Alarmist? You bet! Ding ding ding ding!

May 16, 2003 10:07 AM

"First they came for the Greens..." Texas' proposed "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act," which its backers are hoping to extend nationally, is the next step after Patriot Acts I and II. The president of the Center for Constitutional Rights says the legislation criminalizes "basically every environmental and animal-rights organization in the country," which means that if you don't even march with, but send money to any of them, you may be tacitly waiving your 4th-amendment rights. [More inside]
posted by soyjoy (72 comments total)

Look, I don't condone violence on behalf of animals, trees or anything else (note that in Britain, legal strategies achieved what the much-ballyhooed SHAC tactics failed to), but there are already laws that cover, say, ALF and ELF. This bill is transparently redefining nonviolent civil disobedience as terrorism (as Minnesota also tried to) in order to shield dangerous and illegal corporate activity from public scrutiny. (Are we having fascism yet? This certainly seems to advance indicators 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13.)
posted by soyjoy at 10:08 AM on May 16, 2003

"First they came for the Greens..."

Then they came for the tomatoes, the Bac-O's and then finally the zesty ranch dressing.
posted by jonmc at 10:10 AM on May 16, 2003

you can have my ranch dressing when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

ALF & ELF suck. no doubt about it. But as the other article suggests, there are already laws in place to deal with them. Mmmmmmm....Terrorism...its what for dinner.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:16 AM on May 16, 2003

This law, along with Oregon's SB 742 and PATRIOT/PATRIOT II are shaking out to be exactly what many feared: a basic (and base) toolkit for political spying.

I'm sure that most lawmakers vote for these pieces of legislation due to good intentions, and there are people like our own MidasMulligan who can see the potential for good in these acts (not trying to "call you out" or anything MM, I just think that you communicated these points better than other Mefites). That aside, I am a sucker for Foucaultian "instrument effect," and I see too much potential for abuse, intentions aside. The US Constitution was so profound a document precisely because it was the first ever politicial "cornerstone" document to actually list which powers the state did not have. Is that really worth pissing away?

Whenever I hear the word "terrorism," I know that I am about to get fed some bullshit.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:23 AM on May 16, 2003

The more I read this shit, the more it looks like SB 742. They better have plenty of coal in that train, because goddamn near any thought is being made illegal.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:25 AM on May 16, 2003

"Think! It ain't Illegal Yet!"-- George "The Smart George" Clinton
posted by jonmc at 10:33 AM on May 16, 2003

I wonder when mail campaigns for activist organizations will be labeled "terrorism"? Then, I might be in trouble for my contributions to Amnesty International.

I can just see it now...I get put in jail, Amnesty International starts mailing folks to get me out, someone else gets put in jail, and so forth and so on.
posted by thanotopsis at 10:36 AM on May 16, 2003

This law is just plain fucked up. I hope if it passes it is overturned.
posted by Bag Man at 10:50 AM on May 16, 2003

jonmc, even though I had tried so hard to find the perfect word to use in that main link, I gotta admit, that was pretty damn funny.
posted by soyjoy at 10:56 AM on May 16, 2003

To be only fair, this is just continuing a trend started in the clinton administration.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:57 AM on May 16, 2003

To be only fair, this is just continuing a trend started in the clinton administration.

Yet to make Clinton the first president mentioned in the thread is sort of odd, wouldn't you agree? None of the comments nor the link are about the current president, who remains unmentioned.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:06 AM on May 16, 2003

KirkJobSluder: How is that relevant, exactly?
posted by Kikkoman at 11:08 AM on May 16, 2003

KirkJobSluder - care to prove that?

And soyjoy - holy freakin' shit! Switzerland keeps looking better and better.
posted by tr33hggr at 11:13 AM on May 16, 2003

This certainly seems to advance indicators..9...

Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised.

Utterly bases, businesses in the US are regulated ad-nauseam (sp.?) (i.e. a whole ton). While government regulation impacts almost every type business everyday, people's everyday personal lives are rarely touched upon by the government (with the expectation of traffic lights). You can make a credible argument that Americans are subject to similar restrictions on their liberties as say (a bit less so perhaps as) your average Western European democracy (i.e. the government has greater search, seizer and police holding rights and greater surveillance rights), but most business cannot open their doors, market a product or raise capital without state permission. For example, to even be a business (in almost any form) you need state permission, must pay the state money, wide your way through a complex tax system and conform to state created rules that govern your internal governance. In fact, some industries (particular the securities industry) a business can’t as much as blow their nose without SEC or other governmental agency permission. You don't need to do that a private citizen.

Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

This state is arguably somewhat true. But then again is not fair or at least natural to fight to protect what one has? At very least this statement can apply to any government in any society at any time society as ever existed. Please...
posted by Bag Man at 11:14 AM on May 16, 2003

soyjoy-- Thanks. And rest assured I'm with you on this. I love that "legitimate business interests" line they use in that link. "business interests" are not holy, they gotta obey laws just like the rest of us. But unlike them, we have a sense of humor.
posted by jonmc at 11:18 AM on May 16, 2003

Bag Man - You'll get a better response from people if you edit your posts for spelling and grammar. Incoherence is rarely persuasive.
posted by bshort at 11:32 AM on May 16, 2003

Can't we get the Republican party declared a terrorist organization? After all, they seem to be the enemies of freedom...
posted by bshort at 11:46 AM on May 16, 2003

But there is some good news: this bill was one of many that died when the D's fled to Ardmore. It's a House bill, and the deadline for passing bills out of the House passed yesterday.
posted by Emera Gratia at 11:47 AM on May 16, 2003

"You'll get a better response from people if you edit your posts for spelling and grammar."

Bullshit.

You'll get a better response from pretencious, anal retentive, control freaks. The rest of us are more interested in discourse than proper editing.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:52 AM on May 16, 2003

"two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or... natural resources."

Does this mean that I can have sex with my dog (thanks, Rick Sanatorum), and an individual can try to stop me, but 2 or more people can't?
posted by gramcracker at 11:53 AM on May 16, 2003

§I.b.1.A ". . . the value or enjoyment of the animal . . "

Hoooo-weee!! Jes' readin' them thar lines 'bout interferin' wit mah raaa-hht to "in-joy an animal" gets mah sap a-risin'!
posted by Fezboy! at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2003

You'll get a better response from pretencious, anal retentive, control freaks. The rest of us are more interested in discourse than proper editing.

It's hard to get a response from anyone if no one can understand what you're trying to say.
posted by bshort at 12:04 PM on May 16, 2003

You'll get a better response from pretencious, anal retentive, control freaks. The rest of us are more interested in discourse than proper editing.
It's hard to get a response from anyone if no one can understand what you're trying to say.

Good enough, but let's remember some members of the community are non-native English speakers, k?
posted by tr33hggr at 12:07 PM on May 16, 2003

§I.b.1.A ". . . the value or enjoyment of the animal . . "

Included specifically for Rick Santorum and his dog when they come to visit Texass.
posted by nofundy at 12:11 PM on May 16, 2003

this bill was one of many that died when the D's fled to Ardmore.

That is good news, for this session anyway. But there are versions of this being pushed in several states (e.g. New York and others, according to Tom Paine, and kooky stuff like the Minnesota Secret Feedlots initiative) because it's being coordinated by national groups (including, ironically, some whose members recklessly shoot innocent Americans), so I fear it's not quite over yet.
posted by soyjoy at 12:18 PM on May 16, 2003

To underestimate the guile, ruthlessness and cruelty of the Republican Party is terribly foolish.

The Republican Party is stealing the United States from the very people whom comprise this more perfect Union.

The divisive audacity of the Republican Party is startling. The reemergence of evil is not.
posted by four panels at 12:35 PM on May 16, 2003

KirkJobSluder: How is that relevant, exactly?

It might have been a bit premature but usually these kinds of thing develop into "we gotta get Bush out of office before we loose more rights."

KirkJobSluder - care to prove that?

Well, just in the year 2000 the FBI provided intelligence on environmentalist activists no local police to assist raids and mass arrests. In Philadelphia police raided a puppet-making workshop on the eve of the Republican convention arresting 75. At the same set of protests, multiple non-violent organization leaders were arrested and held on $1 million dollars bond for misdemeanor offenses. The same year, the FBI coordinated with foreign police agencies to detain environmentalist and labor activists at the border during the World Bank/IMF meeting in Prague.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:39 PM on May 16, 2003

The first third of the article focuses not on the bill itself, but the ultra-conservativeness of ALEC. Considering that, I don't see how mentioning Clinton was premature.
posted by techgnollogic at 1:08 PM on May 16, 2003

It might have been a bit premature but usually these kinds of thing develop into "we gotta get Bush out of office before we loose more rights."

