Cato Institute Makes Sense

In looking at some free speech issues, I came across a March 22, 2004 article in the Cato Insitute files by Timothy Lynch, director of the Institute's Project on Criminal Justice.

Is it Becoming a Crime to Keep Quiet? Court Will Decide

...Most people, including lawyers, are under the impression that when Americans are confronted with law enforcement agents, they have the right to remain silent. We've all heard it on television hundreds of times. However, prosecutors in Nevada challenge that proposition in a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District. The case involves a man who was prosecuted for refusing to speak with a police officer...

...Some people may shrug and say, ''What's all the fuss? It's only your name.'' There are at least three responses to that. First, it would be naive for anyone to think that government will stop with a simple ''name loophole'' to the right to remain silent. If the Supreme Court upholds Hiibel's conviction, it will simply generate more litigation over the amount of information that can be compelled from a person's own mouth. And remember that saying the wrong thing -- even just denying wrongdoing -- can lead to an indictment for ''misleading an investigator.''

Second, the case has implications for national ID card schemes that have been proposed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Countries around the world that have national ID cards require the cards to be carried in public, and it is a crime to refuse to produce it when a government agent demands it. The Justice Department has intervened in this case to argue that identification requirements comport with the Constitution. If the Nevada law is upheld, a precedent will have been established for a national law.

Third, and most fundamentally, a crucial principle is at stake. Unlike so many other countries, Americans can criticize government officials -- from president on down to the local patrolman. The logical corollary to that is that Americans can also exercise the right not to speak to government officials. We must insist that the police do their job while honoring the individual's choice to speak or not to speak.

On June 21, 2004 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT against the petitioner. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

I concur with the minority, and good grief, the Cato Insitute.