Couple Arrested for Anti-Bush T-shirts

[viscousmemories]

Secret Service and White House Charged with Violating Free Speech Rights in ACLU Lawsuit (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16441&c=86)

A couple of wacko Democratic activists? Nope. The husband is a registered Republican and the wife works for FEMA. Neither had previously participated in a political protest. They paid for tickets to see the President speak at a Forth of July celebration at their state Capitol, and once inside on the grounds they removed their overcoats to display these shirts:

http://www.aclu.org/images/client/ranks.jpg

“We wanted to see the president speak and express our disagreement in what little way we could,” said Nicole Rank, who is originally from Corpus Christi, Texas but was assigned to work on a FEMA flood relief project in West Virginia. “We never imagined that we would end up in jail because of a homemade t-shirt.”

At the direction of Secret Service agents, officers from the Charleston PD asked the couple to cover up the shirts. When they refused they were arrested, handcuffed and removed from the grounds. The charges were eventually dismissed and the Mayor and city council apologized to the couple.

“It is clear that our Charleston police officers were acting at the request of federal government officials and would otherwise have respected the First Amendment rights of our residents,” said ACLU of West Virginia Executive Director Andrew Schneider. “The Ranks were ejected for wearing t-shirts expressing a dissenting opinion while other attendees wearing Bush campaign t-shirts and buttons were allowed to remain.”

[Scotty]

How believable that sort of bullshit is happening.

-Scott

[livius drusus]

Do you ever find yourself wondering just what the hell country we live in? It boggles my mind sometimes how much damange a single asshole/idiot president can do. I'm used to thinking in more institutional terms, but these past 4 years have been eye-openers. Like Clockwork Orange style eye-openers.

[Ronin]

She really should have worn the "No Dick" t-shirt, in my view.

Or the other way around in reverse.

[dave_a]

Do you ever find yourself wondering just what the hell country we live in? It boggles my mind sometimes how much damange a single asshole/idiot president can do.

You would be referring to Clinton. Clinton was the one who came up with these policies and he used them. Free Speech zones are a Clinton era baby.

I just feel the need to point this out everytime a thread about this comes up cuz everyone seems to think this is a Bush thing. It isn't. It's a political thing started before Bush. The Secret Service almost certainly was not instructed to do this by Bush, they are following the general instructions given to them under Clinton.

[viscousmemories]

The Secret Service almost certainly was not instructed to do this by Bush, they are following the general instructions given to them under Clinton.
So the Secret Service are still working for Clinton? Maybe someone should tell them they have to take orders from GWB now. He's been the President for a few years, I think they should probably know who they're working for.

[Ronin]

A check of history would reveal that the Feds have been suppressing free speech at such events far longer than such partisan wrangling.

That it still occurs and that the ACLU is there to bring such incidents to light should be the primary issue.

As an aside, I have personally experienced the whole "The Secret Service has told us to do something, so let's go do it" mindscramble that happens to local cops.

These CPD guys were pwned.

[livius drusus]

You would be referring to Clinton. Clinton was the one who came up with these policies and he used them. Free Speech zones are a Clinton era baby.

First of all, my post did not raise the issue of "free speech zones" per se, but having said that, I'd like to see some evidence, please, that Clinton "came up with these policies and ... used them." I've done some research, and all I can find is a bunch of people reiterating that phrase (without sources, natch) on message boards.

The closest I've come is the National Park Service denying anti-abortion protesters a permit for Clinton's second inaugural. The ACLU got that reversed in timely fashion, but as craven as that attempt to stifle speech was, it doesn't even come close to the deeply-rooted Ashcroftian nightmare that are "free speech zones" today.

Click here (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html) for an excellent article (from an ultra-conservative source) on this administration's uniquely pernicious assaults on protester's free speech.

The Secret Service almost certainly was not instructed to do this by Bush, they are following the general instructions given to them under Clinton.

Sorry, dantonac, but this smells like bullshit to me. I'd like to see a source for the claim that the Secret Service bases its current enforcement practices on Bill Clinton's orders.

