"Judge's order stifles a basic right"

[bryanleu2002]

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:54 AM EDT
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

And the government is finally running out of patience.
So it's doing what government always does when it can't take
care of a pesky challenger through rational discussion,
negotiation or litigation. It's taking out its giant government
sledgehammer and going for the kill.
And in doing so, it's not only interfering with Mr. Schulz's
exercise of his right to free speech, but it's punishing anyone
else for simply listening to that free speech.
Every citizen should be mad as hell about this unwarranted
invasion of our rights.
Mr. Schulz's latest tilt against the government windmill
comes as he defends his right to distribute information on
why he believes the federal government has no right to
withhold taxes from our paychecks prior to our taxes being
due.
His "tax termination package" -- which he distributed for free
at a variety of events around the country and also posted on
his Web site -- contains information that he believes
businesses could use to legally stop the practice.
He wasn't advocating a criminal act. He wasn't telling anyone not to pay their taxes. He was
just saying that he believes the government can't take your money before it's due, and he
encouraged people to press their employers to find the law that says it can.
And guess what? He's allowed to say that.
The distribution of any information, even false information, is protected by the Constitution.
Otherwise, 90 percent of the people who post on the Internet would be in federal prison right
now.

As American citizens, we are free to say whatever stupid, wrong, ill-informed, offensive thing
we want. We're free to encourage others to join us. And the government has to let us.

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it's right there in the very first amendment to the
Constitution.

But when it comes to speaking out about taxes, the government's first reaction is to stuff the
Constitution in your mouth and wrap your face with duct tape.
And that's just what the federal government, through U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
McAvoy, is trying to do. Judge McAvoy has taken the unusual step of trying to shut off Mr.
Schulz's information campaign by forcing him to provide the names, addresses, phone
numbers and Social Security numbers of anyone who might have gotten this information.
This obtrusive action is designed not only to shut up Schulz, but also to make others think
twice about even reading what he has to say.
The last thing any taxpayer in this country wants is to get themselves on the Internal
Revenue Service's radar, much less on its bad side.
If you thought the government could subpoena your personal information just for reading
something someone else wrote, how likely would you be to even touch it?
To taxpayers, the message is: "If you listen to this guy, we'll get you. We know where you
live. We've got your Social Security number. And when we find out you didn't really donate
$50 to save the whales as you claimed on your last tax return, you'll think a freight train ran
over you."

To Mr. Schulz, the message is: "Distribute this information, and your followers will be made
afraid to listen to you."

Without an audience, Mr. Schulz is merely another loud mouth in a nice suit that the
government can easily ignore.
The government will try to justify its action by saying Mr. Schulz was selling his information,
thereby making his packet "commercial speech," subject to regulation against false claims.

But that law is designed to protect consumers from being sold miracle drugs and crappy cars.

Even if Mr. Schulz accepted donations for his information packet (which he says he didn't),
then he's still only selling information.
People are free to ignore or act on that information as they see fit -- just like anything you
can look up on the Internet.

What we have here is a government that's going too far to shut down a citizen's right to
exercise his right to free speech.
If they succeed in silencing people who speak out against their government, and succeed in
threatening anyone just for listening, then who do you think they'll go after next?
Local editorials represent the opinion of the Post-Star editorial board, which consists of
Publisher Rona Rahlf, Editor Ken Tingley, Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney and citizen
representative Michael Cruz.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/revolution/Misc/PostStar-Ed-May-7-2008.pdf

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Court-Docs/6700InjunctionAug2007.pdf (http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Court-Docs/6700InjunctionAug2007.pdf)

[Andrew Chalmers]

As American citizens, we are free to say whatever stupid, wrong, ill-informed, offensive thing
we want. We're free to encourage others to join us. And the government has to let us.

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it's right there in the very first amendment to the
Constitution.

I'll like to see a citizen publicly reveal classified information, slander someone with malice, or cry bomb on a plane.

[Hilbert]

The 1st Amendment does acknowledge freedom of speech which in accordance with the Declaration of Independents, the founding fathers believed to be "endowed" upon men by their creator (god, allah, martians, whatever).

However, you must also be ready to take responsibility for what you say. If not, well then don't say it.

Although, I do agree with the article in that the First Amendment (and countless others) are under attack... McCain-Feingold (1st), Assault Weapons Ban (2nd), Patriot Act (4th). Yes our Government (both sides, Democrats and Republicans) has been chipping away and disregarding the Constitution for decades and we the American people just turn a blind eye and let them get away with it.

-Hilde

[hank]

As usual this is a vast oversimplification of a complex issue.

First, read the tax code and the corresponding regulations. The govt has the power to force withholding, the govt does so, and that action by the govt has been upheld and found constitutional over and over ad nauseum. You seem to believe that income taxation is illegal when in fact nothign could be further from the truth. See Wesley Snipes' attempt to argue taxation was illegal. In fact, I've cited the statute authorizing income taxation on this site before. There is simply no legal basis for these claims.

So, what your boy is actually doing is helping people break the law. And that type of speech is not protected, and if it is, its certainly subservient to the public interest in not being mislead. Your boy won't be available or responsible when his "followers" are found guilty of tax evasion. So he shouldn't be allowed to tell them to do something illegal - regardless of whether he is selling that info or simply preaching it for free. Either way its not a defensible legal position.

Also, as someone else pointed out. Free speech is not absolute. Fire in a theater, protests in front of the White House. There are plenty of situations where the right to speak is limited. And this is one of them. You simply can't hide behind the 1st A when you are misleading people and telling them to do illegal things.

You really like to argue legal stuff. And that's cool. But it would help if you read some law and understood the issues at play in these situations. Because as it stands, you come off as half-cocked without understanding that the "absolutes" you espouse are not in fact "absolute."

hank