Marvin Gandall writes in response to Hari Kumar:
>> The issue isn't really how do states defend themselves from external
>> enemies. It's axiomatic that all states will restrict the rights of its
>> citizens to organize, assemble, and dissent in relation to how seriously
>> they perceive themselves to be under attack. If we had state power, we would
>> have an intelligence and security apparatus like everyone else, and would
>> equip it with powers which would allow it to be effective.
>>
>> The issue is always whether the repressive legislation is so sweeping that
>> it can be easily used to crack down on the regime's political opponents who
>> are not aligned with the forces threatening to attack it. But that is a
>> judgement question, isn't it, decided by those in power? The political
>> considerations would have would not be very unlike those on listserves such
>> as this one, except at a much more serious level - that is, what speech is
>> impermissable and should be curtailed ("deviations") and whether whether
>> should be "unsubbed" (jailed or exiled), wither temporary or permanently, or
>> worse.
>>
>>. . . . . .
>>
>> It is not an easy question to answer in the abstract.
>>
Why not simply adopt the case law developed in the United States Supreme Court
regarding freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment? That case law, developed
over 200 years, has dealt with the question both in the abstract and in the
specifics, including wartime conditions.
David Shemano
