« How to respond to search warrant when the information is offsite | Main | Gone with the Wind in the public domain? Will Peter Pan never grow up? »

Comments

Of course, it excludes those, like Jack, who are knee-jerk defenders of the Patriot Act and Mr. Ashcroft.

Hey, Truthy, you can call me whatever names you want as long as you are granting my point. ;-)

Another analysis of the impact of U.S. v. ALA, "Major Shifts in First Amendment Doctrine Narrowly Averted," can be found at
http://www.abanet.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/fall03/SmithMach.pdf

Let me revise that - you were just quoting from a WSJ article so you won't want to revise that. But you could add something like, "Ashcroft accused opponents of the Patriot Act, which included many librarians, of creating hysteria about the provisions of the Patriot Act". You could also add a statement that includes the AG's spokesman's comments about the ALA being "duped".

I think it's also important to point out when Ashcroft claimed that criticism was coming from "some in Washington", he was deliberately trying to ignore the fact that opposition to the Patriot Act came from librarians, civil libertarians, some conservatives and communities across the country. His little speaking tour where he made these statements was an attempt to quell the growing criticism of the Patriot Act which has spread across the country. Here's a good editorial covering that aspect of the issue:

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/news/stories/20030917/opinion/272613.html

Raziel,

If you want to dispatch Jack's objections, simply revise your statement to say "... Mr. Ashcroft last month [September 2003] accused 'opponents of the Patriot Act, which includes many librarians' of being 'duped' by liberals..." This accurately reflects the AG's comments as well as makes the point that while Mr. Ashcroft did not specifically attack librarians by title, the fact that many librarians were opponents of the Patriot Act placed them into the group of people Mr. Ashcroft accused of formenting hysteria. Of course, it excludes those, like Jack, who are knee-jerk defenders of the Patriot Act and Mr. Ashcroft.

If anyone would like to read Attorney General John Ashcroft's prepared speeches from September 2003 stating his beliefs about protests against the USA PATRIOT Act, one can read the speeches directly from the Justice Department website.

September 15, 2003: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2003/091503nationalrestaurant.htm

September 18, 2003:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2003/091803memphisremarks.htm

September 22, 2003:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2003/092203milwaukee.htm

In an article with a short section on the Justice Department views of librarians, I quoted an article from the well-respected Wall Street Journal to ensure a balanced view of the librarian protests concerning the USA PATRIOT Act, including a quotation from John Ashcroft. If anyone has issues with the article I cited, please contact the Wall Street Journal at feedback@wsj.com to make a correction or contact the author of the article, June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com to receive any first-hand quotations.

When Ashcroft's library critics are confronted on the facts, they clam up really fast.

When Mr. Ashcroft's spokesman speaks, he speaks for the AG and no one else.

Was that what you meant, Raizel?

American Libraries quoted Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo as having said that ALA "has been somewhat duped by those who are ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act.'"

Or did you mean that Ashcroft had said something?

Ignore Jack - he's a literalist when it suits his argument and not when it doesn't. He wants us to believe in a fictional world where Mr. Ashcroft's spokesman gets to speak off-the-cuff for himself and not as the spokesperson for the AG. When Mr. Ashcroft's spokesman speaks, he speaks for the AG and no one else.

The comments to this entry are closed.