Free Speech question

[Boris]

This woman went to Iraq to be a human shield before the war started. Now she is being fined for violating trade sanctions against Iraq. My opinion is that she is kind of stupid but fining her does raise some freedom of expression concerns. Her intent was clearly political and not commercial.

SARASOTA, Fla. - A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq (news - web sites) to serve as a "human shield" against the U.S. invasion is facing thousands of dollars in U.S. government fines, which she is refusing to pay.



The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war. Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."


She and others from 30 countries spread out through Iraq to prevent the war. She spent about three months there. Only about 20 of nearly 300 "human shields" were Americans, she said.


Fippinger, who returned home May 4, is being fined at least $10,000, but she has refused to pay. She could face up to 12 years in prison.


In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."


The government also has asked Fippinger, 62, to detail her travels to Iraq and any financial transactions she made. In her response, Fippinger wrote that the only money she spent was on food and emergency supplies.


If Fippinger does not pay, the fine may increase, and the money will be drawn from her retirement paycheck, her Social Security (news - web sites) check or any of her assets, officials said.


"She was (in Iraq) in violation of U.S. sanctions," said Taylor Griffin, a Treasury Department (news - web sites) spokesman. "That's what happens."


Shortly before the U.S. invasion in March, Fippinger was one of several dozen human shields scattered around a refinery in Baghdad.


"We are planning to stay here in the refinery if war breaks out," Fippinger said at the time. "We are staying here because we think this war is unjust."

[Rockfish]

They say you can't fight city hall.

You can fight city hall. It's just damned expensive.

This woman took a stand, which in this country is her right. When our government disagrees strongly with a stand taken against it by one of it's own citizens it frequently makes the cost of taking that stand prohibitive. This is a form of deterrence.

If you choose to take a stand despite the obvious deterrent you must face the consequences. Right or wrong (and I'm not taking sides, just looking at how things usually happen) the cost of her taking a stand was an unknown non-zero sum. Now she is finding out the cost.

Rockfish

[Oski]

I guess CNN and CNBC, etc. are going to be fined next - Geraldo better watch his ass!

I am sure all of them bought quite a lot of food and emergency supplies (alcohol) while they were counting down to the war.

[nicky g]

If they sued any journalists for that, you can bet they'd limit it to Peter Arnett and the al-Jazeera correspondent. Oh no, wait, they already killed him. Maybe they'll sue his family.

[BNO]

You can't use a mathematical cost-benefit analysis here, because it would apply to any government attempt to punish free speech, no matter how unlawful or wrong. There are two issues: (1) Can she be prosecuted? and (2) Should she be prosecuted? The first is a question of law, and the second is a question of justice.

The answer to the first question plainly is yes. She traveled to a foreign country that we were preparing to invade and took action, not just speech, against the coming war. If she had stayed here and spoken out, published newsletters, organized protests, or handed out pamphlets in the street, the government couldn't have touched her.

The second question calls for a moral judgment. Personally, I think she should be prosecuted. The right way to oppose a planned invasion is to speak out, organize protests, publish articles and contact your elected officials, attacking the reasons for the war to persuade decision-makers and pressure them with public opinion. The wrong way is to fly over to the country we're invading and shout out words of encouragement to groups of people that will certainly include opposing soldiers, stand in front of tanks, etc., to pressure the decision-makers with physical resistance and by increasing the danger for our troops.

This isn't an absolute answer; it's my judgment. Don't be afraid to take a stand of your own. Democracy works by turning the majority judgment into action, and free speech is the best way to maximize the chance that the majority decision will be the right one.

[Boris]

"Democracy works by turning the majority judgment into action, and free speech is the best way to maximize the chance that the majority decision will be the right one."

I hope I never live in a Democracy. If you'll recall from your highschool government class, one of the major motivations for emigrating from Europe 300-500 years ago was for religious minorities to escape state sponsored persecution. I am also pretty sure that the Framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights never intended for gov't policy decisions to be made based on populist sentiment.

[BNO]

You missed the point. Free speech itself is protected against majority action, as my post assumed was well known. That is the point of our bill of rights. There are areas of individual freedom here that the majority cannot override, without amending the Constitution first. Nothing in my post suggests I have forgotten my high school government class.

Just because there are limits on majority power does not mean that the majority does not in fact exercise power, and free speech is the best way to help the majority exercise that power well. Do you contend that the majority can (or should) do nothing? Don't throw away democracy because the majority can make decisions that affect you. History has shown that the alternative is much worse.

[baggins]

nah. the right way to oppose people killing other people is to do whatever you can short of murder itself. how is protest in Iraq substantially different from protesting here in the US?

you people are crazy. this lady has every justifiable right to fly to Iraq and protest a war she feels is unjust. this country's government is overstepping it's charge here. by a longshot.

[brad]

hard to find it in feds delegated, limited powers, isnt it?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
how is protest in Iraq substantially different from protesting here in the US?

you people are crazy. this lady has every justifiable right to fly to Iraq and protest a war she feels is unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ask how is it different? Well to put it simply it was leagl for her to do so here and determined illegal for her to do so in Iraq. Not really all that confusing.

She has no right to fly to Iraq at all. Where do you see that in our Constitution? Offering aid and comfort to our enemies has always been a prosecutable offense. Why should it be different for her?