TheAgitator.com
Stifling Dissent
Thursday, July 15th, 2004These stories are getting old:
A husband and wife who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the presidentâ??s Fourth of July appearance arenâ??t going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court.Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, â??Love America, Hate Bush.â?
Spectators who wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons were allowed to stay…
Nicole Rank arrived in Charleston soon after the Memorial Day floods. She was working as deputy environmental liaison officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, making sure cities and counties obeyed federal environmental laws as they repaired roads and bridges.
After police arrested the Ranks, fingerprinted them and took their mug shots, FEMA told Nicole Rank she was no longer needed in West Virginia.
â??I have not been fired per se,â? she said. â??But I was released from this job. And when they release you from a job, you no longer get paid.â?
…Since Bush took office in early 2001, people have been banned from displaying anti-Bush messages at dozens of Bush appearances across the country. In September, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances.
Wish I could say this is surprising. This administration has troublingly low tolerance for dissent, disclosure, and open debate.
Check out Atrios today – they had their day in court and won.
But that’s not the point, I know.
Hate to break it to you but Bill Clinton was the same way. Back in ’94 I attended a Clinton “town hall meeting” at the Hillcrest High School gym. I was wearing an “Impeach Clinton and her husband too” shirt. Sighted by the Secret Service, I was taken from my seat, brought behind the bleachers, forced to remove my shirt and turn it inside out. I would have been ejected from the building but they seal all buildings the President enters for two hours before he speaks. So repression of Free Speech cuts across party lines, it’s not just a Bush thing.
As Mike said, this isn’t exactly new. I’d be more upset if they had lost their day in court.
Mike,
This is taking the “Clinton was worse” argument to a new low. Already a bad rationale for justifing anything the Bush administration does, are you honestly telling me that you believe you turning your shirt inside out is the equivilent of being arrested and getting fired from your job?
Its this administration and people like you that are causing me to very strongly consider voting for Kerry instead of the Libertarian candidate.
Bryan, I don’t think Mike was saying “It’s ok this happened”. He was just saying that when it comes to Presidents there seems to not much tolerance, period. I think we all agree what happened was wrong.
Considering that this occurred in the State Capitol (a public forum), this seems a pretty flagrant First Amendment violation, regardless of the fact that “tickets” were required.
Reminds me of an excellent Volokh post about two months ago on a similar incident.
As Volokh likes to say, “Uh, no.”
Radley’s example might be distinguishable, but I’m not sure how.
James,
Okay, Mike agrees it wrong. He just wants to make sure that we all know that Clinton did it too. Aside from the fact that the punishments are not in the same ballpark – shirt insideout vs. jail/unemployed – the real question is “Who Cares?” Because Clinton did something wrong too, does that mean it is okay now? Does it mean we should be less outraged? Does it mean we are not allowed to outraged if we weren’t before? Please tell me you don’t believe that the answer to any of these questions is “yes.”
Seems to me the Republican party and their sympatizers would do a lot better if they would move past their feelings on Clinton. He’s not President anymore. Your guy won. Get over it.
What I’d really like to see is if, for one month, we can debate the decisions of the Bush administration – or any politician for that matter – without a reference to how Clinton did it. It serves no purpose and its just petty.
Keep in mind, I was not a Clinton fan. Never voted for him and thought he should have been impeached. I’ve moved on though. Have you?
Using “Clinton was worse” is a bad – and way too easy – rationale for justifing anything. Also, I suspect that, had Mike NOT turned his shirt inside out, he too would have been arrested. As for losing his job, I don’t know. Mike, are you, or are you in the employ of, a government bureaucrat? If so, I expect – had you refused to turn your shirt inside out – you may well have been arrested and subsequently fired from your government job. Bureaucrats have funny rules about arrests – probably doubly so when those arrests somehow involve the Chief Bureaucrat.
Bryan, it’s people like YOU who cause me to very strongly consider…wait, I don’t base my actions on the viewpoints and opinions of others. Neither do I presume that anyone else gives a shit what I may or may not do, particularly when it comes to choosing between Frick and Frack.
