Free-Speech-Free Zones
On July 4, 2004, President George W. Bush was in Charleston, W.Va., to help celebrate Independence Day. In the audience were two dissenters from some of his policies. On the front of their T-shirts, Jeff and Nicole Rank had the word “Bush” crossed out. On the back of Nicole’s T-shirt was “Love America, Hate Bush.”
White House advance-team staff members ordered the young couple to remove or cover their shirts or leave the event. Since they were on public property and were not being disruptive, the Ranks refused, pointing out that they were within their First Amendment rights of free speech.
Then there was a disruption. The advance team instructed the local police to arrest the Ranks for trespassing and to forcibly remove them in handcuffs. They were jailed briefly, and criminal charges were filed against them.
“We couldn’t believe what was happening to us,” said American citizen Nicole Rank. “We tried to tell them we had a right to express our opinions in a peaceful way, but they wouldn’t listen to us.”
They wouldn’t listen because they were obeying the Presidential Advance Manual that details the ways in which protesters at presidential appearances must be “deterred” and, if possible, kept out of the sight of the president and the press.
I am able to tell you about the Presidential Advance Manual because the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the Ranks and the First Amendment. In the course of this legal action, the White House’s instructions on how to safeguard the president of the United States from peaceful protest - even on the Fourth of July - were obtained.
The president, I know, reads history, including American history, and I suggest he also read carefully the Presidential Advance Manual, from the Office of Presidential Advice, released in October 2002 and still in effect. I believe he will be embarrassed by it, and I hope he takes appropriate action.
Because of the ACLU lawsuit, appropriate action in accord with the Bill of Rights has been taken. Last month, the U.S. government settled the lawsuit, paying the Ranks $80,000 plus mediation costs, but admits no wrongdoing. Criminal charges against them have been dismissed, and the temporary suspension of Nicole Rank from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where she works, was lifted.
In this case - there are others pending around the country about the First Amendment’s having been clubbed by the Presidential Advance Manual - the First Amendment is no longer imperiled in Charleston, W.Va.
There is a welcome addition to this partial redemption of the First Amendment, from which all our liberties flow, that merits further attention.
On July 19, 2004, the City Council of Charleston unanimously passed a commendable, patriotic resolution apologizing to Jeff and Nicole Rank. In what civics classes are left in the nation’s public school system, I suggest this resolution be obtained and discussed. It begins:
“Whereas, the founders of this nation declared that principles of law, enumerated in a Constitution and its Amendments, would govern them and those who followed, as opposed to the arbitrary will and rules of the King of England (as detailed in the Declaration of Independence) …
“That first Independence Day 228 years ago preserved the right of every citizen to express himself or herself peacefully (in a non-obscene manner) … regardless of whether that expression is popular, or unpopular … a view of the majority or the minority…
“Knowing what we know now, with the advantage of having information that was not available to the (Charleston) officers when they acted … Nicole and Jeff Rank should not have been arrested …
“If Nicole and Jeff Rank did nothing more than wear T-shirts which expressed their personal views and political opinions, and if that was the real reason that event officials (following the Presidential Advance Manual) directed our officers to arrest them, then Nicole and Jeff Rank deserve an apology … and the City does hereby apologize to Nicole and Jeff Rank.”
As of this writing, there has been no apology from President George W. Bush.
Mr. President, there should be.
As Samuel Adams, a principal igniter of the American Revolution, said, “Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”
Nat Hentoff is a syndicated columnist.
© 2007 The Daily Camera
LOL…An apology from Bush? Surely you jest. God speaks to him, or did you forget?
Despite this small victory for freedom, authoritarianism is on the march since Bush gained office.
…and even way, way before. Only now, authoritarianism is accelerating. Can we stop it? Do we want to?
Yeah! Charleston, West Virginia, my home town!! I’m living in Santa Fe, New Mexico now but, I still stay in touch with Charleston. It’s good to see that they still have people there who know their constitution and are willing to jam it down the throats of anyone who dares to question their rights which are protected by it.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology from our National Idiot. He speaks only to God and God speaks often to him. Like hell!!
