The First Amendment is soft and comfy on the skin, kind of like Charmin
Published January 07, 2004
Evil boy genius "Norbizness" has written a nice little screed about the "Free Speech Zones" the Secret Service enforces around the President. You know, the fenced-in lot a half mile away, that if you leave it carrying a sign that says "Bush NO!" you get arrested and hauled off for endangering the president with your pointy sharp words.
In a sickening followup to Norbizness' story, a federal court has found a man guilty of speaking his mind in the presence of the President.
See if you can make sense of this.
From the story: "U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant acknowledged Bursey was not a threat to Bush during the president's Oct. 24, 2002, visit to Columbia. But the judge dismissed Bursey's free speech defense and ruled the protester had no right to be as close to Bush as Bursey wanted in his efforts to show that some South Carolinians opposed his plan to attack Iraq."
Also from the story: "Bursey and other protesters testified he was not contentious. They said they were ordered to a "free speech zone" that did not exist and that police kept sending them farther from Bush. Secret Service agents testified there was no marked protection zone but said police patrolled the area and enforced a clear restricted area. Local police chose the demonstration area."
What? I don't understand. The way I read it, the judge ruled that the man was outside a free speech zone whose boundaries existed at the pleasure of the police and Secret Service, and was therefore breaking the law. Apparently the celebrated "Chewbacca Defense" has been succeeded by the Calvinball Defense."
-"So where do we protesters stand-- over here?"
-"You'll have to move."
-"Um, ok. Where to?"
-"Where we tell you to."
-"Great. Now where's that. Here?"
-"No, over there. Back up."
-"Here?"
-"No... keep going!"
-"But you said..."
-"Keep going!"
-"Here?"
-"Keep backing up..."
-"Is here good?"
-"That's it, asshole! You're under arrest! Swarm! Swarm! Swarm!"
Does it horrify anyone else that the President is being actively shielded from criticism by the people whose job it is merely to keep him from assassination? People frequently accuse the President and his cabinet of actively manipulating stories. This in itself is not surprising-- it has gone on ever since William Henry Harrison rolled out the cider barrels and campaigned as a war hero ("Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!"). Hell, Washington didn't exactly renounce the superhuman status afforded to him, so really this has gone on since the beginning.
What's new and disturbing is the lengths to which the President's handlers (and since he's in charge of them) the President, are willing to go to quash any show of disunity with the party line. For all the howling about "crushing of dissent" that issues daily from prominent hacks in the pages of national publications, this seems like an actual, credible case, and I hate it.
Why did the court go along with this? Any theories?
- The First Amendment is soft and comfy on the skin, kind of like Charmin
- Published: January 07, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: John Owen
- John Owen's BC Writer page
- John Owen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
sometimes i think americans would be happier having a king rather than a president.
Vox,
several thoughts on that point.
1) What good does it do to sequester dissenters up to half a mile away from where the President is? That doesn't sound like free and meaningful exercise of the right of speech to me.
2) Any-- ANY-- terrorist with enough smarts to pull something near the President would clothe him- or herself head to toe in "BUSH '04" gear. Since the people being pushed away from the President's location are being targeted as terrorist threats for the opinions they express, doing this would allow someone with harmful intent to get closer.
3) Of course the Secret Service has always kept crowd scenes under control. But I feel that matters have reached a point now where "control" means "homogeneity." In the specific case I pointed to, the gentleman was no threat to anyone, and the courts agreed, yet on the basis of his opinion he was asked to comply with vague orders at the will of police. Is this what you're arguing for?
I thought prior restraint wasn't allowed in these cases.
4) Rumors keep surfacing about legitimate political groups being put on watch lists and being subsequently barred from Presidential appearance sites. See number three above.
The perplexing thing about this is that the Secret Service is allowed to discriminate based on the message a citizen is trying to deliver. Those who appear supportive of the President are allowed to get closer to him.
It seems almost impossible that this policy is designed to protect the President from harm. Would an assassin really be dumb enough to carry an anti-Bush sign?
The only plausible conclusion I can come up with is that the policy is actually designed to keep dissent from getting near the TV cameras that follow the President.
If we had a media with any guts, reporters would always take pains to seek out the protesters and give them more coverage than they otherwise would have. If they don't fight this kind of media manipulation, who will?
Brian,
exactamundo. I don't object to the Secret Service protecting the Pars-dent, but to their "protecting" him from nassssty dissenters.
At least he treats the country like he treats his own cabinet.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11518)
The courts have always permitted regulation of the Time, Place and Manner of expression. This is just one of those regulations, nothing new.
No one is being prevented from speaking out, they are just being kept out of the way, where they cannot be a threat to the president or where the president's supporters will not be a threat to them.