Grey Matters

Written November 3, 1989

About that flag burning…

Gregory Johnson, the protester who took his case clear to the Supreme Court to defend his right to burn the American flag, is in the news again. This time, he’s upset because he was not arrested for again burning the flag of the United States of America. This is one very confused fellow — but then, we already knew that, didn’t we?

Hearing that he was at it again started me reminiscing about some of my thoughts concerning the Supreme Court’s decision. Their first mistake, of course, was in permitting this to be argued as a First Amendment issue. Burning the flag: this is “speech?” 

“Political expression,” they said. Speech-expression, expression-speech, same thing.

So, “expression” is protected as long as it’s politically inspired? Does this include hand (and finger) gestures — suitably politically motivated, of course? And if I or some other citizen were to “moon” the venerable justices on the steps of their Supreme Court building — strictly as a protest of their politics, mind you — this too is covered? Given the flag burning precedent, wouldn’t it have to be? Then what wouldn’t?

If an otherwise heretofore illegal act, uh…er…, “expression” becomes a “right” by virtue of being politically inspired, well, folks, better fasten your seat belts and return your tray tables to their upright, locked position; we’re heading into some turbulence. Imagine the possibilities. Aren’t terrorists the archetypal example of politically motivated persons? Are we going to give them the nod?

OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that this was in fact “speech.” Well, just what was he saying? It makes a difference, you know. Was he perhaps calling for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States of America? Was he saying, as the Iranians say when they burn our flag, “Death to America, death to the Great Satan?”

You may have gotten the impression from this decision that our supreme court justices are free speech absolutists; that would be a mistake. The court has long denied “first amendment” protection to certain kinds of speech. Obscenity is one such type. Commercial speech is another example. In fact, just days before the flag burning decision, the court ruled 6 – 3 in Todd Fox et al. v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, to uphold a SUNY ban on commercial activity on campus. In the so-called “Tupperware” case, several students had invited a salesperson to demonstrate Tupperware-like utensils in a dorm room. The salesperson was arrested for soliciting without a license and trespass. She lost. Commercial speech is not protected.

In a case from a bit further back, from the early 1940’s, the court upheld the banning of a handbill containing political speech. The handbill contained on one side a protest against city officials for refusing permission to run a business from a New York City pier and on the other side an advertisement promoting the business. In this case, we see that not only is commercial speech not protected but the existence of a commercial element was sufficient to uphold the ban despite the political content. Nasty stuff, that commercial speech.

Another kind of speech that is not protected is so-called “fighting words.” These are words that according to the court are “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation.” This might include racial, ethnic or religious slurs and perhaps just calling someone a S.O.B. I maintain that if in fact Gregory Johnson’s flag burning was “speech,” it was certainly “fighting words” — if the outrage of vast numbers of Americans is any indication. Indeed, the whole purpose of the burning was to outrage, to provoke, otherwise why bother burning the flag?

If a commercial element is sufficient to ban political speech, shouldn’t the provocation of “fighting words” be sufficient to also deny first amendment protection despite the “political” nature? Or is commercial speech so much worse than inciting to violence?

My point is that the Supreme Court could have easily, and justifiably upheld the ban on flag burning using the “fighting words” argument. But the court did not want to ban the divisive practice of flag burning. So they didn’t.

Yet, in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), The court upheld a prohibition on the burning of draft cards as political protest.

Summarizing: 

Burning the American flag as political protest: protected “speech.”

Burning a draft card as political protest: not protected.

Oh, the subtle nuances of constitutional law!

Having received the president’s plan for ridding the country of illicit drugs, the nation is in the throes of determining how best to carry out this worthy objective. The Republican administration is willing to commit “X” billion dollars to the effort and the Democratic opposition, not to be out-done, has “seen” the president’s “X” billion and raised him “Y” billion. It is partisan politics as usual.

Like everything else that the government does, this operation will involve lots of squabbling amongst powerful members of congress anxious to get their share of the pork.

While watching the legislation evolve, keep an eye on the implementation proposals. Some do have merit. In other cases, the cure may be worse than the affliction. I personally believe that education has, by far, the most potential for success. Other proposals are down-right frightening. Some of the very same people that opposed U.S. military intervention to stem the spread of Marxism in our hemisphere are more than willing to send troops to foreign soil to combat the drug lords. (And won’t they be oh-so-surprised to discover that Marxist guerillas have long been using drug money to finance their operations!)

One thing we can be sure of is that the military will be more involved in drug interdiction efforts. The President in his address to the nation mentioned use of “defense technology.” Sure, we can eradicate drugs; just declare martial law and turn the storm-troopers loose.

