Rights, privileges, responsibilities in art and social criticism

One last thought tonight...
Where do rights become privileges in the realm of art and social criticism? Ezra Pound was imprisoned in an outdoor cage for critiquing America in a time of war and for his rabid support of Italian fascism...so what RIGHT do we have to critique our government, our leader, our "commander in chief"? Is this truly something guarenteed by the Constitution? Or it can be taken away at any time by, say, the Patriot Act, as it was during the times of COINTELPRO?
According to Marxist theory and my soc theory class, the "State" is defined as "that institution with a monopoly on the use of organized violence" or "an organ or instrument of violence exercised by one class against another." So, we know from college history anyway (forget k-12)
that our State has certainly been willing to use legal, organized violence to maintain the status quo even in the face of global pressure and domestic protest. I'm just curious how this relates to art and social criticism. For example, Spiegelman's book (that I have been talking about incessantly it seems) is quite critical of the current administration and its exploitation of the Sept 11th attacks. Bookshelves are lined with authors who call the President every derrogatory name you can print on the cover, from war criminal to village idiot. (There are also countless shelves dedicated to bashing liberals in this same manner). So at what point does the privilege of using your art (whatever that art may be) in a public forum for the purposes of critiquing and challenging the State (or the ruling class, or foreign policy) become dangerous/treasonous/illegal? At what point do our civil and human rights become purely contigent upon the graces and mercy of the State who controls the mainstream media (thus the court of public opinion) as well as the police force, local courts, privatized prisons and even the Supreme Court? These are questions that need to be asked of the two candidates running for the one high office. After all, there are some people who feel that any social criticism of the current administration is treasonous and if you need proof, do a google search and look for the "traitors" list that is increasing in length every day. There are others who reify the public with our government and the military into something that seems to bear the label of "the national consciousness." What this does is make Kerry afraid to call himself a liberal, make any protests about imperial/preemptive war seem like an attack on the troops (rather than the government who sent them), and justify the "need" for the Patriot Act to "assure" a safer America. Who needs the Patriot Act when a band like the Dixie Chicks can be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion for expressing dissent against the President. Hell, HOW MANY jokes were made publicly, privately and internationally at Clinton's expense? I remember reading an interview where even the Dalai Lama knew about the whole stained dress fiasco and laughed.
So...I'm just curious at what point social criticism in art becomes a responsibility (necessary to maintain a democracy, or the illusion of democracy) and what point it becomes a privilege that can be taken away and used against you? Any thoughts?

My son watched the debate tonight with us. Afterward, he said, "I would vote for Kerry if they'd let me." We hadn't said a thing about Bush OR Kerry. My son just thought he made more sense than Bush. It is also funny that more children under the age of 18 think voting makes a difference than those in the 18-29 range do.

peace!