Greenpeace doesn't have a right to a jury trial because Greenpeace isn't a person. It's a "legal person" or course, as all corporations are. But it doesn't have the same constitutional rights that you or I have as human beings. As a rule I think you prefer that state of affairs, pace the Nike speech case, but regardless, that's the law.

As far as free speech goes, I am not aware that Greenpeace has ever suffered legal consequences for any "pure speech", that is to say, any speech that was actually speaking, printing, or even legal (permitted) demonstrating. The kind of speech you are talking about them being punished for is the expressive part of an action. This can be protected, as the Supreme Court has discussed on many occasions, but it's not a slam dunk. You can't do just anything you like and not face consequences because you call it "speech." For example, if I come burn down your (presently unoccupied) house because I disagree with your blog, I can tell the judge about my right to political speech all day long and I will still go to jail.

So that's what your cheap shot at Ashcroft amounts to - a revelation that you have almost no understanding of what the right to speech is and what it protects, together with a nasty bit of character assassination about a man who would probably charge a machine gun to keep the 1st amendment alive in the U.S.

If you think non-profits formed for political purposes are treated the same constitutionally as for-profits corporations, you misunderstand constitutional history.

But then your view of "free speech" is that Martin Luther King and his followers were not involved in anything worth protecting constitutionally, and southern states should have had full power to legally destroy the NAACP, since as a "corporate entity" it deserved no special free speech status.

And no, I don't think for-profit corporations deserve the same protection-- when I buy stock, I have no intention of empowering management politically to speak on my behalf.

I don't think that non-profits are treated the same as for-profits, but I also don't think, and this is my original point, that they are treated the same as human beings. It's actual human beings that have the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

I applaud MLK and his actions. I am in total agreement with his idea of a color-blind society, which ironically puts me at odds with contemporary leftists. I think it odd that you would prejudge my position in the course of a praise of someone who fought prejudice.

Feel free to continue to dodge the points that:
1) Ashcroft notwithstanding, Greenpeace isn't a human being and doesn't have the same rights as a human being
2) Ashcroft notwithstanding, just because an action has expressive aspects doesn't immunize the actor from criminal culpability
3) So the shot at Ashcroft was at least a cheap one, since you don't show that he wants a society where normal criminal jury trials for citizens are no longer a right, or where pure political speech is restricted in any way.

I just have to add: MLK, like Gandhi, accepted the proposition that his civil disobedience would mean that he would go to jail. Think back to that poor brave Chinese standing in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square.

Before it became so common, people used to expect that breaking the law in this way entailed the punishment of the law. They judged it worthwhile, for example, to sit in a white section of a bus or restaurant, because to comply with the law was to participate in and support an evil system. If Greenpeace wants to wave banners in the street with a permit, they won't go to jail. But if they want to trespass to make their statement, they should be prepared to be punished for trespass.

In point of fact, the law affords MORE legal protections to commercial corporations than to people. Corporations are considered, for legal purposes, to be analogous to a person and to have all the rights attendant to that status, but additional rights have been assigned to them that citizens do not have.

There is a dispute going on concerning the assumption that corporations are to be considered as individuals since it arises from a single sentence in a 100-year-old decision, a sentence that was not part of the judgment but a comment on it.

I don't know if there is assumed to be some difference between a commercial corporate entity and a non-profit corporate entity, but if there is it should be struck down. Corporations can't have it both ways: if their speech and actions on behalf of their products or investors are protected, then so must be those of their non-commercial relatives.

IAC, the use of an antiquated law that should have been removed from the books years ago shows fairly conclusively that the prosecution is intended as a persecution. I suspect the case will be dismissed.

And phispiral, your defense of Ashcroft is spirited but entirely misguided. He would NEVER rush the mouth of a cannon to protect the 1st Amendment rights of anyone he disagreed with and he has shown that time and again. His defense of the 1st A is exceptionally selective.

