| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Environmental Vigilantism Is Not 'Free Speech'
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Naugler |
 Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14041
Environmental Vigilantism Is Not 'Free Speech'
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: January 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
----------------------------------
Greenpeace, Inc., one of the world's most confrontational
environmental activist groups, is facing criminal prosecution for
organizing an illegal boarding and boatjacking of a ship it falsely
believed carried rare Brazilian mahogany. Greenpeace has raised a big
fuss over its criminal prosecution and has sought and received support
from some very prominent environmental activists regarding the
incident. The activists claim prosecution of the group for exercising
its "free speech rights" is a threat to all Americans' civil
liberties.
In my opinion, Greenpeace and its activist supporters pose the real
threat to civil liberties.
The boatjacking occurred in April 2002 when three Greenpeace boats
shadowed and then surrounded a private ship, the Singapore-registered
APL Jade, as it approached the port of Miami. Greenpeace mistakenly
believed the boat was ferrying Brazilian mahogany to America. Rather
than raising public awareness regarding Brazilian mahogany by using
its Web site or marching on Congress, Greenpeace took it upon itself
to forcibly halt the private ship, board it, and then attempt to affix
a large anti-logging banner to it.
The boatjacking of a private vessel was a clear violation of American
and international law. Officials of Greenpeace knew this and admit the
boatjacking was typical of the organization's confrontational methods
against not only government institutions, but individual citizens and
private companies as well. Nevertheless, Greenpeace and its apologists
argue the group should be excused from prosecution for its criminal
conduct because its unlawful actions amounted to "free speech."
Important to this issue is an understanding of the First Amendment and
its free speech protections. The First Amendment holds inviolable the
right of American citizens to voice criticisms of our government.
Honest and open political discussion, without the threat of government
intimidation, is vital to our democratic institutions.
Criminal Activity
The focus of the First Amendment is the right to express an idea or an
opinion. While the idea or opinion is protected, however, the First
Amendment does not give people, or in this case a corporation, a blank
check to engage in unlawful hooliganism simply because "an opinion"
motivated the unlawful conduct.
If my friends and I decided to carjack an SUV full of Greenpeace
activists and force them to drive around with a banner denouncing
Ralph Nader, my conduct would not be lawful and excusable simply
because I was motivated by ideological/political beliefs. The fact
that environmental activist groups frequently engage in the hypocrisy
of driving the very SUVs they seek to keep others from buying would
not change the unlawful nature of my conduct.
Similarly, if I formed a corporation, raised hundreds of millions of
tax-free dollars each year under the pretense of "educational
activities," and used those funds to plan, recruit for, and direct the
illegal carjacking described above, then surely my corporation cannot
escape legal repercussions merely by claiming the activity was
motivated by ideological beliefs.
The Greenpeace, Inc. boatjacking is not very different from the
hypothetical example above. Indeed, Greenpeace's conduct was so severe
that the International Maritime Organization, which has in the past
welcomed Greenpeace as a consultative member, is in the process of
expelling the organization for its act of piracy.
Is hooliganism that violates criminal statutes lawful and protected
merely because the hooliganism is motivated by political beliefs? Do
free speech provisions--designed to protect the right of American
citizens to criticize their government--allow corporations the right
to harass and assault private citizens merely because the corporations
are allegedly motivated by strong opinions?
"Free speech" is clearly a civil rights protection far different in
nature and scope than what Greenpeace claims. By scurrilously twisting
the definition of our sacred free speech protections in order to
escape responsibility for its extremist vigilantism, it is Greenpeace
and its extremist allies that threaten our most important civil
liberties.
-----------------------------------------------------
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News. His
email address is taylor@heartland.org. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312221218.4cf6571d@posting.google.com...
Quote: Environmental Vigilantism Is Not 'Free Speech'
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: January 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Amusing bit of NeoCon Propaganda.
Affixing a banner to a boat is a "boatjacking" according to the Heartland
Institute.
If that is the case, then affixing a leafelet to a car windshield is a
"carjacking".
Thanx for posting yet another example of the perpetual stream of NeoCon lies
issuing from various Right Wing Hate groups David.
Also on the Heartland Institutes list of available articles.
Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths
Written By: Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont
Published In: Regulation
Publisher: Cato Institute
The oft-quoted statistic in the title of this article is the principal
justification for tobacco-related regulation and litigation. It is also
scientifically unfounded, typical of the "junk science" that the
Environmental Protection Agency and many habitual..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:36 am
|
|