cold, very scary, very deep iceberg of self-censorship.

Clear Channel stations can once again play Ricky Nelson's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Travelin' Man,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Neil Diamond's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?America,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? The Bangles' �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Walk Like an Egyptian,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? and Nine Inch Nails' �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Head Like a Hole.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? But businesses are increasingly likely to keep pertinent information out of public sight and hearing �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? as when the Voice of America (supposedly editorially independent, though government funded) obeyed a State Department edict and quit conducting interviews with officials of any country accused of sponsoring terrorism �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? thus ensuring that the VOA's audience would hear only the party line on international issues.

And worse, we've reached a point where we often choose to censor our own speech not because we must, but simply out of fear that someone, somewhere, will consider us terrorists, and bring the ugly consequences of their fear and hatred upon our heads.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

Obedience to government is the root of cowardice

Libertarians like to point out that the word �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?censorship�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? applies only when a government orders someone not to publish, air, or speak of certain matters. A private decision by an individual or a corporation therefore isn't censorship.

Overt government censorship by law or edict is rare today. It happens occasionally, as in July 2004 when the U.S. Justice Department ordered libraries around the nation to pull from their shelves and destroy certain documents explaining federal asset forfeiture procedures. Among the documents ordered destroyed were copies of CAFRA �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? which limits the government's powers to seize property.

But most contemporary censorship is more subtle. Government has learned that it doesn't have to order; it can merely dangle an amorphous threat. It doesn't have to forbid; it can simply fine. You can publish all the information about explosives you wish; you can just never be absolutely certain prosecutors won't swoop down claiming you �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?knew�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? readers would misuse the information. Howard Stern is free to say all the vulgar words he wants on the radio �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? as long as his employer is willing to pay repeated half-million dollar FCC fines. This is the modern face of government censorship.

If publishers make decisions about content based on their fear of government or their desire for a cozy, subsidized relationship with government, this, too, is a form of censorship.

When science editors decreed at the January 2003 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences that some research should never be published, they said they feared that scientific information might be used �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?by terrorists for malevolent purposes.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? This sounds reasonable until you consider that openness is the soul of science. Information sharing is the engine that drives inquiry. It is the reality checking system that enables mistakes or frauds to be uncovered and corrected. Scientists often make their most important discoveries by following up on the published work of others. A scientific result that's �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?dangerous�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? in one sense might lead another scientist to read it and produce a cure for a disease or a discovery of a life-enhancing technology. To refuse to publish otherwise beneficial information simply because some unknown party might misuse it is not only an outrage, it's dangerous to both science and civilization.

The editors weren't merely acting out of patriotism or professional caution. They openly declared, �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Self-governance is an alternative to government review of forthcoming journal articles.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

In other words, on the excuse of avoiding state control, they imposed upon themselves the very thing they feared from government.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

And what about we ordinary people who wear masks of conformity in public places? Government also encourages us to believe that our �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

Take the case of Marc Schultz, a bookstore employee in Atlanta. One summer day in 2003, two FBI agents showed up at his work place. What, they demanded to know, had he been reading the previous Saturday while waiting for his latte at Caribou Coffee?

Schultz was stunned. He had no idea. �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Some left-wing editorial,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? he vaguely recalled. The agents were polite, but they pressed him. With his consent, they searched his car, looking for the incriminating piece of paper. They found nothing. Only much later did Schultz �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? who is Jewish, dark, bearded, and vaguely Middle Eastern looking �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? realize what he'd been reading that morning: �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Weapons of Mass Stupidity,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Hal Crowther's scathing critique of Fox News.

The title was enough to cause a coffee house patron to follow Schultz outside, record information on his vehicle, and report Schultz's act of �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?terrorism�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? to the FBI.1

That'll teach you not to read �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?dangerous�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? literature in public, Mr. Schultz. And even if Marc Schultz has the guts to continue viewing critical literature, how many other Americans now hide their reading matter and their opinions solely out of fear of citizen spying and frivolous investigation?

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

If anything, the climate of fear has gotten worse since 2003. The spies are no less ignorant. But they're now enrolled in fatly funded government programs.