Maja-

Corporations don't have, across the board, more legal rights than natural persons. I've read some of the various writings that point to the modern concept of the corporation as a historic calamity. I must say I don't find it convincing, but I can't refute it either, since I am not a scholar of 19th century law.

As far as Ashcroft is concerned, I appreciate your comment. I do think that JA is a true believer in the protections written in the Bill of Rights. I don't think that his interpretation of them is exactly the same as mine, or as yours. But as to the notion that he would want to restrict pure political speech, or that he wishes to dispense with our 4th amendment rights, and so on, I just haven't seen anything but scaremongering and propaganda.

Monday, November 3rd at 4:00 PM on 5th and Madison at the Federal Courthouse in Seattle WA, there will be a RALLY to Call for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the outing by the Bush Administation of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Ms. Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was exposed as an agent of the CIA in a retaliatory move by members of the Bush Administration. Ambassador Wilson had publicly criticized the Bush Administration for using evidence it knew to be false in order to promote the call to war with Iraq. Wilson had gone to Niger to investigate for the CIA and knew that the evidence of Saddam Hussien having purchased "yellowcake uranium" from Niger was untrue. Members of the Administration revealed Mr. Wilson's wife's name in an act of revenge and as a warning to others who might disagree with the Administration. This action was malfeasance, an abuse of power, and a clear violation of the laws protecting undercover CIA operatives from exposure to public attention and possible harm. Ms. Plame was working under cover tracking the people who are most likely to sell terrorists weapons of mass destruction. The Administration's actions in revealing Ms. Plame's name are made worse because it also has damaged our National Security while in a time of great danger. Ms. Plame has done more for our National Security, over the course of the last few years, than any "sneak and peek" provision of the Patriot Act will ever do.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is too closely involved in the Bush Administration to oversee the investigation of the illegal disclosure without a conflict of interest in protecting the Administration and his own position within the administration. The Veil in front of the Statue of Lady Justice in the RFK Justice Building is an apt analogy for the current situation. Justice is hidden from the American People by John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration.

Several Congressional Committees, such as the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and especially the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, all can open inquires, but none of these Republican Chaired Committees has looked into the Plame case.

This is not a partisan issue. Whether liberal or conservative, we are all Americans, and we are all in much more in danger than we were before people in the Bush Administration exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Our anti-terrorist operations overseas have been compromised and overseas recruiting has become far more difficult. The parties responsible for this transgression must be brought to Justice! We the People do not believe a complete and thorough investigation can be completed so long as it is under the control of someone in the Administration. We believe a Special Prosecutor is needed to investigate the "Valerie Plame Affair" so that the American people can finally hear the Truth about what the Administration is doing behind closed doors.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, and Rupert Murdoch seem think the American people are stupid and can be made to misunderstand or to forget events. We do understand. We will not forget, Mr. Bush. They seem to think they can hijack the honestly conservative values of the Republican Party and use them to their own ends. They can not. The American People are good people. The Bush Administration thinks that it can intimidate the loyal opposition of the Democratic Party into silence and submission. They can not. Americans are a brave and strong people. Liberal or conservative, we are all Americans.The American people may disagree upon many things but one thing we all agree upon is, Justice must be served!

With this in mind we are gathering The People together in front of the Federal Building to show that we want Justice done and that we want what's best for National Security. So long as the Administration leakers are not brought to Justice, it could happen again, and we are all in more extreme peril than we should have to endure.

This will be a Peaceful Demonstration. We are only here to call for a Special Prosecutor and Congressional Investigations into the Plame Affair. We will be leaving any other political aspirations behind this November 3rd so as to concentrate upon the non partisan issue of applying Justice in the Bush Administration regarding an assault upon our National Security. We will comply with the Laws and exercise our Rights of "free assembly" as Guaranteed by the Constitution of These United States of America.

This event is being organized by THREADBARE RAG.

Contact: specpros03@yahoo.com