One amendment to the anti-drug bill being worked out in our nation’s capitol actually proposed the expedient of simply shooting down any plane suspected of carrying drugs. Doubtless this would be done with kinder, gentler air-to-air missles. Look for a thousand points of light emanating from searchlights on a helicopter gun-ship coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

A War On Drugs is actually a war on people. People use drugs. In Phoenix, they can’t nail the drug kingpins so they’ve taken to arresting the “casual user.” The public service spots say, “Do drugs, do time.” The strategy is to frighten people into not using drugs.

Which would you prefer: people who avoid drugs because they have the good sense not to use them or people who want to but are just afraid of getting caught?

The thought of spasms and cardiac arrest is a lot more sobering than the prospect of getting finger-printed and booked. Just tell people the truth. The educational approach will prove far more effective than the heavy-handed approach.

Things can easily get out-of-hand (correction: more out-of-hand) and all with the best of intentions. Even now, cars, boats, aircraft and even homes have been seized if there is even a suspicion that they have been used in drug trafficking. This happens before a conviction, before a trial and even sometimes before an indictment. Not long ago I saw on the evening news that a Lear jet was seized from a man in Scottsdale because it was believed that it had been purchased with money paid to him for aircraft purchased by drug traffickers. Guilt by association has replaced presumption of innocence and due process.

How would you like to be arbitrarily stopped by law enforcement officers on the street and “patted down” (frisked) for concealed weapons or searched for drugs or “contraband?” ‘Would you mind showing us what’s in your purse, Ma’am”? “Empty your pockets please, Sir”.

Sound far-fetched? Think again. This is essentially what happens at so-called “sobriety checkpoints.” With no reason whatever to suspect that you are intoxicated, you may one day on the way to Auntie Em’s place find yourself stopped at a roadblock and forced to prove that you are not drunk. Some people have protested this un-warranted (pun intended) search while others don’t particularly mind or think the inconvenience is a small price to pay if it will help get drunks off the roads. Those who would laud such acts, however, are losing sight of the big picture.

They are giving up, without protest, one of their most valued rights. Where is the probable cause, where is the search warrant, where is the 4th Amendment protection? Well, the constitution just doesn’t seem to apply in this case. Why not? Aha! You see, some dim-bulb but crafty judge has ruled that although the 4th amendment does in fact prohibit unreasonable searches, stopping motorists for sobriety checks IS NOT unreasonable since public safety is involved.

Got the picture? If it’s (alleged to be) for our own good, the Constitution of the United States of America can be ignored. Your rights forfeited.

It is a very short – indeed, teeny – step from stopping motorists and making them prove their innocence to stopping pedestrians on the street for the very same “good-of-society” reason. Another small step and they’re entering your home – again without a warrant. But it’s OK because The Public Good is more important than any individual’s rights, remember?

Time after time the rights of individual citizens are subordinated to the best interests of “society.” But, hey, wait a minute! I’m society; you’re society. Auntie Em and Joe Sixpack are all part of “society.” How can violating the rights of the people making up society be in society’s best interests?

A recent TV news story remarked that East Germans are fleeing to the west by the thousands despite the fact that, as Iron Curtain countries go, East Germany isn’t too bad. It was also noted that there was “no drug problem and very little street crime.” It is also a police state. We, on the other hand, are (supposed to be) a free and open society where We The People have certain inalienable rights.

Yes, let’s encourage people to stop using drugs. Just don’t do it by becoming more like East Germany.

This was originally a letter to the editor of BYTE magazine.

Editor
BYTE
70 Main St.
Peterborough, NH
03458

May 15, 1986

Dear Editor,

Here’s a little more fuel for the 520ST vs Amiga vs Macintosh fire. Does everyone remember the Apple ][ Plus? Well, the Atari 800 of the same time was every bit as capable as the Apple ][+; both had the same 6502 processor and 48K of RAM. (OK, the Apple had more expansion slots.) The Atari had superior graphics and sound. It offered “The power without the price.” The Atari, however, was marketed largely as a home/game machine while the Apple was presented as a home/small business machine.

The type of marketing determines, to a large extent, who buys a product and for what purpose. Software developers are probably more aware of this than most of us. In the Atari, therefore, they saw a market for home/game software; in the Apple they saw a market for home/small business software. Thus the software bases developed for each of these two machines were not nearly as similar as the machines themselves.

Because of the type of marketing promoting it, the Atari became a home/game machine while the Apple in fact became a home/small business machine. Buyers had to pay a premium (above what the Atari would have cost) to buy the Apple product of similar capabilities. This they did because they were, after all, buying a business machine. And they got one.