Oh, I see. So, you decided to cut to the chase?

Do not all governments tend toward tyranny? Perhaps I'm missing something, but what does it matter that X was in office when the thumbscrews were tightened? That's completely beside the point.
posted by Kikkoman at 1:17 PM on May 16, 2003

Many us fly United Nations flags from our car antennas, slap upside down American flags on SUVs, dissent loudly against cowardly American wars, agitate for civil and human rights, and generally refuse to go along with the selfishness and utter banality that is becoming a hallmark of these United States. Instead of any refutation of our pointed examination of the conscienceless, those of us with a voice are already labeled "terrorists", and pressured (futilely) to just shut up.

So, it's hardly surprising that organizations devoted to preventing the torture and death of animals and the rape of the land, would be such a threat to the spiritually and ethically bereft among us. Hence the silly application of that "terrorism" moniker again. Hence the drafts of new laws to legitimize greed. Hence the frantic, sickening rationalization for the philosophy of "me first" over other humans, over our children, over other animals, and over the green earth.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:20 PM on May 16, 2003

I am surprised no one mentioned the last section of the proposed (and thankfully dead) bill.

And I quote:

"Sec. 411.0422. INFORMATION REGARDING ANIMAL RIGHTS OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORIST. (a) The department shall create a record of each individual who commits an offense under Section 28.09, Penal Code.
(b) A record created under this section must include the individual's name, residence address, and signature and a recent photograph of the individual.
(c) If an individual who is the subject of a record makes a change in name or address, the individual shall, not later than the 30th day after making the change, provide to the department written notice of the change.
(d) The department shall maintain an Internet website containing each record described by this section. A record must remain on the website for at least three years, at which time the individual who is the subject of the record may apply to the department for a hearing on removal of the record."

A Megan's law for politically motivated activity. That's just what we need.
posted by jann at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2003

Let it hereby be known that the following groups of people shall be classified as "terrorists":

• Those who interfere with my morning commute by pushing their way into the subway car when I'm trying to get out.
• Those who interfere with my enjoyment of watching a movie by talking too much.
• Those who interfere with my well-being by taking too long to decide what they want in the take-out line.
• Those who interfere with my interstate e-commerce by clogging my mailbox with spam.

This is fun!
posted by mkultra at 1:49 PM on May 16, 2003

Well, yeah, jann -- how else are the kids supposed to know where to go when they suddenly realize the world is shit and have to protest somewhere?

I mean, dude, a website! That just begs for activist networking...
posted by Katemonkey at 1:59 PM on May 16, 2003

A website. Does googlebombing still work?
posted by casarkos at 3:01 PM on May 16, 2003

Your politicians scare me.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:42 PM on May 16, 2003

Whenever I hear the word "terrorism," I know that I am about to get fed some bullshit.

That' is seriously quote-worthy. I have made that the signature in my email. It had to be done.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:14 PM on May 16, 2003

After reading through the posts here, I've come to a very simple conclusion.

Most of you people here are fucking idiots and are not even worth debating with.
posted by WLW at 4:34 PM on May 16, 2003

i just don't understand these people. what do they really think they will accomplish by running riot over citizens' groups like this? when everyone is criminalized are we just gonna put a barb wire fence around our border, (to keep us in the United Jails of America) and their estates(to keep us convicts out of their homes)?

Ignatius J. Reilly & eustacescrubb,

Whenever I hear the word "terrorism," I know that I am about to get fed some bullshit.

That' is seriously quote-worthy. I have made that the signature in my email. It had to be done.


i'd hate to be a lemming...
posted by memnock at 4:53 PM on May 16, 2003

WLW: Don't you really mean "why do you people(mefi members) hate america so much?"
posted by Iax at 4:58 PM on May 16, 2003

i'd hate to be a lemming fucking idiot...
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:27 PM on May 16, 2003

sarcasm, that was, a reference to ol' WLW, that sagelike discourse machine.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:29 PM on May 16, 2003

America is quite simply going to die unless a tide of wholesale common sense somehow washes over us and saves us. A lot of us aren't used to absurdity being so terrifying. I just knew somehow, after 9-11, that it was going to come to this. Planet Earth we need your help!

That this is even being REMOTELY considered by legislators of a state whose democrats recently had to flee in order to stall the irrational fundagelical grip of extremely insipid constituencies, says exactly how much work is cut out for us. The hatred and cruelty in these United States 2003 is heart wrenching. This is really discouraging.

