The key here is, in fact, “peaceful dissent.” If their plan was to simply sit quietly, letting their “Hate Bush” T-shirts do their talking, I think their removal was probably unjustified.
If their plan was to actively protest, then their removal was probably unjustified.
I think it’s a close question, but the fact that they chose to hide their shirts initially suggests that their intentions were not forthright.
I agree that, had they worn their shirts openly, they probably would not have been admitted in the first place. Unlike you, I don’t believe this is fatal. See my example above: may the KKK members demand that police admit them to the MLK rally area?
Separating dissenting groups of protesters is a practice that predates this administration, and is one that’s grounded in good security practice.
Where this administration has exceeded earlier ones, as far as I can see, is in the zeal to place dissenting groups in areas that are so far removed from the actual event that they are effectively not a part of it at all, rather than simply separated for the sake of prudent safety and crowd control concerns. In other words, moving protesters across the street is fine; moving them across town is not.
In the present case, the Ranks were asked to either cover their shirts or move to the designated protest area. It’s unclear to me where the protest area was, and whether its placement was more akin to “across the street” or “across town.”
I have make that comparison with regards to Gitmo. I think Gitmo is worse. I also think the suprression of free speech by this administration is unprecedented (by US standards) in its scope and that it’s establishing irreversible precedents. It’s a lot easier to take civil rights away than it is to give them back. It seems we have now established a policy that any public disagreement with the president can be defined as a threat to the president. It has now been effectively made illegal to tell the president to his face that you disagree with him.
It’s also good to know that if you wear a Bush/Cheney button you will be afforded different rights and priveleges than if you wear a Nader button or a “No war for oil” shirt. This is a very keen policy on the part of the SS because obviusly, no bad guys would ever think to pose dishonestly as a Bush supporter.
This statement by Bricke:
Really pisses me off, not only because it distorts the facts of the case (the couple did nothing whatever besides expose the t-shirts. They did not even speak before they were rousted by the cops) but because it carries an implication that anyone who expresses disagreement with Emperor Bush may reasonably be considered to be a would-be assassin and hauled away.
Tell me, Bricker, what “more” could they have been planning? Were they perhaps going to boo? Maybe give him the finger? Are those things illegal? Are they a threat to the president?
These two were not political activists or professional protestors, but even if they had been- here’s a newsflash- that’s LEGAL. Unless you are seriously contending that wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt to a Bush speech is a reasonable indication that a person is a physical threat to the president (which I can’t believe you would really think is reasonable) then really you’re just suggesting that there was a possibility they might engage in more free speech and that that alone is enough to warrant their arrest and removal. Do you think that dissenting speech- even obnoxious speech- is a per se threat to the security of the president? Do you honestly think that individuals can be evaluated as to whether they are security risks simply by what kind of t-shirt they’re wearing?
Oh, and one more thing…if the SS really thought this couple was a security risk, then why were they told that they could STAY if they REMOVED THE T-SHIRTS? Were the t-shirts themselves a threat? How would a couple perceived by the SS as a threat to the president suddenly become not a threat if they covered up their t-shirts? Hmmm? Answer me that, counsellor.
Do you believe that, if a group of robed Ku Kluxers walked into the front row of the MLK rally I mentioned earlier, that the police should be powerless to require them to leave, or to take off the robes if they wished to stay?
Those are the facts. they were just standing there. They didn’t even say anything.
I ask again, what ulterior “intentions” are you suggesting? Are you seriously intimating that it was reasonable to infer an intention to commit physical violence, if not, then all we really have is the possibility of more free speech.
Yes, if it’s a public event on public property and they have tickets. I wouldn’t have a problem with security watching them more closely, or (obviously) checking them for weapons. Even the KKK has a right to free speech.
I disagree that it’s even ok to move them across the street. Protest is not a security threat. T-shirts are not a security threat. It is not the job of the SS to insulate the president from dissent, only to protect his physical well-being. A blurring of the line between political dissent and threats to national security is a hallmark of this administration. It’s one thing to use this sort of thing as demagouguery (“if you’re against the war you’re for the terrorists”) it’s another to start routinely defining public dissent as an automatic threat to the president. What kind of dissent would the SS not interpret as a threat under this policy?
In the present case, the Ranks were asked to either cover their shirts or move to the designated protest area. It’s unclear to me where the protest area was, and whether its placement was more akin to “across the street” or “across town.”
They would probably be lucky if the cops got to them first. Given my free speech orientation, I would feel ethicly compelled to rush to their aid. After I go to the bathroom, or course. And wash my hands real good, like Mom always said.
And it is even a bit more than censorship, it is censorship as a form of propaganda. Clearly, the intent is to present Mr. Bush as widely beloved, appearing before adoring and unanimous crowds as The Leader. This is of great comfort to those who’s loyalty is wavering, “Look! See how everyone loves him!” Surely you all have noticed how many of GeeDubya’s speeches take place in carefully vetted circumstances, how he boldly and defiantly praises Our Boys in front of masses and ranks of Our Boys. As if the honor and nobility of the participants by definition ensures the honor and nobility of endeavor.
