From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:03:27 -0500

In article <1992Apr11.121200.6233@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.000859.994@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv writes:
>>Of late, we see an increasing number of so-called 'celebrities' convicted
>>of minor crimes being sentenced to creating pro-"War-on-Drugs" TV spots.
>>Notables in this category include Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Reubins and most
>>recently rocker Billy Idol. 
> 
> Isn't this some kind of a community service?  Could they do it by
> working for other public-benefit organizations, like NORML, ACLU or
> something like that?
> 

	I have heard many times where the creation of a pro WOD video
	or lecture was explicitly called for in the sentencing deal.
	My issue is that even allowing the implication of forced
	speech - say it or you'll get a much bigger sentence - sounds
	dreadfully un-constitutional, un-american and decidly not in
	keeping with the gesalt of a 'free' nation. 

>>No difference exists in principal
>>to threatening increased sentences to traffic offenders if they refuse to
>>endorse a particular candidate for office or a specified political
>>opinion on any subject. 
> 
> In the books, there is a difference.  This would correspond to heavy
> normal sentences (like jail) for traffic offenders, and an
> "alternative option" to get the sentence lowered or lifted altogether
> if the offenders will voice a specified political opinion or endorse a
> particular candidate.  This apparently is extended to other matters
> than political opinions, ie. by giving out parts of your control over
> yourself in other respects you can negotiate a deal with the
> government.  One example is the recent article about someone taking
> [...]

	So, when is one *voluntarily* surrendering control over their
	actions/beliefs/mind and when are they being effectively
	coerced into doing so. I don't mind surrendering NON-POLITICAL
	and/or NON-RELIGIOUS control as part of a sentencing deal, but
	the moment a government body asks for someone to actually
	substitute their political/religious beliefs for those approved
	by the government then I get really worried. Such beliefs are
	usually not superficial - they define the inner man - and in
	political cases such instances of putting words into someones
	mouth can strongly influence social evolution. 

> Things like this probably will become more common with time - I expect
> that things like movement-trackers, surveillance equipment
> (microphones tagged into the person), "voluntary" taps on phones and
> other "voluntary" loss of privacy, perhaps even implanted versions of
> these, will become common.  And these can be made attractive
> alternatives by making the "normal" sentences long and heavy jail
> sentences.  The trend also seems to make just about anything illegal,
> so any given person cannot go through a day without breaking some
> laws.  With these combined, there's just a need to catch any given
> person once for any crime and offer the attractive alternative of
> "voluntary" total loss of privacy, and we have instant Orwellian
> society based on constant surveillance.

	A few weeks back I posted something on the KIDSCAN system
	which has been proposed as a means of keeping track of
	young children - allegedly to keep them 'safe'. Alas, the
	post came too close to April 1, so everybody thought it was
	a cute april-foolie. KidScan is similar to the system used
	to monitor 'house-arrest' criminals ... a radio transciever
	that can report ones location. The proposed KidScan would have
	been implanted (the transmitters are *very* small) though
	actually a bracelet-sized unit would be much cheaper to do. 
	In any case - paranoia sells. It is incredibly easy to make
	parents totally paranoid about the safety of their children.
	Trackers can ease these worries. Of course, the use of such
	things will gradually expand into wider circles - each time
	justified by 'health, safety and security' concerns. There
	is probably no day that we don't break at least one law. With
	omnipresent electronic surveillance, this leaves each of us
	fearful of rocking the boat since our 'crimes' can be used
	against us at any time. 

-- Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3460 talk.politics.misc:18232 talk.politics.drugs:2934