Ray
“Documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather extensive information about peaceful organizations.”
“Recently disclosed FBI files show that in Seattle in recent years, federal agents and local police looked for signs of civil disobedience among activists preparing to protest Navy ships arriving for Seafair… One key Pentagon database was piloted here, the Joint Protection Enterprise Network”
“Yesterday we reported that the FBI has been secretly flying a high-tech spy plane to monitor residents of the city of Bloomington and neighboring communities in Indiana.”
“Early last week, NBC reported the existence of a secret Department of Defense (DOD) database related to “potential terrorist threats.” One example of identified “threats” is a group in Lake Worth, Florida that included five Quakers and a 79-year old grandmother who met at their local Quaker meeting house to discuss how to protest military recruiting at an area high school. Other examples of “threatening” events in the database included handing out literature in front of military recruiting stations and commemorating the second anniversary of the Iraq War.”
Scary when you see but a small sample mashed up, ain’t it?
Can you truly believe that George W. Bush has ever been embarressed by something? Please.
Was the Sheriff of Charleston given a severe spanking for not upholding his sworn duty?
The law is supposed to begin in the County; not with some preppie advance man protecting an out of touch psychotic monkey from the truth.
the $80,000 settlement should have come out of Bushie’s personal pocket, not have the taxpayers pay for it,
We have had the Cold War, the War on Drugs in perpetuity, the War on Terrorism, the War in Eyeraq, this is just the secret War on the Presdent’s Protesters . We just have to have a war to keep things moving. The FBI shone in its “battle” against crime in the Hoover days, now its the law abiding citizens turn to be under the eye of the FBI, fairs fair. Don’t worry its the last gasp of an impotent “ruler” even one ordained by God. It must be terrificly hard work for the administration to do things that don’t make him look stupid and demean the country because quite the contrary every act does just that effortlessly. I think they get their cues from Alice in Wonderland or George Orwell’s political novels.
Good to see the Ranks obtain some justice.
“Then there was a disruption. The advance team instructed the local police to arrest the Ranks for trespassing and to forcibly remove them in handcuffs. They were jailed briefly, and criminal charges were filed against them.”
Everyone is criticizing Bush and his administration. Okay, I’ve done so too, and they deserve it. BUT…. what about the police? Why didn’t they reply to the advance team that they didn’t have the right to arrest these people simply by wearing T-shirts with their political opinions on them? Since when are the Police not supposed to know better?
Now we read about this student in Florida who was tasered by police after they were instructed by event organizers to haul him off. Again, they should have refused. Why can’t they be trusted by the public to have the courage to say, ‘That exceeds our authority. We only have the right to arrest or detain someone who has committed a crime. His questions (or their T-shirst) do not consitute a crime. We’re sorry.”
It’s that easy. Why can’t they be trusted to do that?
aquietman____You wonder what is wrong with the police in many different episodes in this country, the last being the tasered student. Is it not possible, that after hearing our president and his cohorts tell the world that any action, including torture, is fully justified, that the police are beginning to catch the Bush sickness and feel more violence is ligitimate?
I believe this is another way the decider is ruining everything he is even remotely involved in.
Hentoff, why do you call him “Mr. President”? The election was stolen in both 2000 and 2004.
must be annoying that a US citizen can have their rights taken away unlawfully and when actually resolved it’s the US taxpayers paying the penalties not those infringing on the rights of the ordinary people, in fact were there any penalties imposed on the individuals involved? Did they learn anything? apart from knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab? What mechanism is their to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
The lawsuit may have been won, but Victory is still a long long ways off.
So many of these cases involve either the FBI or the SS instructing state or municipal police to kidnap civilians. But I know that numerous cities, if not states have passed resolutions against the Iraq War or the Patriot Act and many public libraries have a policy of refusing to comply with Patriot Act requests, so I know not all state and local governments are on Bush’s side.
