Stalwart supporters of the USA-PATRIOT Act like to pooh-pooh the worries
expressed by defenders of privacy and constitutional liberties that innocent
people engaging in peaceful protests can be swept up in politically
motivated dragnets. They portray the defenders as Chicken Littles expecting
the worst. Their message is "trust the government" to apply the powers of
the USA-PATRIOT Act correctly.

A recent court case in Michigan that was appealed to the Supreme Court
illustrates how laws intended for perfectly reasonable purposes can be
stretched to crack down on legitimate political expression.

Over a six-year period, James Pouillon, a pro-life advocate, protested
outside an automobile dealership in Shiawassee County, Michigan to register
his complaint with the company's support for candidates who were backers of
legalized abortion. When engaging in his protest activities, Mr. Pouillon
stood on the opposite side of the street. Sales manager Lori Rowlison
complained, asserting that she felt threatened by the presence of Mr.
Pouillion, who was arrested and sentenced to 30 days in jail and five years
probation. He was also prohibited from protesting in the vicinity of the
automobile dealership during business hours.

In the court's opinion, Mr. Pouillon had run afoul of the state's Stalking
Statute which defines the action of stalking as willful conduct that
involves continuous "harassment" of an individual that would make the
individual feel "terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed,
or molested." The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a Michigan
District Court that stated Mr. Pouillon's demonstration and verbal
statements outside the auto dealership did not constitute "constitutionally
protected activity."

According to the PATRIOT Act, any violation of state or federal criminal law
deemed dangerous to human life, even a misdemeanor such as the one with
which Mr. Pouillon has been charged, could be construed as constituting
"domestic terrorism." If Federal law enforcement asserts that a crime
fits the definition, then the Federal Government would be able to seize the
assets of the alleged domestic terrorist without prior notice or a hearing
and without filing criminal charges. Through a post-PATRIOT law, it would be
able to obtain confidential tax records, bypassing the traditional warrant
process. Educational records also could be disclosed to law enforcement
without a court review of the request.

The Rutherford Institute appealed Mr. Pouillon's case, intending to argue
that Mr. Pouillon was no threat to anyone, simply exercising his First
Amendment rights. Nor should his speech be considered "stalking." The
Institute believed the rulings by the Michigan courts violated the Free
Speech and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The United States
Supreme Court denied review despite the assertion by John Whitehead,
President of the Rutherford Institute, that "As the Supreme Court has
frequently observed, 'A function of free speech under our system of
government is to invite dispute.' Michigan's stalking law has been used to
silence dispute when it comes to politically charged speech such as pro-life
protest."

What happened to Mr. Pouillon sounds bad enough. With its current definition
of domestic terrorism, the USA-PATRIOT Act offers several opportunities for
opening Pandora's box. This should be of serious concern to political
activists, particularly those who are advocates of causes such as property
rights, gun owner rights, traditional family values, and pro-lifers.

Conservative activists have good reason to feel reasonably safe that the
Bush Administration will be prudent in its use of the domestic terrorism
provision. But what about a future administration, perhaps one headed by
Hillary Rodham Clinton? Will conservative activists be able to feel so safe?
That thought alone should make even the most ardent defenders of the
USA-PATRIOT Act think about taking a second look at its provisions and the
potential for its powers to be deployed in very different ways than Congress
intended. There is no doubt that every right-thinking American wants al
Qaeda's terrorists brought to justice. But should those activists like Mr.
Pouillon find themselves targeted as terrorists?

People who brandish picket signs in support of the right to life, property
rights and other conservative causes have every reason to ponder that
question.

Steve Lilienthal is Director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy
at the Free Congress Foundation.