[dave_a]

The Secret Service almost certainly was not instructed to do this by Bush, they are following the general instructions given to them under Clinton.
So the Secret Service are still working for Clinton? Maybe someone should tell them they have to take orders from GWB now. He's been the President for a few years, I think they should probably know who they're working for.

Yeah, I usually get this reaction if I say anything bad about Clinton. No, the Secret Service is not presently taking orders from Clinton. Rather Clinton used the secret service to do the same thing Bush is doing, get protestors out of camera view under the guise of "security". In reality it was simply to get those who disagreed with them from being able to be present or be heard.

The policy is that the secret service has to protect the president and anyone who gives them any reason at all to believe they are a security threat can be removed from the area or denied entry. Nothing wrong with this except that the secret service has a habit of identifying potential security threats by the sign they are holding or the shirt they are wearing.

And Livius, no, I don't have any link to demonstrate that Clinton started the *first* use of these, it's possible they were used earlier, but are you saying you can't find any info on Clinton using them?

You can read this fairly long piece (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22POLICE+STATES+of+america%22++Kim+Weissman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3211C82E.1E0E%40tandem.com&rnum=2) for coverage on republican/democrat and Clinton suppression of free speech during the 90s.

It is indeed difficult to find mention of Clinton using them via google because the term "free speech zone" is getting so much Bush related press that the Clinton era ones are buried. There is an article about Bush's abuses, where the protestors mention their first encounter with these zones being at the 2000 democratic convention. It's here. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11796) Of course, we know they were used at the 2004 as well.

If you weren't paying attention to Clinton's abuse of these babies you likely aren't going to find much more than a mention here and there from those protesting in those days.

What the SS is doing today is what they were doing under Clinton.

[editted to add: No, I am not trying to argue that 2 wrongs make a right. I just get sick of seeing Clinton held on a pedestal like he was some hero who would never do stuff like this. Had Clinton spoke out against these things rather than employ them himself, Bush might not be able to get away with his abuse of them and perhaps the democrats wouldn't have employed the tactics at their last 2 conventions.]

[viscousmemories]

Yeah, I usually get this reaction if I say anything bad about Clinton.
I wasn't reacting to your criticism of Clinton, just pointing out that the fact that Clinton may have started it doesn't exonerate GWB from perpetuating it.

[livius drusus]

And Livius, no, I don't have any link to demonstrate that Clinton started the *first* use of these, it's possible they were used earlier, but are you saying you can't find any info on Clinton using them?

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Free Speech Zones of today are an entirely different animal, used in every single presidential public appearance to insulate GWB from protest of any kind - not disruptions, not hecklers, not people getting in his face, just people wearing t-shirts with an unapproved message. This isolation is justified on ludicrously spurious grounds like protecting the protesters from getting run over by cars or stopping trespassing (the administration apparently needed a judge to tell them that there is no such thing as trespassing on public property) or far, far more horrifyingly, by equating protest with supporting terrorism.

You can read this fairly long piece (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22POLICE+STATES+of+america%22++Kim+Weissman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3211C82E.1E0E%40tandem.com&rnum=2) for coverage on republican/democrat and Clinton suppression of free speech during the 90s.

Pretty heavy on rhetoric that piece is, dantonac. Out of the examples raised (HUD protests, city ordinances corralling protesters, tenuous allegations of Stephanopolous influencing media outlets to cancel interviews with Gary Aldrich, a woman in Chicago arrested for shouting "You suck, and those boys died" at a Clinton appearance), only the last one is even remotely on-point, and sorry, that doesn't even come close to the systemic violation of protester's rights the Bush administration has introduced since 9/11.

I'd be curious to see a follow-up on the last story, by the way. The linked op-ed is less than forthcoming with its sources.

It is indeed difficult to find mention of Clinton using them via google because the term "free speech zone" is getting so much Bush related press that the Clinton era ones are buried.

This is why one uses multiple search terms.

There is an article about Bush's abuses, where the protestors mention their first encounter with these zones being at the 2000 democratic convention. It's here. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11796) Of course, we know they were used at the 2004 as well.

Protesters have indeed been shunted off the beaten path during high profile, highly populated events like the party conventions. That's nothing new, of course, and of course it started long before Bill Clinton.