You've heard about TIPS, the system under which the Department of Homeland Security intended to create a U.S. Stasi, with millions of utility workers, mail carriers, truckers, and repairmen delegated to spy on the rest of us. Americans were outraged. The cancellation of TIPS was announced with great fanfare and relief. But �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? in what has become an all-too typical tactic �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? DHS merely replaced its One Big Stasi with programs called Highway Watch, River Watch, Port Watch, Transit Watch, etc.

Time Magazine reported on Highway Watch �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? a program that handed a nearly $20 million taxpayer-funded boon to the American Trucking Associations for 2004 alone. Highway Watch training instructs thousands of Junior G-Men to call a secret number any time they spot someone taking a picture of a bridge or handling an awkward backpack. Time observed:


After the session in Little Rock, two newly initiated Highway Watch members sat down for the catered barbecue lunch. The truckers, who haul hazardous material across 48 states, explained how easy it is to spot �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Islamics�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? on the road: just look for their turbans.2 Quite a few of them are truck drivers, says William Westfall of Van Buren, Ark. �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?I'll be honest. They know they're not welcome at truck stops. There's still a lot of animosity toward Islamics.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Eddie Dean of Fort Smith, Ark., also has little doubt about his ability to identify Muslims: �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?You can tell where they're from. You can hear their accents. They're not real clean people.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? But even that won't help you if you're the wrong color or dressed in the wrong clothing.

Sadly, government not only tolerates ignorant bigotry among its trained spies, it promulgates some shocking bigotry of its own.

For example: The state of Pennsylvania created a terrorism-education website (www.pa-aware.org/index.asp). Its profile of �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?domestic terrorists�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? is so broad it potentially includes most non-mainstream political activists, both left and right. A section called �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?What to report�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? doesn't say a word about what activities are ominous enough to relay to law enforcement and what should not. It focuses solely on training people to make quick observations of license plate numbers, hair color, and other details.

The Pennsylvania site does mention in passing that only crimes �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? not anti-government statements or religious beliefs �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? should be reported. But before you breathe a sigh of relief consider: Pennsylvania defines �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?terrorist�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? crimes so broadly that those crimes include ... believe it or not �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? grafitti. Anti-terrorism volunteers are also encouraged to report their fellow citizens for drawing maps, taking pictures, valuing privacy, buying propane bottles, buying weapons, and purchasing ammunition (no amount or kind specified).3 There is absolutely no guidance on how to distinguish innocent privacy, innocent propane, or innocent ammunition from �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?terrorist�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? privacy, �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?terrorist�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? propane, or �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?terrorist�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? ammunition.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? But silence isn't enough if you also happen to be a gun owner, an artist, a photographer, or be thought too stand-offish by your neighbors.

Which is the right response to such pervasive and pernicious bigotry? To fight it? Or to give in to it? Believe it or not, some self-proclaimed freedom lovers not only choose to do the latter; they promote hysteria, and hysteria-driven silence, in others.

Freedom lovers' surrender

Take for example, the strange case of the website Liberty Post. When �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Goldi-Lox�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? (screen name of the moderator) pulled all mention of Loompanics from a discussion thread on Liberty Post, (http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59896) she asserted:

I've check (sic) the [Loompanics] site, and the list of available books. Some of them easily fall into that area that the new Patriot Act would cover. I'm not going to put Neil at risk, as his name is listed as [Liberty Post's] �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?webmaster�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�?, and I don't want to be at risk either. Apparently, linking to or promoting these types of sites, can cause jail time.

Goldi-Lox based her decision, and her terror, on the case of Sherman Austin, owner and webmaster of RaisetheFist.com. Austin, a 20-year-old anarchist activist, served a year in federal prison on a plea bargain for violating the same 1997 Feinstein-Hatch sponsored law that prompted Loompanics and Paladin to pull books from their catalogs.

Austin had given server space to an Internet tract called the Reclaim Guide, which includes instructions on improvising explosives. Those instructions were mirrored for months on the website of Carnegie-Mellon University without the university or the faculty member who posted them, David S. Touretzky, getting into legal trouble.4

But Austin also openly advocated violence as a political tactic, which Touretzky did not. Austin wasn't persecuted for hosting the Reclaim Guide. He was prosecuted for advocating violence, with the Reclaim Guide used as part of the prosecution's evidence.