We can't run from it. The lowest common denominator is a common occurence. The appeal of greed, power and "prestige" is rife the world over. As it should be. Easy, sugary, colorful, pacifying are the key ring to a man's being. This is going to have to come down to something big, such as a mass die off of hundreds of millions, if not billions of humans (including millions of Americans) that this is not the path to a future in which our species continues to exist. This is self destruction. This is madness! Apparently it's going to take a whole lot more to get people convinced.
posted by crasspastor at 6:40 PM on May 16, 2003

I'm sorry:

Easy, sugary, colorful, pacifying are the key ring to controlling a man's being.
posted by crasspastor at 6:41 PM on May 16, 2003

WLW: Don't you really mean "why do you people(mefi members) hate america so much?"
posted by Iax at 4:58 PM PST on May 16

No, I didn't question anybody's patriotism at all. I said that most of you are fucking idiots. Since you responded with such a tired worn out statement, I guess I'll lump you in with "most"

This is self destruction. This is madness! Apparently it's going to take a whole lot more to get people convinced.
posted by crasspastor at 6:40 PM PST on May 16

Take it easy dude, Relax. They've been preaching world destruction for 40 years. The worlds not as bad off as some special interest, high donating, environmental groups would want you to believe
posted by WLW at 7:00 PM on May 16, 2003

Really WOW? I'd be curious to know your sources, and to hear your opinion on what this brown stuff in the air actually is if it isn't pollution.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:07 PM on May 16, 2003

WLW:

Define idiot.

And then I'll give you an example of just what is so tired and worn out about that type of trolling.
posted by crasspastor at 7:08 PM on May 16, 2003

But you'll have to wait cos this dude's going out for a night of drinkin' on the town.
posted by crasspastor at 7:09 PM on May 16, 2003

Bag Man - You'll get a better response from people if you edit your posts for spelling and grammar. Incoherence is rarely persuasive.

Ok, I know I have issues with spelling and grammar, but you don't have to be ass about it. Besides I reread my post, it's not that bad. It's perhaps a bit convoluted, but I was making a bunch of points...overall understandable I think. Yes I'm an English speaker; I blame my 3rd grade teacher for my problem (and myself). I apologize, but this is MEFI, not a term paper or a finished document I would submit for work...please limit the submission such of comments to my e-mail, but since you did not I assume you have no argument to rebut my points.
posted by Bag Man at 7:13 PM on May 16, 2003

Fezboy! is a bad, bad man.

but this is MEFI, not a term paper

Phew!

Jebus, what ever happened to good old disorderly conduct for chanting too loudly while chained to a tree? Can't the county sheriff be left to concoct his own frame-ups anymore? Trespassing usually does the trick, doesn't it?

I mean, if an individualist is one who advocates for the rights of the individual against the demands of society at large, is a terrorist someone who is really, really committed to fear as opposed to, say, joy? "Terrorist" doesn't even make sense in reference to Osama bin Laden (may he rot in hell, the rat bastard), if killing civilians without a uniform on or a serial number on your tags defines the crime. There are a lot of fellow Americans who fit the bill. Hell, my granddad helped drop bombs on German civilians. Henry Kissinger, to mention another one.

Why can't we just have a war against specific enemies (that's the word I was looking for) instead of categories of human emotion?

And who is terrified by guerilla street theatre, coeds chained to trees, and lab rat liberation, anyway? Rex Reed? Dumbo?

We are so far through the looking-glass here that I'm looking into it and seeing my own ass.
posted by hairyeyeball at 7:35 PM on May 16, 2003

Wow, my thread got its very own dedicated troll. And one so much wiser than most of MeFi. I couldn't be more proud.

Bag man, I think it's the stuff like "bases" for "baseless" and "expectation" for "exception" that throws us off. Contrary to what bshort said, it's not misspelling - that would have been easy to breeze right by - but both of these made me have to reread the phrase a couple times to figure out what the right word was supposed to be. Not trying to pile on, just to clarify.
posted by soyjoy at 7:57 PM on May 16, 2003

That said, I did get the gist of your post, though I disagree, of course, that my citation of #9 is utterly baseless (unless you did mean something else!). We could argue all night about whether corporations are over-regulated, but even if they are, this is certainly a move toward corporate protection.
posted by soyjoy at 8:02 PM on May 16, 2003

We are so far through the looking-glass here that I'm looking into it and seeing my own ass.
posted by hairyeyeball at 10:35 PM EST on May 16

I've said it before, but I love it when there's a special sort of correspondence between the comment and the user name.
posted by soyjoy at 8:05 PM on May 16, 2003

"Think! It ain't Illegal Yet!"-- George "The Smart George" Clinton

That works regardless your political affiliation. If you're a Republican it goes: George "The Smart Clinton" Clinton
posted by kindall at 8:41 PM on May 16, 2003

What is ecoterrorism?