First of all, thank you James D. Second of all, Bryan, I was a 16 year old student at the time so I didn’t really have a career in jeopardy. I did, however, face an expulsion from my high school for what I did, until my father threatened an ACLU lawsuit. I wasn’t trying to make this into a thing where I’m some kind of free speech martyr or anything. I just wanted to point out that the Secret Service really doesn’t care who is in the Oval Office, they treat anything that may offend the President as a threat. It’s wrong no matter who is in office. By the way, Bryan, I have moved on. Bush has proven the Republican party is for Big Government just as much as the Democrats are. So I’m a Libertarian now. I’m voting for Michael Badnarik. I hope you’ll do the same.
Hey! Frick and Frack are awesome!
Oh wait, that’s Click and Clack. Right.
“Stifling dissent”?
Yeah, really intelligent dissenters. “Hate Bush” really does a lot to foster adult intelligent debate. I realize that’s not the point and I realize it’s still wrong, but geez, take a lesson from history and pick some better poster children.
Security concerns? I’m not sure but isn’t this standard procedure during a presidential appearance? I don’t know, just asking.
I know some clever genius is going to post some retort about assasin’s being smart enough not to wear shirts, but I seem to recall Squeeky Fromme and some other flake trying to kill Ford.
With all the responsibility involved, you really expect security to do NOTHING?
Just a thought.
Well, if I were the President (perish the thought), I’d like to think that the SS was busy looking for, you know, guns and stuff, rather than T-shirts that say “Hate Hawkins!”.
But that’s me. I like living.
“Free Speech” was always a trap to get the dissidents out in the open where they could be easily watched, and dealt with if they became too great a nuisance.
What TJ said.
if you’re looking that closely for a conspiracy TJ, you might want to write anonymously…I mean, maybe the government will track you down and tap your phones or something.
I understand kicking somebody out of a rally. I understand turning a shirt inside out. I don’t understand arresting them. If they show a POSSIBILITY of a threat, kick them out just to be sure, but if they show an ACTUAL threat, then, and only then, is an arrest warranted.
Check this out.
actually. . .
Fun! Witness the Power of the Internet.
I wish the story could make it to the ‘mainstream’ news sources. Too many people (including myself) don’t care for, and thus don’t listen to, Franken or Moore. The story won’t really get out to the masses unless FauxNews or CreepNN picks it up.
ohhhh brian. i assure you, they are looking for guns too.
Well, that picture is rock solid. UFO’s, BigFoot and Dubbya flipping these boys off are all now absolute fact.
As far as the “who cares if Clinton did it to?” argument, which is really just a dodge to avoid having to justify why it doesn’t make the Democrat a horrible guy but it does a republican, I ask this…
If the secret service removes detractors from a Bush appearance, and the secret service removed detractors from Clinton appearances can it be possible that they removed detractors from Bush the first appearances? Reagan? Carter? Is it not also VERY LIKELY that they will be removed from Kerry appearances if he wins the election?
I am not condoning it, it is absolutley in contradiction to the principles of our nation, but you are a fool if you think it is a specific President that is responsible. I am sure that if I show up at a (shiver) President Kerry appearance wearing my “Down with that flip-flopping cowardly, shot-myself-and-got-out-of-Vietnam loser John Kerry” t-shirt, he would be sure I got a front row seat right in front of all the cameras.
He can’t stop me from publishing papers about him. He can’t stop me from writing a book about him. He can’t stop me from making op-ed “documentaries” about him. But apparently he does not have to let me muscle in on his time, using his own media draw to highlight my opposing views. Apparently, my first amendment right is to spread my message freely of my own accord, but the person you are “dissenting” against doesn’t have to help spread your message.
Just don’t assume that since Bush is doing something you don’t like that automatically means Kerry won’t.
I work for a state agency, and we have guidelines on political involvement. Basicly I am not allowed to publicly support (or anti-support) any canidate on any level of government. I can’t put a canidates sign in my yard or engage in other types of endorsement activities. (I can publicly support issues, just not individual people/parties). I assume the Fed agencies have similar guidelines.
Just don’t assume that since Bush is doing something you don’t like that automatically means Kerry won’t.