Loompanics president Mike Hoy said of Liberty Post's fear-driven self-censorship:

The yarn this idiot spins (that if she mentions the existence of Loompanics, her webmaster would be arrested by the FBI) is so at odds with what actually happened that there is no chance she is mistaken. She is ... consciously trying to spread fear and ignorance. At the present time, our civil liberties are under unprecedented attack, and it is more important than ever for all boosters of individual liberty to be open and honest and accurate with each other. Cowardly, dishonest fear mongers like the big-talking �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?LibertyPost.org�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? creep are directly serving the interests of Big Brother. With enemies like LibertyPost.org and the like, the State doesn't need any friends.
Without question, we sometimes need to practice self-censorship to protect ourselves against real threats and unacceptable risks. By retreating now, we survive to fight harder against tyranny tomorrow.

But when we self-censor our own innocent opinions, actions, and reading matter merely out of vague fears �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? because somewhere a fool may be snooping, because somewhere a bigot may be lurking, because someday our increasingly tyrannical government might pass an edict against what we think or read �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? we do ourselves and our culture an injustice.

People who furthermore spread irrational fear �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? encouraging others not to seek information, not to read controversial books, not to express honest opinions, are twenty-first century quislings. They do the enemy's work for him.

A nation that tells itself �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?silence is health�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? becomes a nation where few dare criticize leaders or challenge brutal, unjust policies. So injustice and brutality prevail.

A silent nation is a nation of serfs, not citizens. A nation of useful cowards. A nation ripe for more tyranny. A nation of people waving the flag of freedom while pre-emptively surrendering freedom itself.

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Silence is health,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? indeed. It is the health of tyrants.


l l l

Notes:

Even stranger was the October 2001 case of Neil Godfrey, who was forbidden to board a United Airlines flight because he was reading a copy of the Edward Abbey novel Hayduke Lives!, which features a bundle of dynamite on its cover. Later Godrey returned to the airport with the latest Harry Potter novel and again �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? after long scrutiny of his book by airport security personnel �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? was forbidden to fly.


Most turban-wearing Americans are Sikhs, not Muslims. And most �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Islamics�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? are not terrorists.


If you doubt the pervasiveness or harm of such reports see the strange tale of photography student Ian Spiers, guilty of �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?taking photographs while brown,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001979027_locks14m.html and http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/.


Touretzky eventually moved the Reclaim Guide files to http://forbidden-speech.org/ReclaimGuide/reclaim.shtml and later removed the weapons sections �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?¢â�??¬�?�?? not because he was being threatened with prosecution, but because he was being harassed by an old nemesis, the Church of Scientology. Church members were trying to make it look as if he advocated violence, when he did not. That story can be found here: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/whymove.html

References:

�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Science editors urge self-censorship over terror threats,�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? ABC News Online, February 17, 2003. http://abc.net.au/news/scitech/2003/02/item20030216103135_1.htm


�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Radio sings self-censorship tune.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Wired News. September 18, 2001. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,46925,00.html


Solomon, Norman. �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Media wars and the rigors of self-censorship.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Censored 2003, pps. 241-253. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Norman_Solomon/MediaWars_SelfCensorship.html


�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Ashcroft tells libraries to destroy citizen-friendly publications.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Buzzflash News Alert. August 2, 2004. http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/08/ale04025.html


Schultz, Marc. �?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Careful: The FB-eye may be watching.�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? July 17, 2003. Creative Loafing. http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html


�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�?�â�?��?Homeland Security 'Highway Watch' Stasi program trains Americans to spy on each other�?�?�?¢�?¢â�?�š�?¬�?�??�? Time Magazine. July 5, 2004. http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/020704highwaywatch.htm


Claire Wolfe is the author of the new title Freedom Outlaw's Handbook.


Loompanics Unlimited l 2004 Autumnal Supplement


LOOMPANICS UNLIMITED Online Catalog

Order Toll-Free 1-800-380-2230
YOUR ORDER IS SHIPPED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIPT!
(Monday Through Friday, 8am to 4 pm)

Posted 09/05/2004 12:09:49 am CDT by crack monkey

  [ Reply ]  

---

Category: Activism
Keywords: Censorship  ALS  kcurry  Hitler  Stalin  Goldi-Lox  LP  

---

To: Good Descriptions of Goldi's Loompanics Hysteria

Pretty good description of Goldi's Loompanics episode here.

