Three short fiction pieces of mine are now available on Amazon - Kindle. The Puzzler, The Wolf Who Came Back, and Patterns, plus a longer piece on Celtic Mythology. Please take a look. But don't confuse my work with pieces by others with similar names.
"If this be treason, make the most of it." -- Patrick Henry
The president tweeted on May 17 that his campaign was "spied on," and that "nothing like this has ever happened in American politics." Moreover, he insisted that "this was TREASON!" (his caps) and this means "long jail sentences."
I guess this makes every journalist and reporter a spy, and therefore -- according to his definition -- guilty of treason. Monitoring what candidates and politicians say and do is not treason, but straight reporting, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Exactly 254 years ago, on May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry spoke to the Virginia legislature criticizing the king, but he was interrupted by cries of "Treason!"
His response: "If this be treason, make the most of it."
Today, Americans are faced with similar accusations that any criticism of the current political leader is treasonous, and those who speak such criticism should be jailed.
More specifically, the allegation of "spying" referred to investigations by the FBI counterintelligence division into possible ties between the president's campaign team and the Russian government. Attorney General William Barr, who acts more like the president's personal lawyer than a representative for the American people, provided no evidence for the accusation, and later ordered an investigation of the investigators -- the team that looked into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The bottom line to this prattle is the allegation that the FBI and the news media were committing "treason" when they investigated and reported on activities of the president before and after the election.
America was founded on the principle that comments and criticism of government officials are an essential part of a free society. If we lose this, America will no longer be a free society.
As Patrick Henry said more than a decade before the colonies declared their independence, "If this be treason, make the most of it."
"More Americans watch NBC News than any other news organization in the world," says the TV promo. That may well be true, but one wonders how many Americans have access to other news organizations around the world, and how many Americans watch them. Does the calculation include Internet programming, or only broadcast and cable television? The promo doesn't say.
Big Brother has gone international.
There is no such thing as privacy on the Internet, especially on social media sites.
Users of Facebook learned that sharply recently, and lawsuits are sorting out the issue of libel and slander, and what responsibility the carrier has for displaying such things.
In turn, that brings up the issue of editing and censorship, especially when some postings are false, malicious, libelous, slanderous or just plain mean and nasty.
As it is, anyone can post anything at any time about anyone else, and they can do it anonymously. So who's to stop such gossip, and how?
Granted, some measures are being taken by some carriers, who ban hateful posters from their web sites. But nothing stops the culprits from changing their names and opening a new location.
Print media have the guidelines of libel law, and typically review and edit material before publication. If an item is not newsworthy, or if it's poorly written or libelous, the item is spiked and that's the end of it.
There is no such screening or editing mechanism, however, on Internet social media. But should there be? As it is, anyone can post anything about anyone else, and do it anonymously from anywhere in the world.
Case in point: A blogger in Ireland is suing Facebook because it carried what she claimed were lies about her. The company denied responsibility for any alleged defamatory statements, saying it did not write the stuff.
So who did, the lawyers demanded, and the company refused to reveal the identity of the posters, citing privacy. Not so fast, said the judge, and ordered them to reveal the names, who turned out to be located in Serbia and Montenegro.
Lawyers immediately amended the lawsuit to include the alleged perpetrators.
The complaint was filed in Ireland because that's where Facebook has its European headquarters, and the accused critics live in two countries that have applied for admission to the European Union.
It's complicated. Whose laws apply, those of the U.S., the home of Facebook; those of Ireland, its European headquarters and the home of the appellant; Serbia and Montenegro, where the critics live, or the EU? And which definition of libel applies, since each nation's court system varies in its terminology?
Leading the issue is the carrier's responsibility, if any, for the content of messages forwarded through its system.
Private telephone conversations cannot legally be monitored without a warrant issued by a court, and letters sent through the mail cannot be opened and read by postal officials or police without reasonable cause.
But there is little privacy on the Internet, especially social media sites. Likewise, people with the latest portable communications gadgets are tracked by service providers, who thereby know where you are, what you purchased at which store or coffee shop, what your current interests are according to the web searches you do, and thus their clients can target their advertising accordingly.
So what's to stop the carrier from forwarding all that information to government or law enforcement officials?
Nothing.
They already share it with advertisers, so it's easy enough to share it with police.
Granted, this can be very helpful in tracking down and arresting a criminal offender.
But isn't this also an assumption that all of us are potentially criminal offenders, guilty until proven innocent?
Big Brother is watching.
