TheAgitator.com
More Stifling of Dissent
Friday, July 16th, 2004Several of you in the comments section have dismissed the arrest (and subsequent release) of two protesters for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts as either something every president has done, or as Secret Service policy independent of the Bush administration.
Nope:
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.The Secret Service agreed that such censorship was wrong, said Witold Walczak, one of the lawyers that filed the lawsuit.
â??They had an internal memo dated September 2002, saying they couldnâ??t treat protesters differently or worseâ? than anyone else at a presidential appearance, Walczak said.
Well, I have to say that I must change my mind. This does appear to definately obstruct the right to peacefully assemble as protected under the first ammendment.
So damn, I can vote for an administration that tramples first amendment rights, or I can vote for a guy that I absolutely see as soft on defense and likely to be the UN’s bitch in all things international.
Am I more scared of what Bush is doing or of what Kerry might do? Frankly, I don’t know.
Not to defend the practice, but nothing in the article serves to invalidate claims that this was in use before Bush took office.
“Since 2001, X happened” does not mean “Prior to 2001, X did not happen”; it usually means simply that the writer has only checked the period in question.
The memo is more at issue, but would an internal legal opinion against a practice any indication that the implementation comes from outside the agency in question? No. Without seeing the memo directly (as opposed to relying on a defence characterization of it), I’m disinclined to give it credit as more than that.
All that being said, I still think the Bush administration is due for some criticism here; either they ordered it, or they’re letting the Secret Service get overzealous. While the latter is not nearly as bad as the former, it still isn’t good.
I just think liberals are way more creative (see also: annoying) with their protest signs and such.
Then again, Shrub offers more protest fodder than any previous President.
I mean, “Freedom Fries?” What lame brain thought that one up. “Cheese eating surrender monkey” is way more chic.
;-)
Am I more scared of what Bush is doing or of what Kerry might do? Frankly, I don’t know.
One thing is for sure: a republican congress is more apt to stifle Kerry’s agenda than they are to stifle Bush’s. Just a thought. If the Bush’s medicare Welfare Explosion had been proposed by Kerry, the GOP would have killed it before it hit the floor.
One thing is for sure: a republican congress is more apt to stifle Kerry’s agenda than they are to stifle Bush’s. Just a thought. If the Bush’s medicare Welfare Explosion had been proposed by Kerry, the GOP would have killed it before it hit the floor.
Exactly! why we need to kill the two party system in this country.
As crappy as this is, it can’t be a violation of the 1st Amendment unless Congress passed a law stifling this dissent, like for example, Campaign Finance Reform.
As it is, this is bad policy, and should be roundly criticized, but it can’t be Unconstitutional, at least not until Congress decides to “reform” the right to assemble.
Roger, correct me if i’m misunderstanding, but does that not make the policy illegal?
No law has been passed allowing the stifling of the right to assemble, but the right to assemble is being stifled.
the idea of the “free speach zone” was not invented by the bush administration. my college campus had a space the size of a handicapped bathroom stall designated the “free speach zone”. by the way, that was back in 1990.
I’m with Craig on this one. Let me clarify, I’m not saying I think this is o.k. but I want to know if I’m making informed decisions regarding casting my vote. If this sort of thing happened PRIOR to BUSHII than I can’t see how this can be held against him specifically. My guess is that this was indeed happening before the current administration.
Kind of like Bush being blamed for offshore outsourcing in that crappy commercial. The tax code regarding offshoring went into effect WELL before Bush took office, that the companies reaped those benefits while he was in office doesn’t make him the enabler.
However, if this (crowd purification) is indeed unique to the current administration, it could be as far as my vote is concerned the last straw.
hey gang, lets who can find the most.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm
Roger wrote:
As crappy as this is, it can’t be a violation of the 1st Amendment unless Congress passed a law stifling this dissent, like for example, Campaign Finance Reform.
Nope. It’s a Fourth Amendment issue as well as First Amendment one (they were arrested, not just “stifled”). You might also want to Google “incorporation bill rights fourteenth amendment”
doesn’t this sound eerily familiar??
Headline: Clinton protesters face charges after officers arrest 10
Publish Date: 09/26/1994
Dana Anderson
Staff Reporter
While President Clinton traveled to the $1,000-a-plate DFL fundraiser
Saturday at the Minneapolis Club, protesters outside the club
shouting “Stop the war on the poor!” battled police for turf.
Officers arrested 10 protesters, including two University students.
The Welfare Rights Committee initiated the demonstration to protest
U.S. government policies the committee says hurt the poor. Other
activist groups joined the committee, including the University’s
Progressive Student Organization, and community groups Women Against
Military Madness, Up and Out of Poverty Now! and Love and Rage.
Clinton’s welfare reform proposal and the Haiti invasion were rally
points for the groups.