The incident itself is trivial, merely a couple of dissenting t-shirts, a minor matter of the government disciplining persons for maintaining and displaying opinions contrary to the shining truth of The Leader. Yes, the incident is trivial, but the principle is vital, and you can bet your money, your momma and your ass that if they get away with taking one bite, they will take another.
Yes. If it is a public event on public property then the KKK has as much right to be there as anyone else. Check them for weapons, keep an eye on them, but let them in. A KKK robe, in itself, cannot hurt anyone. It’s just obnoxious and loathsome but the speech we most detest is the speech that needs the most protection.
What struck me most in this entire thread was the juxtaposition of the practice of the SS under Bush’s direction with his own words at the very rally where dissent was being actively suppressed.
.
Irony was not the word that came to my mind. Hypocrisy seems a better fit. As Jackmannii pointed out, this kind of action on the part of officialdom is not new. The sad thing is that, even though so much has been written and said decrying the official injustices of the past, our present leaders don’t seem to be doing any better. Instead of learning from the mistakes of earlier administrations, the Bush administration seems hell bent on repeating, if not magnifying them. Freedom is becoming just a word, and the distinction between today’s SS and the German SS of years long past is becoming blurred.
At least you have the credibility to admit that their removal was “probably unjustified” in either case. Although i’m willing to bet that the second sentence was meant to read “justified.”
What the fuck does that mean? “Not forthright” my ass. They were wearing fucking t-shirts, ferchissakes.
Yes, I believe that they have a right to be there. The ACLU happens to agree with me, and such a precedent has already been set. As disgusting as I find the KKK to be, they have a right to make their voices heard.
But that’s not the law, and the state of the law that permits police to segregate protesters with opposing views for reasons of crowd control and safety considerably pre-dates the current Bush administration. I get that you don’t agree with the law, and that’s fine – but don’t suggest that this is some new oppression from the current administration when it’s not.
Er… yes. My mistake. “Justified” was what I meant to say in case #2.
There are two areas of debate here: was the action LEGAL, and, if it is, is the law RIGHT or WISE?
As is my wont, I’m focusing on the first. As a general proposition, such actions by the police are probably legal, with the caveat that such a conclusion is very dependent on the facts of each particular instance.
What you’re saying in response is that such laws are wrong or unwise, and that free speech concerns demand that we give less weight to public safety and more weight to expressiveness.
Maybe. I’m not sure I agree, but I certainly appreciate the viewpoint of a free speech absolutist, because the moment you start to permit ANY restrictions, you’re beginning a walk down a very slippery slope.
But I’m not really even engaging that issue. I don’t like the “Should be” debates, because, in the end, there’s very little fact to support a given position. I’m comfortable with the “What IS” debate, because there I can point to case law and statute and precedent to prove a given proposition.
So: segregating protestors in certain areas to preserve crowd control and safety: generally legal. Should it be? I express no opinion just now.
Gee, sure thought I did. Something about “peaceful assembly” and “redress of grievances” and “shall not be abridged”. Funny thing, look it up and it says “the right of the people to assemble peacefully and fulsomely praise The Leader shall not be abridged”.
Well, it has been a very long time since high school Civics, and it was taught by the football coach. So maybe, who knows?
Not quite exactly the same situation, and I don’t have a cite handy, but there was a case in the 70s where the KKK and neo-nazis wanted to march in a midwest town primarily populated by Jews, many of whom had been in concentration camps. Natch, there was a major uproar about it, but the courts, with urging from the ACLU, found that any group has a right to march in public streets.
Not at all on point. If the anti-Bush protesters were denied any opportunity to protest at all, then the Skokie case would be relevant. They are merely being denied an opportunity to protest in the middle of someone else’s event. That is perfectly legal.
No, as I understand it, there was an area there reserved for protesters.
That has never been interpreted to mean that protestors may go wherever they please. Their right to protest ends where others’ rights to peacably assemble begin.
Had the event taken place in a private venue, you might have a point. But when the event is on public lands, all bets are off. And even if it’s perfectly legal, it shows bad form on the part of the president. Any way you cut it, it shouts down dissent.
No. Again consider my MLK rally example: those sorts of events are almost always on public land. Indeed, if the MLK rally were on private land, there would be no question that the organizers could bar the KKK from entering.
On public land, the police have the legal authority, for purposes of crowd control and safety, to separate dissenting groups of protesters.
If you concede that it’s perfectly legal, then my part in this argument is done. There is no way to meaningfully debate “bad form” without it ultimately being reduced to: “No, it isn’t.” “Yes, it is.” “NO, it isn’t.” and so on. I believe it’s not unreasonable for the President to give a speech - especially one as a function of his office, as opposed to a campaign event - without being shouted at by hecklers. You disagree. There is no ultimate factual answer to either of our positions.