1   Posted 2004-09-05 00:12:22 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 0 ]

---

To: crack monkey

Long live rock, be it dead or alive.

2   Posted 2004-09-05 00:12:25 by Dakmar

  [ Reply   |   To 0 ]

3   Posted 2004-09-05 00:28:03 by justlurking  

("They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one�?¢â�??¬â�??¢s country. There is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." -Ernest Hemingway)

  [ Reply   |   To 1 ]

4   Posted 2004-09-05 01:31:32 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 3 ]

5   Posted 2004-09-05 02:00:46 by SKYDRIFTER

  [ Reply   |   To 1 ]

6   Posted 2004-09-05 02:03:50 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 5 ]

7   Posted 2004-09-05 02:06:28 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 6 ]

8   Posted 2004-09-05 02:10:17 by Tim Osman

  [ Reply   |   To 6 ]

9   Posted 2004-09-05 02:10:55 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 6 ]

10   Posted 2004-09-05 02:12:37 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 9 ]

11   Posted 2004-09-05 02:13:39 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 8 ]

12   Posted 2004-09-05 02:16:20 by Arator  

(Check out my blog: America, the Bushieful)

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

13   Posted 2004-09-05 02:17:23 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

14   Posted 2004-09-05 02:18:40 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 12 ]

15   Posted 2004-09-05 02:19:30 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

16   Posted 2004-09-05 02:21:28 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 15 ]

17   Posted 2004-09-05 02:33:50 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 16 ]

18   Posted 2004-09-05 02:33:51 by SKYDRIFTER

  [ Reply   |   To 6 ]

19   Posted 2004-09-05 02:40:02 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 15 ]

20   Posted 2004-09-05 07:00:02 by Jhoffa_

  [ Reply   |   To 0 ]

21   Posted 2004-09-05 07:31:20 by Flintlock  

(Don't like what I'm saying? Hit this [ Abuse ] button to ping a Moderator)

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

Somebody just posted a Washington Post Article over at LP. I think Goldie now has permission to post WP articles and that she is keeping quiet about it so as to keep them off the site. Or at least permission has been offered to her in exchange for meeting some very, very minor conditions. I am waiting to see if she blasts this article.

Bot Offensive Content

If she does. Starting Tuesday I will find out what the status of the WP and LP is right now and come back with a report. I can't do anything until Tuesday.

22   Posted 2004-09-05 10:00:06 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

23   Posted 2004-09-05 10:18:57 by christine  

( )

  [ Reply   |   To 19 ]

24   Posted 2004-09-05 10:58:41 by tempwkwe

  [ Reply   |   To 3 ]

25   Posted 2004-09-05 11:16:27 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 19 ]

26   Posted 2004-09-05 11:26:57 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 25 ]

27   Posted 2004-09-05 11:37:00 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 26 ]

28   Posted 2004-09-05 21:20:57 by justlurking  

("They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one�?¢â�??¬â�??¢s country. There is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." -Ernest Hemingway)

  [ Reply   |   To 24 ]

Join the Check Point Nullification Project! :)

29   Posted 2004-09-05 21:33:22 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 24 ]

30   Posted 2004-09-05 21:42:39 by justlurking  

("They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one�?¢â�??¬â�??¢s country. There is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." -Ernest Hemingway)

  [ Reply   |   To 29 ]

31   Posted 2004-09-05 22:45:44 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 30 ]

32   Posted 2004-09-07 13:27:32 by SKYDRIFTER

  [ Reply   |   To 10 ]

33   Posted 2004-09-07 13:47:08 by Critter  

(I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.)

  [ Reply   |   To 32 ]

34   Posted 2004-09-11 14:15:15 by enemyofthestate

  [ Reply   |   To 0 ]

35   Posted 2004-09-11 14:20:21 by crack monkey  

(Crackmonkey, you are just a sick individual out of DC - Charity. )

  [ Reply   |   To 34 ]

36   Posted 2004-09-11 15:31:50 by christine  

( )

  [ Reply   |   To 34 ]

[ Latest Posts ]