Only fools and blind partisans would believe such a thing. But that seems to be the new mantra: “yeah, Bush may be fucking AWFUL, but it’s not like Kerry is gonna be any better…”
Um, no shiznit. Did you also know that birds can fly? And that the earth is spherical?
Yeesh, how seemlessly the partisans have moved from “but Clinton did it too” to “but Kerry will do it too”. The best argument I’ve heard for Kerry, aside from the obvious “gridlock” factor and the “punish the incumbent” factor, is simply that the GOP only seems to be able to find its conservative roots when the democrats control the exec or legislative branches; think of Kerry as a slap in the face and a triple espresso for the “fiscal conservatives” who voted for Bush’s medicare entitlements and pork-bloated federal budget. “Uh, oh yeah, didn’t we say something 12 years ago about trimming the budget and restraining welfare and cutting the pork? Jeez, I musta dozed off, cuz it looks like me and my GOP brethren turned into the national socialist party…”
Most people don�t want to seek out the truth in anything.
They set up a value system and are bent on validating that, rather than challenge and test this value system for consistency and sensibility.
Radley you’ve already said you aren’t going to vote for Busch. Now every other post you put out seems to be seeking justification for that stance.
Whether or not Clinton did it IS releveant. Not as justification, rather as precedent. I’d be very happy to bet my house that every other president has done the same thing. How many pictures of any president in a public appearance with dissenters in the background?
It’s not like they didn’t count the cost before they went to the event wearing the stupid-ass shirts. They knew what would happen. They knew that Bush has this rule for appearances. They deliberately defied it. They accomplished exactly what they wanted to accomplish. What in the hell did they expect to happen?
Maybe they expected they would able to freely express their displeasure at the President of the United States in a public forum. While Bush may have rules contrary to those expectations, the Bill of Rights seem to protect them. You are right Ms. Dani, silly them for thinking that Bush’s rules would be subordinate to the Bill of Rights.
Exactly, the Bill of Rights is no more! the Bill of Dubbya is the new law! That is why we had all 7,000 people from the Kerry fundraiser rounded up and put in concentration camps! Because you are not allowed to express your opinions in public. And just wait and see what we do with that dissenting Whoopi Goldberg…
Mu HAHAHAHA
or, maybe you are allowed to express your dissent in public, to your hearts content, 24/7 and 365, just not in close immediate proximity to the president himself as you might just be a nutcase trying to impress Jodi Foster or something. Nah! the first thing is better!
Removing and/or arresting ANYONE from ANY candidate’s public appearance because of a tee shirt that detracts from the candidate is a clear violation of the 1st ammendment.
If a person interferes with the candidate’s right to speak, i.e., shouting over the candidate or obstructing the view of the candidate, then I would say they can and should be removed.
This is yet another embarrassing incident for this president. And my father wonders why I have left the Republican party.
First off, its not “close immediate proximity” to the president. No one is saying let the detractor get inches away from GW’s face and scream at him. They are in a crowd of people, anyone of which might be equally crazy (unless you are saying that all those who disagree with the President are by definition crazy). The only reason that the protesters are treated differently is because they are exercising their free speach rights to voice their opposition(sometimes in such an unotrusive way as wearing a T-shirt). Of course secret service should do a sweep of the area to ensure its safe, but simply wearing a t-shirt or holding up a sign is not an indication that you intend to do harm to the president. The secret service needs to come up with a better system than rounding up all dissedents.
Chris, the President and his campaign are not paying for a majority of these stops and press conferences. The public is as they are “offical business.” With the public footing the bill, the public should be allowed to express its outrage.
Mike, I apologize for saying that you had not moved on. your first sentance of your first post “I hate to break it to you…” reeked of the start of another ‘Pro-Bush on anything because I still hate Clinton’ post. I apologize for lumping you in with that group. I am just so sick of that rationale.
Openly defying the will of the powerful — in this case the Head of State — is just stupid. Resistance is best done covertly and anonymously. It may be cowardly, but hey, I’m still employed, unlike the poor dumb bastard in this story.
It goes without saying that in more extreme police states open dissent is simply suicide. We certainly aren’t there (yet).
Bryan, as I said in my post, I don’t condone it. I don’t think those people should have been arrested and Lark’s post about rules for state agency employees not withstanding, I do not think the woman should lose her job.