The watermelon analogy comes to mind.

They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for the environment.
posted by hama7 at 10:34 PM on May 16, 2003

hey, you and I have a similar sense of humor.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:21 AM on May 17, 2003

oh, wait. you are hama7, and you linked to a timecubesque aol userpage.

* the tinfoil hat is passed back to the right *
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:22 AM on May 17, 2003

Green Party = "The Energy Trap"

*the tinfoil hat is passed along*
posted by tpoh.org at 7:25 AM on May 17, 2003

The worlds not as bad off as some special interest, high donating, environmental groups would want you to believe

That's not the issue, my freind. What concerns most of us is the idea that if you decide to become active-however marginally-in any group, you can become subject to arrest and harassment. If this became a law it could be used by a politicain of any political stripe to harrass enemies. We have differing opinions about enviornmental groups here, but we all believe that you have the right to (non-violenetly) campaign for or against anyone up to and including the the 3-Eyed Amputees for Whole Grain Wheelbarrow Racing without fear.
posted by jonmc at 8:18 AM on May 17, 2003

After reading through the posts here, I've come to a very simple conclusion.

Most of you people here are fucking idiots and are not even worth debating with.
posted by WLW at 4:34 PM PST on May 16

After reading this comment, I've come to a very simple conclusion.

Fuck you.
posted by tr33hggr at 9:11 AM on May 17, 2003

Please, stop feeding WFW.

jonmc: Agreed! The problem is not just this law, but the simple fact that activism in any form is slowly being outlawed.

Doesn't anybody remember that, among the many protests raised against the PATRIOT Act, folks complained that the potential to apply the law to "domestic terrorism" (read: protest or activism) made the Act dangerous? It's crap like this proposed "law" that have forward-thinking folks, both right and left, worried.
posted by FormlessOne at 9:13 AM on May 17, 2003

Here's a mental exercise for the right wing people afraid of ecoterrorism.

Is it not true that there are many people who oppose abortion and use scary tactics to do so?

Is it not true that the scariest tactics are already illegal? (Murder, death threats, destruction of property)

Wouldn't it be cause to scream if some liberal state like Massachusetts or what have you had a proposal for a law that would define any and all actions taken (including monetary support of lobbying) to deter women from getting abortions as misogynist terrorism?

What if this definition meant that anyone guilty of that would not only face fines and jail terms but ALSO be subject to having their name, picture, and adress on a public watchlist and website?

Not a cause for jumping up and down and screaming? No?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that...
In other words: what jonmc said.
posted by jann at 9:32 AM on May 17, 2003

tricky dick nixon would be so proud.
posted by quonsar at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2003

We could argue all night about whether corporations are over-regulated

I never argued that corps. or other types of business are overly regulated, rather I argued that business are heavily regulated and are regulated much more than our personal lives. #9 Suggests that our person lives are more regulated that business, that's want's utterly baseless.

Do I think corps. are overly regulated? No, I rather like a regime of stiff regulation and still liability for wrong doing because it works a hell of a lot better than the anti-goblization rallies people seem to like around here.
posted by Bag Man at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2003

You can't really compare the level of regulation of corporations versus those of individuals, since corporations are an artificially created legal entity. That their rights might even approach those of individuals kind of creeps me out.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:52 AM on May 18, 2003

still liability

stiff liability

You can't really compare the level of regulation of corporations versus those of individuals, since corporations are an artificially created legal entity. That their rights might even approach those of individuals kind of creeps me out.

My point was the two aren't comparable because corps. and other business types (i.e. LLLPs, LLPs, LLCs, etc.) are so heavily regulated by statute and common law. Hence, they don't have the freedoms individuals have....thus #9 is for the most part baseless.
posted by Bag Man at 11:16 AM on May 18, 2003

Bag Man, I think you're still missing the point. What I said was "This certainly seems to advance indicators 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13." #9 is: Power of corporations protected. Thus I'm saying this is moving us more in the direction of protecting corporations, and yes, at the expense of the rights of individuals. The degree to which corporations are or are not regulated is irrelevant. I don't think you can make the case that this law would either a) keep the power of corporations vis-a-vis the individual the same, or b) decrease their relative power. Thus it's increasing protection of corporate power - in addition to a lot of other things.