Why can’t we demand of our cities and states that they not allow police officers to comply with certain demands of the FBI and the SS, particularly those that involve kidnapping to prevent free speech?
Why does GWB need to be shielded from the sight or sound of dissenting views? Will he act unpresidential in public?
The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
The ten steps
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (usually a real enemy, not an invented one).
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens’ groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_A_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot
And who will tell the people that free speech is a ruse:The Corparations run the country and then they make the news. Is it media or mind control,heroic victories or crime? Who will tell the people that we are living in these times?
The weird thing about this is that Nat Hentoff honestly seems to believe the Bush is capable of embarrassment or even an apology! Is this a rhetorical device to politely and indirectly point out the giant holes in Bush’s character and worldview? If not it’s naivete to the point of willful ignorance, not a good trait in journalist and “reknowned First Amendment expert”.
America is no longer a nation under the rule of law but a nation under of the rule of a unitary executive who listens only to the voice of God.
I agree that the Ranks had every right to exercise their First Amendment freedoms. However, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court case Schenck v United States established the “clear and present danger test,” which allows for the suspension of free speech in cases that the exercise of such freedom would cause an actual, obvious, and imminent threat.
Of course I believe, like every other American should, that the Ranks were well within their rights to wear the shirts as long as there was no disruption. Nat Hentoff mentioned that there was, in fact, a disruption. A disruption could have easily turned into a harmful situation for the Ranks, other people attending the event, and even the president. In such a case, inhibiting Mr. and Mrs. Rank’s right to free speech was, in fact, legal and necessary.
The charges of trespassing, however, were a bit ridiculous, and, further, misplaced. Therefore, if this information is accurate and the disruption was, in fact, dangerous, the Ranks should have been detained, but not under the charges of trespassing.
I’ve read the small part of the Presidential Advance Manual that was not redacted, and, for the most part, it seems to be a show for the president than anyone else. Logically, the people least likely to harm the president are people who support his policies, and the people most likely to harm the president are people who oppose his polices. The Manual outlines how the president and the media are to be surrounded by his followers, largely for moral support and a little bit of extra protection. Granted, the need for such a manual disturbs me, but there is reason for it to exist.
Finally, why should President Bush be expected to apologize to the Ranks? He did not order their arrest, he did not prosecute them. Is there some sort of new etiquette rule of which I have not been informed that requires a person not in any way directly responsible for consequences brought upon another by decisions made entirely by the offended party? Expectation of such an apology is ridiculous.
Like an onion (or an ogre with a pseudo-Irish accent), this story has layers. When we focus on due process and the growth of authoritarianism in public life, we inadvertantly support the myth of democracy in the US. This country has, from the very start, been a nation espousing egalitarian rhetoric while being run by a plutocracy. The government itself is merely a public relations exercise. The entities hiding behind the all-purpose “American interests” label make all the important policy decisions, not actors on the stage like Bush and Darth Cheney. You can also forget about the loyal opposition, as the Democrats are bought and sold by the very same interests.
Here’s the real equation. The Sherman Anti-Trust legislation changed nothing–the power & influence of the corpocracy is greater now than at any time in history. Never have so many been so thoroughly controlled by so few. The proof of this is not in some “conspiracy theory” but in the simple economics of the distribution of wealth. Behind the free market fundamentalism which has become the official language of public discourse and policy, there are some Naked Facts which tell a very different story.
The reason the Owners have always relied upon the slogans of egalitarianism instead of taking off the gloves like the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century is because a softer tyranny works better: a man has to realize he’s not free before he can begin to think about gaining his freedom. I will agree that it now appears that the gloves might be coming off, but we’ve all known, on the most basic level, that money is power and that everything else is a pack of lies that only serves to keep the public uninquisitive, apathetic and, most importantly, docile.