“The Haitian invasion is really a way for Clinton to pursue his
business interests,” not to free the Haitian poor, said Laura
Schere, a University graduate student and Love and Rage member.
The group of 20 to 30 protesters was forced first from its chosen
spot on the corner of Eighth Street South and Second Avenue South,
then to the opposite corner and finally a half-block from there.
“This is not our doing,” explained K.L. Oldfather, the Minneapolis
police officer in charge at the scene. “Secret Service ordered
this.”
Passersby and Clinton supporters were allowed to stand on the corner
of Eighth Street South and Second Avenue South after the protesters
were ordered away. Waiting to catch a glimpse of the president,
University Law School graduate Tony Branch said he understood both
sides’ concerns.
“I wouldn’t want anything that could potentially hurt the
president to be near him,” he said. “But, obviously, people have a
right to express dissonant views. You look for a balance.”
As police moved the group farther from Second Avenue, the street the
president’s motorcade was to travel en route to the club, leaders
from each organization met to discuss a united plan of action.
Barricades in hand, police warned them to comply or be arrested.
Frustrations reached a crescendo. Protesters refused to retreat.
Four-letter words flew and the arrests began.
University students Stefanie Yorek and J Burger, both PSO members,
were among those arrested. They said they were charged with
disorderly conduct, failure to obey and obstruction, and must appear
Thursday in court.
Burger said he was surprised when police suddenly rushed the
protesters. “I’ve never seen them act like that,” he said. “We
didn’t plan to be illegal or anything.” He added that he and the
others arrested were held for eight hours, until the President left
town. “Like we were supposed to be some kind of threat,” he
said.
Both Yorek and Burger said police used unnecessary force in the
arrests.
“I didn’t move fast enough for their tastes,” Yorek said. “The
police officer came up behind me, put his arm around my neck, shoved
his fist in my back and knocked me completely off balance.”
After the arrests, the number of protesters continued to grow to
about 50. Several leaders gave speeches under the watchful eyes of 20
Minneapolis police officers standing in front of the barricade.
“(The government) is not going to be able to sweep the social crisis
in this country down the block like they did us today,” shouted one
Love and Rage member.
“This taught me a lesson I didn’t really want to learn about dissent
in this country,” Yorek said. “I learned not only does the
government disagree with what I believe, which I already knew, but
they don’t even think I have a right to express what I believe.”
Micheal,
That’s one shitty ass web site. Nothing but commies and fascists.
“Exactly! why we need to kill the two party system in this country.”
I disagree, which demonstrates why a two-party system will continue. Or would return to life al;most as soon as you were to “kill” it.
We also “need” to end the bicameral legislative structure and adopt a unicameral legislature. This would end back room double-dealing and “conference markup sessions” during which actual laws are made, conveniently out of sight. But that won’t happen either.
But, hey, while we’re wishing for impossible things, why be satisfied with chickenfeed? Wish for something reeeeallly big, like “world peace”. Yahh, that’s the ticket.
Meanwhile, ordinary people deal with reality and adjust it as or when they can.
Kip,I can buy this particular case as a 4th Amendment issue easily, but I still can’t see the problem with the 1st.
Bernard, the 1st Amendment specifically states that Congress can’t make any law abridging the freedom of speech. No other government or private entity is prohibited from making such restrictions.
Why else can the 2nd Amendment, for example, guarantee the right to bear arms, but yet be routinely (and legally) blocked by states, municipalities, and private parties?
Unless Congress made a law, the policy of “stifling” remains bad, but not necessarily unConstitutional. Note that there is a difference between unconstitutional and illegal – A bad policy need not be both.
I understand where you’re coming from, but the 1st Amendment specifically restricts Congress from doing this, and nobody else.
I am not a lawyer, but I imagine a pretty good case could be made for wrongful arrest, though, even if the “stifling” were actually legal.
Roger, I see exactly what you saying and agree, congress did not make a law, so it is not a first amendment issue.
However, the constitution does clearly establish the roles of the three branches, and the legislative branch is clearly defined as the branch that establishes law. Not the Executive. And since the legislative branch had not enacted any such law, these people could not be in violation of any law. Wrongful arrest would seem to apply at the local level, but is the Executive branch not guilty of trying to enforce a law that does not exist and would be unconstitutional if it did? Thus, the Executive branch was in essence, creating law. And the Executive branch should not be allowed to do so.
Maybe he’s clairvoyant.
Maybe he can read protestors minds and shoo them off before they have a chance to act.
:-P
Roger, on “where’s the First Amendment violation?” I see where you’re coming from but a little creativity can get you past the issue:
We’re dealing with the Secret Service, which was authorized, somewhere, by federal statute. So if the Secret Service, created by Congress, acts contrary to the First Amendment, then the First Amendment has been violated.
But I always salute anyone who starts a discussion with the actual text of the Constitution!