On the other hand, if you can make the case for a) or b), please do, 'cause I'm at a loss to imagine how it could be done.
posted by soyjoy at 9:00 PM on May 18, 2003

And hama7, you disappoint with that lame second link.

Ralph Nader is "an environmental terrorist" for writing "Unsafe at Any Speed"? Writing books is terrorism now? This is exactly the kind of crazy-ass reasoning we're addressing here. It surprises me that you would condone such idiotic rhetoric. While we often hold utterly different positions, you usually link to stuff that is at least remotely logical and/or thoughtful.

Or did you, as Ignatius implied, intend that as humor?
posted by soyjoy at 9:08 PM on May 18, 2003

The degree to which corporations are or are not regulated is irrelevant.

Um, with more regulation business are not free do as they please and thus business are less "free."

I don't think you can make the case that this law would either a) keep the power of corporations vis-a-vis the individual the same, or b) decrease their relative power. Thus it's increasing protection of corporate power - in addition to a lot of other things.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I am NOT arguing either point, but rather making a general observation about a website that has no concept of law (statutory, common or administrative). If you did read what I wrote you would find I am in favor of regulation of business and would likely NOT support this legislation, which I expressly stated here.

Soyjoy, I would strongly suggest a horn book on corporations law and securities law so you are no longer ignorant about how businesses are regulated and treated under the law.
posted by Bag Man at 12:43 PM on May 19, 2003

Whoa, there, Bag Man, settle down a little.

I assure you that I've read everything you wrote. But as has already been estalished by others, one can do that and still not know what you meant to say. The point that I guess I missed was "I wish to use this thread to argue about the basic tenets of an article cited as a parenthetical aside to this thread." If I'd known that you weren't here to discuss the topic at hand, but instead wanted to dispute The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (which I guess I assumed you would have done on the thread devoted to it a week ago) I wouldn't have spent time defending my citation of it. Now that we've gotten that cleared up I hope we can move on.

To return to the thread itself, I may be ignorant all right, but I sure did learn a thing or two yesterday about how some businesses are regulated and treated under the law. No wonder they don't want any cameras around.
posted by soyjoy at 1:54 PM on May 19, 2003

If I'd known that you weren't here to discuss the topic at hand, but instead wanted to dispute The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (which I guess I assumed you would have done on the thread devoted to it a week ago) I wouldn't have spent time defending my citation of it. Now that we've gotten that cleared up I hope we can move on.

I missed that thread, but by using the "Defining Characteristics Of Fascism" in your thread it's more than fair game. Frankly the site makes some good points, but it really pissed me off when a site such as that one makes major misstatements of law and fact to make a point. Reading that site was like watching the Fox in some ways.

To return to the thread itself

No problem see here.

I may be ignorant all right, but I sure did learn a thing or two yesterday about how some businesses are regulated and treated under the law. No wonder they don't want any cameras around.

The way businesses are regulated is not perfect, but in the case you cited above it was not the lack of regulation, but the lack of inspection or follow up. Besides the case you cited above is an example of only one of the many ways a business can be regulated. For further reading I'd suggest your state's "Business Corporation Act".
posted by Bag Man at 7:42 PM on May 19, 2003

For further reading I'd suggest your state's "Business Corporation Act".

Ironically, I had to read that back when I started a corporation in this state some fifteen years ago. But it went in one eye and out the other, I guess. Corporation didn't last many years, but paid taxes aplenty. I'll get it back out and have another look.

Anyway, I still think we're off topic here, but come on - when inspection and enforcement are such a crucial part of a given industry's regulation (as in this case), one could say that when those aspects are severely compromised, so is the regulation, no?
posted by soyjoy at 10:05 PM on May 19, 2003

I started a corporation in this state some fifteen years ago

Does that make you part of the corporate menace?

one could say that when those aspects are severely compromised, so is the regulation, no?

You have a good point, but not really the topic I was talking about. Plain and simple business' are regulated more people and any suggestion to the otherwise can contradicted by a mountain of evidence.
posted by Bag Man at 10:02 AM on May 20, 2003