If you weren't paying attention to Clinton's abuse of these babies you likely aren't going to find much more than a mention here and there from those protesting in those days.

I paid plenty of attention and I don't appreciate your assumption that I'm some kind of Clinton-humper because I think the Bush administration has introduced a level of anti-Constitutional censorship unseen since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. If you must know, I considered him and his all his "New Democrat" croneys unprincipled sell-outs, so spare me, please your half-assed assumptions.

Now, which babies is it that Clinton was abusing?

What the SS is doing today is what they were doing under Clinton.

That's not what you said. You said "The Secret Service almost certainly was not instructed to do this by Bush, they are following the general instructions given to them under Clinton." That's not "Clinton did it first". It's "Bush is an innocent and the SS is just doing what Clinton told them to do". Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.

[editted to add: No, I am not trying to argue that 2 wrongs make a right. I just get sick of seeing Clinton held on a pedestal like he was some hero who would never do stuff like this.

See above. You're the one who brought Clinton into this. Quote anybody in this thread putting Clinton on a pedestal. I'll wait.

Had Clinton spoke out against these things rather than employ them himself, Bush might not be able to get away with his abuse of them and perhaps the democrats wouldn't have employed the tactics at their last 2 conventions.]

Bush does this now because the Patriot Act and the so-called War on Terror gives him the power to wipe his ass with our Constitutional rights; conventions don't have fuck-all to do with it. As a libertarian, you should be the first person calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads for the fandango they've danced on the Constitution of these United States.

[dave_a]

And Livius, no, I don't have any link to demonstrate that Clinton started the *first* use of these, it's possible they were used earlier, but are you saying you can't find any info on Clinton using them?

Yes, that is what I am saying. The Free Speech Zones of today are an entirely different animal, used in every single presidential public appearance to insulate GWB from protest of any kind - not disruptions, not hecklers, not people getting in his face, just people wearing t-shirts with an unapproved message. This isolation is justified on ludicrously spurious grounds like protecting the protesters from getting run over by cars or stopping trespassing (the administration apparently needed a judge to tell them that there is no such thing as trespassing on public property) or far, far more horrifyingly, by equating protest with supporting terrorism.


Yes, Bush is horribly abusing 1st amendment rights. I agree. My objection was your statement : Do you ever find yourself wondering just what the hell country we live in? It boggles my mind sometimes how much damange a single asshole/idiot president can do.

This I took as a reference to Bush. I don't disagree with the statement at all.
Sorry, but I like giving credit where it is due. As I said, had Clinton stood against this practice instead of using it to his advantage he might have prevented Bush from getting away with it.

The rest of your post reads to me like you are really hot under the collar so I am just going to back off it. I seem to have the anti midas touch lately.

[livius drusus]

This I took as a reference to Bush. I don't disagree with the statement at all.

It was a reference to Bush, who in my opinion has done far more damage to the Consitution than any of his predecessors.

Sorry, but I like giving credit where it is due. As I said, had Clinton stood against this practice instead of using it to his advantage he might have prevented Bush from getting away with it.

Well, you can keep saying it, but it won't make it any less groundless. I think counterfactual analysis is best left to alternative history novels.

The rest of your post reads to me like you are really hot under the collar so I am just going to back off it. I seem to have the anti midas touch lately.

As you wish. People have passions; they regularly come out when discussing politics. That's as it should be, imo. To paraphrase someone who it turns out is not Barry Goldwater although I thought it was, anemia in the face of tyranny is no virtue.

[dave_a]

Sorry, but I like giving credit where it is due. As I said, had Clinton stood against this practice instead of using it to his advantage he might have prevented Bush from getting away with it.

Well, you can keep saying it, but it won't make it any less groundless. I think counterfactual analysis is best left to alternative history novels.

Honestly I don't see how you can believe Clinton didn't segregate protestors out of the way. Even google will turn up blogs of protestors who protest Bush and protested at Clinton events who mention it. There is no dispute as to what happened at the 2000 convention and there is no question what happened at the 2004 convention.

Bush may be outdoing Clinton, but to flat out deny Clinton did it is counterfactual. The second link I provided is one example of people mentioning it.

