Saturday, January 28, 2006

Show Me The Law That Isn't

Regular readers may remember my post about John Gilmore - fighting the good fight. Looks like he may have to amplify the struggle some other way as the courts have decided in favor of the government over civil liberty once again. We need a different brand of activist to decide this case. The questions flow from here:
1) If there really is a "law" but not a public "law" that has no penalty other than they won't let you board an airplane, what other kinds of spurious or secret "laws" are out there that the government uses to clamp down on our civil liberties?

2) Certainly, if there is a law that says you can't fly without ID, how do children under the age of, say, three get on board an airplane?

3) Is it fair to apply the "law" unevenly?

4) If there is a "law" that is going to be applied, shouldn't that law be made known publicly?


Neil Shakespeare said...

Well certainly the law must be applied unevenly! Otherwise we'd have to have two sets of laws: one for the glorious rich, who do no wrong, and one for ignominious poor, who are guilty no matter what.

Kvatch said...

I guess what I found most disturbing is that fact that the 9th Circuit's ruling didn't even address the "non-public" issue. I actually agree with the 9th that there is no right to a particular form of transport. If there were, then driving (presumably without a license) would be a right...not a privilege.

But to leave the public vs. non-public issue unaddressed seems to me to be 9th simply schirking their responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Powered by pig squit

The essence of a lawful society is that everyone knows what the rules are. A society with 'secret laws' is ipso facto lawless. Brought to you in the name of security. Hello, Mad Max, a society without rules.