“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
—–Evelyn Beatrice Hall (describing Voltaire’s attitude toward freedom of speech.)
“We will defend to the death your right to say anything to get a laugh, unless you are threatened by religious zealots and terrorists, in which case we will fold like Bart Stupak in an origami competition.”
—–Ethics Alarms (describing Comedy Central’s attitude toward freedom of speech.)
John Adams’ heroic defense of the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre has moved to the front of the line in the competition for favorite historical comparison to the controversy over the so-called “Al Qaeda 7,” the Justice Dept. attorneys under attack for their former representation of Gitmo prisoners. Over at The Legal Ethics Forum, law professor Richard Painter has posted a fascinating essay on John Adams’ own ethical conflicts in his most famous case, and they were far from minor. You can, and should, read it here.
I am a big fan of Tom Hanks’ work as an a comic, a dramatic actor, a producer, and in drag, but he has been reliably attached to what may end up being the most infuriating quote of the year. If not the most infuriating, then at least the most ignorant and irresponsible. In an interview with historian Douglas Brinkley in a Time magazine feature about his upcoming HBO series on World War II in the Pacific, Hanks said this:
“Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
If you are not now running in circles, wide-eyed and screaming, you should be. Continue reading
Here is a diverse selection of five ethics-related posts from cyberspace for your weekend reading pleasure:
The story of Shon Hopwood is certainly an inspiring one…so far. While serving more than a decade in federal prison for a series of armed robberies, his time in the prison law library turned him into an expert in case law, and he pulled off a rare feat: a petition for certiori he prepared on behalf of a fellow prisoner successfully persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Now Hopwood is out of prison, and is turning his life around. He has been working as a paralegal, he now has a family, and at 34, he plans to apply to law school.
It is likely that a law school will admit him, but not at all certain that any state bar would give him a license. Can a former bank robber pass the profession’s character requirement? Should he, no matter how good he is at writing Supreme Court briefs? Continue reading
It appears that South Carolina’s mandated registration of “subversive agents” is far from new, as erroneously reported here. The law dates from 1951—when Joe McCarthy was in full flower—so it is clearly not aimed at terrorists, but at “Commies,” being a relic of the Red Scare at the dawn of the Cold War. Apparently the legislature has attempted to repeal it in recent years and failed, but that doesn’t make the law any less archaic.
<Sigh!>
Blogs like this one rely on secondary sources, and when one of them jumps the gun or gets its facts wrong, the result is that we end up aiding and abetting negligent misinformation. True: Ethics Alarms is in the business of adding ethics perspective to news stories and current events as it understands them, so the analysis can sometimes still be useful even if the facts are wrong. That is insufficient justification for contributing to misinformation, however. The key, as usual, is trust. I will do the best I can to get the facts right, hope that my readers correct me when they are wrong, and be ready to correct the record.
As for South Carolina’s silly law, perhaps the revived publicity of its 1951 paranoia will embarrass it into finally getting this dinosaur off the books. That will constitute a good result from a botched story, I suppose.
Many thanks to Sherrif Ray Nash, who tracked down the truth for Ethics Alarms.
I haven’t decided if it is unethical for a state legislature to pass laws that are so ridiculous that they undermine the legitimacy of democratic government, but if it is, then South Carolina meets the standard.
A new law is now on the books there, called the “Subversive Activities Registration Act.” It requires terrorists in South Carolina to register with the S.C. Secretary of State’s office before they start plotting to violently overthrow the government, or risk a $25,000 fine:
“Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.”
But never fear, you terrorists: all you have to do is fill out this form, and send in your $5.00 processing fee.
On reflection, I think the statute is unethical, because its description of subversive organizations is so broad and confusing that it would be prudent for any member of a political party or employee of a foreign corporation to pay the $5.00 just to avoid the hassle of having to prove that the law is unconstitutional. Thus South Carolina can pick up millions of dollars thanks to a badly (but perhaps intentionally badly?) written law of dubious legality.
[The theory behind the registration requirement might be a slightly inflated version of the classic Depression-era vaudeville sketch, “Pay the Two Dollars!”written by Billy K. Wells. A man is unjustly fined $2.00 for spitting on the subway, but his lawyer insists that he plead innocent. As the court battle keeps incurring increasing penalties and greater expense, the man keeps begging his lawyer, “Pay the two dollars!” ]
(Ethics Alarms thanks Popehat for finding this.)
Scott Roeder was guilty of first degree murder by any legal definition. He decided that Dr. George R. Tiller had to die. He bought a gun and practiced shooting it. He studied his target, learned his habits, knew where he lived and where he went to church. It was inside that church where he finally killed Dr. Tiller after a full year of planning, shooting him in the forehead last May 31. He admitted all of this to the jury, and said he was not sorry. Short of jury nullification, a “not guilty” verdict was impossible, and there was no nullification. Roeder broke the law and was found guilty. He will probably be sentenced to life imprisonment.
I have no objections to this result. Society cannot have citizens performing executions or carrying out their own brand of vigilante justice. Scott Roeder, however, while not denying that he performed an illegal act, maintains that his act was an ethical one.
He has a point. Continue reading
Rebecca Solomon, a 22-year-old student at the University of Michigan, was flying back to school after her holiday break. Shee arrived at Philadelphia International Airport 90 minutes before takeoff, to make sure security screening wouldn’t make her miss her Northwest Airlines flight into Detroit. She knew about the attempted Christmas bombing attack on the same airline on the way to the same city, and was understandably nervous.
After sending her carry-on items through the scanning machines, and walking through a detector, she saw a TSA worker beckoning her solemnly. As she walked over to him, he pulled a clear plastic bag from her bag. Inside the bag was fine, white powder.
“Where did you get it?,” he said, frowning. Continue reading
Is it unethical to promote something in which you have a financial or other personal interest even if you would have advocated it anyway? When one is a respected and credentialed former public official, this situation can pose a real dilemma. You sincerely believe it is critical to take certain action; indeed you believed in the importance of this action before you had a stake in it. Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 