[livius drusus]

Honestly I don't see how you can believe Clinton didn't segregate protestors out of the way.

Sigh... I believe it just fine. What I dispute is that his administration did it even remotely on the same scale as the Bush administration. As I said before, the (meager) instances you've provided don't even come close to the systemic violation of protester's rights the Bush administration has instituted since 9/11.

Even google will turn up blogs of protestors who protest Bush and protested at Clinton events who mention it. There is no dispute as to what happened at the 2000 convention and there is no question what happened at the 2004 convention.

And every convention before it, I'm sure. Again, that is not even remotely equivalent to the systemic violation of protester's rights the Bush administration has instituted since 9/11.

Bush may be outdoing Clinton, but to flat out deny Clinton did it is counterfactual. The second link I provided is one example of people mentioning it.

Good thing I never denied that the Clinton admin segregated protestors, then. Again, that is not even remotely equivalent to the systemic violation of protester's rights the Bush administration has instituted since 9/11.

[dave_a]

Good thing I never denied that the Clinton admin segregated protestors, then. Again, that is not even remotely equivalent to the systemic violation of protester's rights the Bush administration has instituted since 9/11.


If you weren't denying it then what did you mean by Well, you can keep saying it, but it won't make it any less groundless. I think counterfactual analysis is best left to alternative history novels.

[livius drusus]

If you weren't denying it then what did you mean by Well, you can keep saying it, but it won't make it any less groundless. I think counterfactual analysis is best left to alternative history novels.

I said that in reply to the following comment of yours: "As I said, had Clinton stood against this practice instead of using it to his advantage he might have prevented Bush from getting away with it", not your claim that the Clinton admin segregated protestors.

That is textbook counterfactual analysis: If x had done y instead of z, abc might never have happened. It's a speculative indulgence most commonly found in alternate history books like Harris' Fatherland (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061006629/qid=1095480563/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-0468532-8150307), and although it occasionally makes for good fiction, it is a fundamentally empty argument.

[dave_a]

That is textbook counterfactual analysis: If x had done y instead of z, abc might never have happened. It's a speculative indulgence most commonly found in alternate history books like Harris' Fatherland (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061006629/qid=1095480563/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-0468532-8150307), and although it occasionally makes for good fiction, it is a fundamentally empty argument.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. In my view if one president takes a stand against an unconstitutional practice, it makes it less likely the next president will try and use that tactic. OTOH, if the first president makes use of the tactic and basically gets away with it with little complaint, it makes it more likely the next one will escalate the practice.

If that seems counter factual to you, there isn't much I can say.

[livius drusus]

Truman didn't try to pack the Supreme Court just because FDR did. Johnson didn't suspend habeas corpus. We just don't know how things might have gone if they had gone differently; all we've got is what actually happened. You can speculate all the live long day, but for every possibility you come up with another 50 are just as likely. There is no way of knowing.

I don't call the practice counterfactual, dantonac. Speculating about what might have happened if what did happen hadn't happened is counterfactual analysis by defintion. Nomatter how likely you think your alternate scenario is, it's still fiction, not history.

In any case, this is isn't exactly on-topic. Perhaps you should start another thread on what people think might have happened had Babe Ruth never been sold to the Yankees or if FDR hadn't died before the end of his 4th term or if Clinton had been less of a corporate shill.

[beyelzu]

Bush does this now because the Patriot Act and the so-called War on Terror gives him the power to wipe his ass with our Constitutional rights; conventions don't have fuck-all to do with it.
this is the problem, I really think that Bush thinks that he some sort of great messiah of the xianity. and sadly, many xians actually buy into his bullshit. As a libertarian, you should be the first person calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads for the fandango they've danced on the Constitution of these United States.
Well as someone with libertarian leanings, I used to describe myself as a conservative because some people arent familiar with libertarians and I largely voted Republican. Now, cuz of bush and co I describe myself as a fiscal conservate NOT A REPUBLICAN and will vote Kerry although my vote is inconsequential since I live in Georgia.

