The Eruption of Egypt

One of my closest friends at law school is a young woman from Egypt.  It is rather fitting given that my mother has always been fascinated by ancient Egypt; her life's dream is to visit Cairo and tour the pyramids.  My Egyptian friend and I spend many hours in the car traveling between Grand Forks and Minneapolis to see our loved ones and our conversations vary from school to relationships to religion and culture.  I cherish and deeply value our conversations and our friendship so when I saw online that Egypt had erupted in protests about the government I ran to find her as soon as I could.  For one, she still has family in Egypt and secondly, to find out what going on that the media won't tell us.

According to her, for the last 30 years her country has been run by a dictator disguised as an "elected president."  Even if you think our system is broken and your vote doesn't really count, at least we have term limits.  Now Mubarak is grooming his son to run for "election", which is part of what Egyptians are protesting about.  Mubarak has apparently tortured thousands of Egyptians who do not agree with his government and is most likely guilty of many other human rights violations on the international legal front. Now he's committed what most Americans would feel is one of the ultimate human rights violations:  his government has cut off the Internet and cell phone service in order to squelch the protestors' ability to speak out about the Egyptian government and organize more protests.

The idea of our government being able to pull the plug on our digital and online communications scares me and angers me.  Yet my more rational, legal side is left to contemplate this question:  Dictator or not, is President Mubarak and the Egyptian government justified in cutting off online and cellular communication in an attempt to stop the protests from becoming violent and stabilize the country?

Guns. Speech. Madness.

(This blog was started early Monday morning. My apologies for the delay in posting.)

I wandered into a newsstand in the Tampa Airport this morning and saw those words and Loughner's crazed mugshot staring at me from behind the checkout. This week's TIME magazine has a special report on what happened in Tuscon for anyone who hasn't had enough.

The humorous part in all of this is the statement directly below "Guns. Speech. Madness." It says, "Where we go from Arizona." Perhaps because it is so early that I find this statement entertaining. Or maybe I got a little too much sun this weekend. Either way I find it funny that the media is trying to tell the American public where to go from the tragedy in Tucson given that they are being blamed to some extent for the current political climate, that which is being blamed for the actions of this madman in a Safeway parking lot. I don't appreciate this directive from the media, "Where we go from Arizona," namely because I don't think the media should be running around giving directives on public policy when their only goals are sales and ratings, not what is best for Americans as far as public policy goes. "Where we could/should go from Arizona," would have been more appropriate language in my view.

I haven't read the articles yet because I know I am going to respond viscerally to them and I'm not prepared for the intense reactions I will most likely have. Just thinking about Loughner's unanswered question that spawned so much hate infuriates me. I'm starting to believe he was not deranged, disturbed, or insane but a complete idiot who thinks he's a deep thinking intellectual that the rest of the world is not smart enough to understand, at least he was when he asked Giffords the ridiculous "what is government if words have no meaning" question.

This weekend I shall begin my quest to find U.S. cases where freedom of speech crosses the blurry line into incitement in an effort to keep up with my more intellectual classmates. Please feel free to weigh in on the cases I blog about, as I appreciate not only my classmates' feedback but also feedback from those who work in different areas than the law.

Incite, Incitement, Unstable

From Black's Law Dictionary:

Incite: To provoke or stir up (someone to commit a criminal act).

Incitement: 1. The act or an instance of provoking, urging on, or stirring up. 2. Criminal Law: The act of persuading another person to commit a crime.

From Dictionary.com:

Unstable: Marked by emotional instability

From mentalhealth.com:

Emotionally Unstable: Diagnostic Features:

Emotionally Unstable (Borderline) Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by impulsive actions, rapidly shifting moods, and chaotic relationships. The individual usually goes from one emotional crisis to another. Often there is dependency, separation anxiety, unstable self-image, chronic feelings of emptiness, and threats of self-harm (suicide or self-mutilation). This disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling/distressing.

U.S. Constitution - The First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

When our forefathers inked these words which came into effect on December 15, 1791, the Internet obviously did not exist.

If the 1st Amendment was being written to take effect on December 15, 2011, how might the language be different or would it even be different? Why or why not?

Caught in the Crosshairs

To be honest, I'm angry about what went down in Arizona. I'm usually against the death penalty, but I think anyone who looks happy in their mugshot about killing 5 people, including a 9 year old girl, should face the ultimate punishment.

And now this is all being blamed on our media and I can't help but wonder if our media really is to blame or not. It certainly could have contributed, but what responsibility do people have to use caution in what they post on the web? I believe with great freedoms also comes great responsibility. We have the right to free speech in this country and that comes with great responsibility, especially this day and age when information can be disseminated with one click to the entire globe. While you have the right to say it, do you also have the responsibility to watch what you say given there are unstable people who would have access to websites. Did Loughner see Palin's "crosshairs" site? In his apparently "unstable" state, did that affect his decision to open fire on a member of Congress and her constituents as well as any passers by? As a public figure in the media, does Palin have a greater responsibility when she uses her 1st Amendment rights?

So when the puck drops and the bucks stops in a parking lot in Tuscon, where does freedom of speech end and personal responsibility for what is said begin?