BlackPhoenix
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Posts
- 42
I found this in my local newspaper a couple days ago. This is a scary thought,wouldn't you agree?
The least known section of AG John Ashcroft's U.S.A. Patriot Act allows the FBI to demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of "involvement in terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The basis is in Section 215 of the Act, which says the FBI director may seek a court order for "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against" terrorists.
Among the broad definition of domestic terrorism is "acts (that) appear to be intended to ... influence the policy of government by intimidation."
Such alleged "acts" could be based on what the suspect reads and follows in a book.
What causes great concern among librarians and bookstore owners is once they turn over the information, a gag order is imposed prohibiting them from disclosing "to any other person ... the FBI has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
This means the librarian or bookstore owner cannot call a reporter to say the FBI has conducted the search.
The American Booksellers Foundation has sent a letter telling booksellers when the court order is handed down, "the decision is 'ex parte,' meaning there is no opportunity to object in court."
And since the owner or librarian can't object to the press, can't he or she at least consult a lawyer after the search has been made? This is the advice of the Foundation - and also the advice librarians are getting for the ALA:
"You remain entitled to legal counsel. You may call an attorney and/or (the Foundation or the ALA) and simply tell us you need our legal counsel. Because of the gag order, you shouldn't tell us you've received a court order."
Because of the chilling effect of the Act, it's uncertain how many will even call a lawyer. And for those who do, it's difficult to predict how successful a court challenge will be in the present, and long-term, atmosphere of fear of shadowy terrorists.
Because of the gag order, there will be even less public criticism because we will not know how often these searches are made - and what specific books are under suspicion. You might have some of those books in your home.
What that means is you are still protected by the First Amendment if you criticize John Ashcroft. But, if the FBI believes you are connected to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities they can find out what you've been reading. The gag order is indeed on the First Amendment
Any opinions? Or am I the only one who does not like this idea?
The least known section of AG John Ashcroft's U.S.A. Patriot Act allows the FBI to demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of "involvement in terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The basis is in Section 215 of the Act, which says the FBI director may seek a court order for "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against" terrorists.
Among the broad definition of domestic terrorism is "acts (that) appear to be intended to ... influence the policy of government by intimidation."
Such alleged "acts" could be based on what the suspect reads and follows in a book.
What causes great concern among librarians and bookstore owners is once they turn over the information, a gag order is imposed prohibiting them from disclosing "to any other person ... the FBI has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."
This means the librarian or bookstore owner cannot call a reporter to say the FBI has conducted the search.
The American Booksellers Foundation has sent a letter telling booksellers when the court order is handed down, "the decision is 'ex parte,' meaning there is no opportunity to object in court."
And since the owner or librarian can't object to the press, can't he or she at least consult a lawyer after the search has been made? This is the advice of the Foundation - and also the advice librarians are getting for the ALA:
"You remain entitled to legal counsel. You may call an attorney and/or (the Foundation or the ALA) and simply tell us you need our legal counsel. Because of the gag order, you shouldn't tell us you've received a court order."
Because of the chilling effect of the Act, it's uncertain how many will even call a lawyer. And for those who do, it's difficult to predict how successful a court challenge will be in the present, and long-term, atmosphere of fear of shadowy terrorists.
Because of the gag order, there will be even less public criticism because we will not know how often these searches are made - and what specific books are under suspicion. You might have some of those books in your home.
What that means is you are still protected by the First Amendment if you criticize John Ashcroft. But, if the FBI believes you are connected to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities they can find out what you've been reading. The gag order is indeed on the First Amendment
Any opinions? Or am I the only one who does not like this idea?