[Godless Dave]

You would be referring to Clinton. Clinton was the one who came up with these policies and he used them. Free Speech zones are a Clinton era baby.
But Clinton did not have people wearing Dole or Bush T-shirts expelled from his rallies. This is the issue here.

[beyelzu]

You would be referring to Clinton. Clinton was the one who came up with these policies and he used them. Free Speech zones are a Clinton era baby.
But Clinton did not have people wearing Dole or Bush T-shirts expelled from his rallies. This is the issue here.
this is an interesting post, it made me think of automatically of campaigning differences between the canidates now.

Kerry gets heckled by rebid republican(fuck I love alliteration) and he deals with it, bush has them, at least temporarily, arrested.

[godfry n. glad]

Sorry, but I like giving credit where it is due. As I said, had Clinton stood against this practice instead of using it to his advantage he might have prevented Bush from getting away with it.


You seem to be insinuating that Clinton started this practice. Is that the case?

If not, who did?

If Clinton didn't start it, then can we go back one administration, to that of George I?

Or maybe one more, say, Ronnie the Robot?

Maybe it was really St. Jimmy? Or Jerry the Clueless? Or, Tricky Dick, the crook?

If what you're asserting is that Clinton is responsible for all this harrassment of protestors, put up or shut up. I'd like to see your evidence that this policy is the product of the Clinton administration.

Hey....I remember LBJ. Talk about suppressing protestors. In my day, they could dispense with arresting them; they just beat the shit out of them, or even shot them. They didn't even have to be anywhere near LBJ. I suspect this policy goes that far back.

godfry

[dave_a]

You seem to be insinuating that Clinton started this practice. Is that the case?



I don't know if he did or not, I just know he used the practice and don't know who else may or may not have before him.


If what you're asserting is that Clinton is responsible for all this harrassment of protestors, put up or shut up. I'd like to see your evidence that this policy is the product of the Clinton administration.

Well, until your post directed at me I already did shut up on the topic. However, I did not claim Clinton is responsible for the actions of GWB. My claim was that I believe Clinton used the tactic of sending certain protestors out of his sight not because they were a real security risk, but because of their views. My further claim was speculation that had Clinton not done this it may have been more difficult for Bush to do it. As it was the SS was already in the habit of getting local police to get rid of "undesirables" so the groundwork, so to speak, was already laid.

I don't like Bill Clinton much at all. Don't like GWB either. Clinton lost all respect from me over the pot issue. Under his administration pot smokers were arrested and jailed more frequently than any other administration since prohibition began. After the shmuck got out of office he stated publically he thought pot should be decriminalized. Well WTF Bill, you had 8 years to do something, why didn't you? To me that is Clinton's legacy, opportunity lost.

Had Clinton acted on what he says he believes we wouldn't and couldn't have GWB sending the DEA into Cali and elsewhere kicking down the doors of the ill who use pot as medicine. So perhaps on this protestor issue I am just projecting onto the guy, totally possible.

GWB is solely responsible for GWB, but there is more Clinton could have done and in my opinion should have done to have decreased the odds of GWB getting away with what he is. Precedents are powerful. Both setting a negative precedent as well as setting a positive one that shapes future expectations.

[godfry n. glad]

GWB is solely responsible for GWB, but there is more Clinton could have done and in my opinion should have done to have decreased the odds of GWB getting away with what he is. Precedents are powerful. Both setting a negative precedent as well as setting a positive one that shapes future expectations.

Look... I'm not a fan of either. But you've come bursting in here intimating that the suppression tactics of the current administration were begun by the Clinton administration. First, although I have few doubts that the policy was in place during the Clinton administration, I, first, don't think it was used as thoroughly or as ham-handedly as it has been during the current administration. Secondly, you seem to want to push the responsibility back to the Clinton administration...excuse me, but that's lame. I suspect the Clinton administration inherited that policy from an earlier administration, either Johnson or Reagan. That's a whole lotta years that it's been in place.

As for the Clinton claim about what he thought should be done about cannabis, well, one man does not an administration make and his opinions don't make a platform. Particularly ex post facto. And, yes, the Democratic candidates are just as beholden to the vested interests as the Republicans. BFD. Same as it ever was....

godfry