At one time, Atari intended that the 520ST was to be sold only through computer specialty stores (doubtless to show the serious nature of the ST). Now it’s available through mass-merchandisers. This marketing move will convince software developers (in case they needed convincing) that the Atari machines (the larger ST will be guilty by association) will not be needing many great spreadsheet programs, accounting packages or powerfull word-processors. The market just won’t be there. Games, however, will be in demand.

Commodore is now in the process of similarly emasculating the Amiga. The price has recently been dropped by (I believe) $500 in an effort to get market share. The Commodore 64 had great market share too but is it everything Commodore wanted it to be? Is it everything the owners wanted it to be? Think back to those TV commercials that compared an Apple ][, an IBM PC and a Commodore 64. You remember, the one that went, “Based on price and memory…” and then proceded to show both the Apple and IBM machines concluding that the Commodore 64 was the better buy. Anyone that bought the Commodore 64 thinking that it was “as capable” as either the Apple or IBM machines was in for a surprise.

The truth of the matter is that, for the vast majority of computer buyers, clock speeds and data path widths have little significance; the machines they buy will be only as capable as the commercially available software for their machine of choice. And that is determined largely by the marketing of the machines themselves.

So, which is the more powerfull, the Atari ST, Amiga or Macintosh? Forget about benchmarks, specialized graphics chips and the like. Look instead at the marketing. Both Atari and Commodore seem to be promoting their contenders in the 68000 competition on the basis of price, if current advertising is any indication. Apple, meanwhile continues to plug along after the business market. Some very powerfull software is available for the Macintosh despite its perhaps less sophisticated hardware. Thank the marketing people.

Personally, I will be very surprised if either the Atari or Commodore product attracts the quantity, quality or breadth of software that is available for the Macintosh so long as those machines are marketed in a manner and at a price which ensures that a large portion of their installed base will be in the hands of adolescents.

The Apple ][ outlasted its competitors of the day and the Macintosh will likely do the same, due largely to the software base that is developing. And for that, we have to thank Apple’s marketing

Cordially,
Warren Michelsen

In the beginning, there was M.A.D., Mutual Assured Destruction. The theory was, if we hurl ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) at the Soviet Union, or they at us, the folks on the receiving end would have time to launch their own missiles in a counter-attack and both would be obliterated. Thus, both we and the Soviets are deterred from starting a nuclear conflagration.

Now the U.S. wants to build a space-based shield, the Strategic Defense Initiative (disparagingly called ‘Star Wars’ by its detractors) against ICBMs. The Soviets says this is destabilizing. They don’t want us to build and deploy such a system.

One aspect of MADness seems never to be mentioned.  In remaining vulnerable before the Soviets we are defenseless before everyone.  Is it realistic (or safe) to assume that the only ones who might start throwing things at us are the Soviets?

Perhaps there was a time when it seemed we could not (nuclearly) be threatened by any but the Soviet Union.  Those days are gone.  As an increasing number of Despots, Tinhorn Dictators and Flakes become nuclear-capable the U.S. must be prepared to protect itself from them.  Even non-nuclear devices pose a threat deserving of protective measures.

To have adopted M.A.D. in the first place was madness; to remain vulnerable to any and all is lunacy.

My daughter (5 1/2 years old) knows about matches. She knows what they are and has been shown how they work. She understands that from a small match a large fire can grow. She knows that fire can harm her, her home, her family. She knows that matches have their uses but that they are not toys. She knows better than to play with matches. In our home there are matches within her reach, though not conveniently so. I feel that my daughter is “safe” around matches.

The other approach would have been to shield her from all exposure to matches. Send her into the other room when we put a fire in the fireplace or light the candles on a cake. We could turn off the television when anyone on TV lit a match or (God Forbid!) if they showed an actual act of arson. After all, we don’t want to be putting “Ideas” in her head. All matches in the house would be hidden, preferably out of reach and all talk of fire and matches would be taboo. This latter method, of course, would require us to keep our fingers crossed and hope that outside influences — children of parents less diligent than oursleves didn’t expose our daughter to matches. If that happened, she might be tempted to “Experiment”, and you know what that leads to.

As regards the matter of protecting my daughter from the dangers of matches, I, obviously, prefer the former method to the latter.

Having explained all about the use of matches and the consequences of doing so, I trust her to choose not to do so. Others, less informed playmates perhaps, might otherwise convince her that playing with matches is OK, that you can’t get burned the first time you play with matches or that it’s easy to put out fires once you start them and no one will ever know.

I think that my daughter is better prepared to handle a situation involving matches than is a child who is ignorant of matches and their effects. I think too that there are many (well-meaning) parents that would protest the proposed teaching of match-education in our schools. Ironically, they’re the ones that are playing with fire.