“banned from displaying anti-Bush messages at dozens of Bush appearances across the country”. In general I would like to see people free to wear or display what they want, but while this may say the Secret Svc overdoes it, on the other hand, it may be a function of how many Bush protesters there are, say, compared to the prior President. I somehow don’t picture a bunch of conservatives causing serious trouble. Not because they’re good people but because it’s not in their nature to such an extent. There are so many lib’s that are just such a bunch of whiners, it’s pathetic. It would be interesting to know, did the Secret Svc have to be so involved under, say, the prior President? That was a man that used the military for the worst possible reason (dropping bombs on the day he was to be tried by the Senate) – and barely anyone protested over him.
KipEsquire -
“We’re dealing with the Secret Service, which was authorized, somewhere, by federal statute. So if the Secret Service, created by Congress, acts contrary to the First Amendment, then the First Amendment has been violated.”
Good point. I guess from my perspective I always like to start with the actual text, as opposed to what I want the text to be, then see where we head from there.
I think you are probably right, since otherwise Congress would just be able to establish agencies for the express purpose of squashing our rights, then claim, “but we didn’t do that – that was Agency X…”
All that said, I was a little surprised it took so long for a Libertarian web site to start discussion of the actual text of the Constitution.
Thanks for the input!
roger, in response to your response earlier, you’ve raised an interesting distinction. I definitely need to read more. I’m not American myself, but the constitution is a fascination partly because the EU is making such a hash of creating one of our own.
Cheers.
I’m indignant
“We also “need” to end the bicameral legislative structure and adopt a unicameral legislature. This would end back room double-dealing and “conference markup sessions” during which actual laws are made, conveniently out of sight. But that won’t happen either.”
As someone who lives in Nebraska, the only state with a unicameral legislature, I can tell you you’re out of your fucking mind. Part of the benefit of a bicameral legislature is that it’s harder to get legislation passed, so therefore the legislature has to spend more time considering legislature before it’s passed. With a unicameral legislature, you get all sorts of horrible laws that never should have been enacted in the first place.
Neither the constitution nor the bill of rights ensure that you can protest within 100 yards of the POTUS. It ensures your right to protest but not the location of such activity. Bush is not saying that you can’t protest at all. Don’t worry your poor little hearts. He just doesn’t want you in his face doing it and rightly so. These people who wore their stoopid tshirts in a no-protest zone defied a known guideline. They were asking for it. I don’t think it was fair to arrest them, but on the other hand, we don’t know how much shit they gave the officers involved in the incident. Maybe they were reluctant to leave and then were arrested.
Anyhoo, this sounds like a bunch of nitpicking and anti-Bush whining to me. Bush is not that bad of a guy. He can’t be, he’s from Texas!:)
I delved into the evil backlogs and case laws to bring up some precedents (even if not directly relating to these cases):
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971):
The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our National Health. The stays in these cases that have been in effect for more than a week constitute a flouting of the principles of the First Amendment as interpreted in [Near v. Minnesota].
[...]
We are asked, quite simply, to prevent the publications by two newspapers of material that the Executive Branch insists should not, in the national interest, be published. I am convinced that the Executive is correct with respect to some of the documents involved. But I cannot say that disclosure of any of them will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people. That being so, there can under the First Amendment be but one judicial resolution of the issues before us.
—
New York Times Company v. Sullivan:
The constitutional protection does not turn upon “the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.”
—
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
—
SCHENCK et al. v. PRO CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK et al.:
As relevant here, injunction provisions banned “demonstrating within fifteen feet . . . of . . . doorways or doorway entrances, parking lot entrances, driveways and driveway entrances of [clinic] facilities” (“fixed buffer zones”), or “within fifteen feet of any person or vehicle seeking access to or leaving such facilities” (“floating buffer zones”). Another provision allowed two sidewalk counselors inside the buffer zones, but required them to “cease and desist” their counseling if the counselee so requested.
[...]
Held: The injunction provisions imposing “fixed buffer zone” limitations are constitutional, but the provisions imposing “floating buffer zone” limitations violate the First Amendment. Pp. 12-26.
[...]
The floating buffer zones are struck down because they burden more speech than is necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests. Such zones around people prevent defendants–except for sidewalk counselors tolerated by the targeted individual–from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing out leaflets on the public sidewalks.
[...]
The fixed buffer zones around the clinic doorways, driveways, and driveway entrances are upheld. That these zones are necessary to ensure that people and vehicles can enter or exit the clinic property or parking lots …. Deference is due the District Court’s reasonable assessment that 15 feet is the proper distance to ensure access.
—
Not saying I agree with a lot of it, but that’s a chunk of the case law on the subject.
John
narphonax.com/blog
“defied a known guideline.”
Well hell, they defied a known guideline!
michael – Your college obviously loses credibility, since they didn’t teach you how to spell the word “speech.”