But I don’t view this as a specifically “Bush” thing. This smacks of a Secret Service thing. Bush is doing plenty of things right now that are driven specifically by his agenda. A constitutional amendment defining marriage for example. That is definately something that he is doing that people should take issue with. The constitution is not supposed to be so arbitrarily altered. There are plenty of things that are specific to the Bush agenda that should be attributed specifically to him. Postively or negatively as you see fit.
But this sounds more like the secret service acting on their own guidelines. And if they have applied those guidelines consistantly with other presidents as well, than this is just not one of the things to attribute specifically to George Bush. It is not like he isn’t giving his detractors plenty of other, more directly attributable ammo.
bush is still going to win.
Chris,
Great post. You covered it all–well done.
T.J, risky, but not always stupid.
The use of irritating protest to encourage an overreaction is a well tried and tested one.
haahhaha, I guess nicole doesn’t rank anymore. Democrats do things like this on purpose just to critizize my President. Hope FEMA doesn’t ever use her again and paid with my tax money. BOO HOO nicole.
Gail Dixon
odessa,tx.
Provoking the police state and getting crushed mostly serves to make people more afraid of it. This doesn’t help. Resisting the system and getting away with it, on the other hand, emboldens the mass of sheeple, making resistance more likely.
Sufficient ruthlessness will usually defeat overt non-violent resistance. Proper state manipulation of the media makes this a certainty. This is why the futility of Palestinian non-violent resistance is matched only by the futility of Palestinian violent resistance.
I’ve become increasingly skeptical about resistance strategies that involve “sacrifice.” People who actually understand what is going on and are motivated to engage in resistance are rare and precious. Their power needs to be enhanced, not crippled by allowing the state to easily target them and their assets.
The future of resistance to tyranny belongs to Frodo, not Aragorn.
I think the whole thing stinks, but I find it hard to accept this as a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
Congress has made no law that I know of preventing the wearing of dumbass shirts to political rally’s. Bush, Clinton, etc, are not Congress, no matter how much they may wish they were.
Likewise, the Secret Service is also not Congress.
Nitpicking, I know, but I don’t think it’s much different that when anyone is fired from their job for expressing themselves, then turn around and immediately claim violation of the 1st Amendment.
Campaign Finance Reform, though, is another story entirely…
TJ, ruthlessness always comes at a cost. In this case the overreaction was small, and the cost was a bit of bad press for the Bush campaign. If, for example, the couple had been dragged away and never seen again, the people who rightly defend this as standard practice during political campaigning would have more pause for thought.
It is much different Roger – one is a private employer, the other is the government.
Bryan -
As much as I agree with your sentiment, the “government” does not mecessarily mean “Congress”.
The 1st amendment does not prohibit government from restricting the freedom of speech, it prohibits Congress from doing it. The text is very precise on this point. In a way, I wish the text did say “any government agency or representative” instead of “Congress”, but it doesn’t.
Bush and the Secret Service are not Congress.
This action, while in my opinion wrong and quite likely illegal, is not a violation of the 1st Amendment specifically because Congress didn’t play a part in shutting down the dissenters.
TJ, I think we’re close to saying the same thing, but in different ways. Protestors of this kind are trying to draw an overreaction in order to demonise the perpetrator and weaken them. A measured reaction is one which removes the problem without excessive publicity or incident.
The fact that we’re having this discussion means that this particular reaction drew some publicity, but if we’ve mostly forgotten it in a week, it won’t have been very serious.
These 2 people are obviously not respecters of the law or they would have chosen to wear their shirts in the designated, or other-than-restricted area. They received the appropriate consequences to their actions, consequences that were not unknown to them. Although I think the arrest was a little extreme, but we dont know the whole story. How do we know they didn’t give the law enforcement crap when they were told to leave???
There is a time, place and way in which to protest. They chose the wrong place.
>>There is a time, place and way in which to protest.
That’s right. Protest must be properly managed so that it has no chance of affecting the outcome of the political process.
Madison, You really mean to think that these morons not being allowed to protest within a certain distance of the president affects the outcome of the political process? IMO, you’re reaching.