ACLU asks judge to lift ban on anti-tax book [1st Admendment threat!]

Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | April 5, 2003 | Carrie Geer Thevenot

[Middle Man]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada is urging a federal judge to end his ban of a book written by anti-tax activist Irwin Schiff.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George issued a temporary restraining order March 19 that prevents Schiff from distributing his book, called "The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes." George scheduled a hearing for Monday on the government's request to convert the order to a preliminary injunction.

In a brief filed Friday, ACLU attorneys Allen Lichtenstein and Robert Nersesian urged George to "decline to issue a blanket ban" on distribution of the book.

"Because our members are often involved with controversial speech and vehement criticism of the government, we are concerned that any action by this court not have a chilling effect on protected expression," the attorneys wrote.

The restraining order stemmed from a civil complaint filed by the government against Schiff and two associates. Government attorneys argue that the defendants have been advocating the "false and frivolous position that paying federal income taxes is voluntary." George's order bars the defendants from disseminating information advocating that position.

According to the ACLU brief, the organization takes no position on the truth or falsity of Schiff's views of the tax code. But ACLU attorneys argue that, under the First Amendment, noncommercial speech cannot be banned "simply because it is false." The fact that Schiff sells his book does not make it commercial speech, they say.

ACLU attorneys argue that the book cannot be banned under a limited exception to the First Amendment protection of controversial speech. The exception allows for a ban on speech that incites imminent lawless action, and they argue that government attorneys failed to show Schiff's book has that effect.

"While the book touts Mr. Schiff's controversial tax theories, it also makes clear that acting on them can and has landed people in jail," according to the ACLU brief. "There are numerous warnings about this in the book."

The ACLU also objects to the requirement that Schiff and his associates place the restraining order on the top of their Internet pages.

The attorneys called the requirement "an impermissible example of forced speech."

[Middle Man]

I'll give this to our honest government: their sense of timing is impeccable. Wait for a war to distract the people's attention, then gut the Bill of Rights while noone is looking.

[Middle Man]

Admin: Please do not pull this thread! This is not promoting a tax "scam" or "scheme". This is a First Admendment issue! Once upon a time, Free Republic believed in exposing government corruption, and this case reeks of government hijinx.

[maro]

Not that simple. First, it sounds like the book is a typical tax protester's screed. The interesting question is whether such a screed is commercial speech or political speech. On one hand, the first amendment must be respected, even when the speech is repugnant. On the other, tax protesters should not be able to hide behind the first amendment. Even if the publication of the book is permitted, a court would be able to enjoin persons who use the book to promote tax protester arguments--that is conduct, and as the Supreme Court held today (5-4) conduct (such as cross-burining) is not speech.

[expatpat]

Lloyd George? Better ping MadIvan on this one!

[Middle Man]

I'd love to agree with you, but...

The February raid of Mr. Schiff's bookstore was executed on an extremely defective search warrant: no signature, judge's name was typed; there was no list of items to be seized, agents just grabbed everything they saw, so it was a classic "fishing expedition". Among the items stolen were numerous transcripts of collection due process hearings before the IRS where taxpayers placed the Internal Revenue Code on the table and took out their checkbooks, offering to pay all taxes, penalties and interest if the appeals officer would show what code section made them liable. These were followed by the agents hurriedly terminating the conferences and calling security to have them ejected from the building.

Also, the judge who signed the temporary restraining order had never seen or read the book before signing the TRO.

There's nothing "typical" about this case. Our government just doesn't want Mr. Schiff scaring the animals in the zoo.

[Middle Man]

Unfortunatey, I don't think this George has any of the statesmanship or learning of his namesake. ;^)

[foto]

this is blatant censorship of free speech. Martin Luther King and anyone else would be banned from speaking because they sell a book describing their ideas on how unlawful acts would lead to change. Why should tax protestors receive anything less. What exactly does "enjoin tax protestors who use the book" mean? Innocent until proven guilty, they can read and listen to anything they want and when they face the piper, they can make their case and win or lose on their merits. Cross burning , an act done solely to create fear in certain groups is certainly not comparable to someone who doesn't agree with the government's method or interpretation of the law regarding the collection of taxes. It certainly is not an act or idea whose sole purpose is to incite fear.

[expatpat]

But perhaps the satyrism?

[expatpat]

I don't buy your argument. He's only publishing a book, the action would be someone following up on it with their taxes. Burning the cross is an action, publishing a book has never been outside the First Amendment.

[maro]

A conspiracy frequently is entirely verbal. Yet the first amendment does not protect conspirators. Urging others to break the law is generally illegal. Urging people to break the tax laws is illegal under specific Internal Revenue Code provisions. This is all conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. MLK, to the extent he urged others to violate the law, was engaging in illegal acts himself. The First Amendment did not protect him. No one may have tried to prosecute him for that, for political reasons. (By the way, MLK, to his credit, like Gandhi, was willing to pay the price of jail time for any illegal acts he committed.)

[maro]

Se # 10. The illegal conduct is urging others to violate the Internal Revenue Code. Publishing the book may be protected political speech. But if it is merely commercial speech, the Government may legitimately ban it if it misleads others, just as the Government can ban Ponzi schemes (which are mostly speech acts) or phony miracle drug claims.

[Middle Man]

"...just as the Government can ban Ponzi schemes..."

That's a hoot. Our government operates the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Ever heard of Social (in)Security?

And as for the book urging others to violate the Internal Revenue Code, IRS agents ignore the laws passed by Congress every day. You must have checked in after the 1997 Roth Senate hearings where widespread lawbreaking by our honest government was uncovered.

[Middle Man]

"...MLK, to his credit, like Gandhi, was willing to pay the price of jail time for any illegal acts he committed."

Schiff -- to his credit and the government's everlasting shame -- spent four years in jail in the eighties, including two years when his parole was illegally violated by a judge who refused to recuse himself from the case, even though he was at the same time the object of a civil lawsuit by Schiff. The trial transcripts show the government never proved the affirmative act of evasion Schiff was charged with committing.

All this happened in peacetime when America was not at war and the economy was strong. Just wait 'til you see what's in store for us now that our government is on the march around the world with an open-ended mandate to fight "terrorism".

[Middle Man]

Banned book update and First Admendment ping

[agitator]

No surprise here. He's a witch! Burn him!

[B4Ranch]

Be careful, keep your eyes open, because if Mexico hadn't voted against us they probably would have gotten an amnesty during the war.