[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [SRRTAC-L:12484] Free Speech

[Al Kagan]

>From: "Katia Roberto" <kroberto at uga.edu>
>To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l at ala.org>
>Subject: [SRRTAC-L:12484] Forwarding for Jason Morris
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:36:07 -0500
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>Reply-To: srrtac-l at ala.org
>Sender: owner-srrtac-l at ala.org
>X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0
>	tests=BAYES_20,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
>	version=2.54
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.54 (1.174.2.17-2003-05-11-exp)
>
>  > Received: from mail2.vcu.edu (mail2.vcu.edu [128.172.1.135])
>>  by ala1.ala.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i05Jkk718854
>>  for <srrtac-l at ala.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:46:47 -0600 (CST)
>>  Received: from vcu.edu ([128.172.144.182])
>>  by mail2.vcu.edu (8.12.0/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i05JLi02302262
>>  for <srrtac-l at ala.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:21:44 -0500
>>  Message-ID: <3FF9B948.6080001 at vcu.edu>
>>  Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:21:44 -0500
>>  From: Jason Morris <jamorris at vcu.edu>
>>  User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3)
>Gecko/20030312
>>  X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>  MIME-Version: 1.0
>>  To: srrtac-l at ala.org
>>  Subject: Free Speech & "Free Speech Zones"
>>  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>  X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
>information
>>  X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>>
>>  * Quarantining dissent
>>  How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech *
>>
>>
>>  When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret
>Service
>>  visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up
>>  "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush
>>  policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined.
>These
>>  zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential
>sight
>>  and outside the view of media covering the event.
>>
>>  When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old
>>  retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign
>>  proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made
>so
>>  many of us."
>>
>>  The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a
>"designated
>>  free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link
>fence a
>>  third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
>>
>>  The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs,
>but
>>  folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's
>path.
>>  Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for
>>  disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.
>>
>>  Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is
>a
>>  free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who
>>  criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."
>>
>>  At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the
>>  Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there
>>  making a statement pretty much against the president and his views"
>in a
>>  so-called free- speech area.
>>
>>  Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police
>>  Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a
>site
>>  survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd
>like
>>  to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "
>>
>>  Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the
>disorderly
>>  conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America.
>>  Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the
>>  death your right to say it'?"
>>
>>  Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A
>>  recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at
>Legends
>>  Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were
>grandmothers --
>>  were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside
>the
>>  designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when
>Bush
>>  came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned
>off
>>  into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the
>Dome."
>>
>>  One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a
>sign,
>>  "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged
>with
>>  trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."
>>
>>  Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the
>St.
>>  Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people
>carrying
>>  signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively
>>  quarantined.
>>
>>  Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern
>>  Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In
>addition,
>>  the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not
>allow
>>  any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the
>>  protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."
>>
>>  When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine
>Mains
>>  and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small
>protest
>>  area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her
>>  crying daughter away in separate squad cars.
>>
>>  The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was
>arrested
>>  for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia,
>S.C.
>>  Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a
>>  "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey
>was
>>  standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the
>president.
>>  Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."
>>
>>  Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the
>police
>>  officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir,
>it's
>>  the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that
>he
>>  had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak.
>>  Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept
>>  moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."
>>
>>  Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge
>was
>>  dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for
>>  trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the
>>  person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in,
>>  charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law
>regarding
>>  "entering a restricted area around the president of the United
>States."
>>
>>  If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a
>$5,000
>>  fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request
>for a
>>  jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense.
>Some
>>  observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a
>>  conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used
>>  against protesters nationwide.
>>
>>  Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the
>>  Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official
>>  policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The
>Bush
>>  administration sought to block all access to the documents, but
>Marchant
>>  ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.
>>
>>  Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and
>>  presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts
>>  declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the
>>  decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate
>refused,
>>  however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel
>>  testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the
>"free-speech
>>  zone" but refused to cooperate.
>>
>>  The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying
>protesters.
>>  Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio,
>>  "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their
>support
>>  or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the
>motorcade
>>  route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these
>>  places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free
>speech,
>>  but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the
>end of
>>  the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their
>  > constitutional rights shredded.
>>
>>  The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the
>Secret
>>  Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing
>>  protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
>Michigan,
>>  New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold
>Walczak
>>  said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't
>>  pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."
>>
>>  The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is
>>  ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough
>to
>>  carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them
>much
>>  closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying
>signs
>>  -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because
>>  potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that
>>  terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average
>federal
>>  bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.
>>
>>  The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing
>for
>>  two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech,
>>  resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in
>free
>>  countries.
>>
>>  When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald
>columnist
>>  Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will
>adopt a
>>  new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George
>Bush
>>  and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to
>speak
>>  as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."
>>
>>  Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal
>Parliament
>>  building and prohibited from using any public address system in the
>area.
>>
>>  For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that
>British
>>  police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city
>and
>>  impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to
>foil
>>  disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to
>Britain's
>>  Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush
>>  administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from
>>  protesters' messages.
>>
>>  Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying
>>  himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at
>>  Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom"
>and
>>  declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom
>>  brings."
>>
>>  Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of
>the
>>  Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police
>>  departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential
>>  terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security
>>  Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on
>>  anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S.
>>  government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of
>>  Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected
>terrorists.
>>
>>  Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during
>>  demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.
>>
>>  One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest
>>  occurred when local police and the federally funded California
>>  Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at
>peaceful
>>  protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring
>a
>>  number of people.
>>
>>  When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van
>>  Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information
>>  Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a
>link
>>  that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause
>>  that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might
>have
>>  terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest
>against
>>  that is a terrorist act."
>>
>  > Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've
>heard
>>  terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic
>>  impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic
>  > impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."
>>
>>  Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush
>>  administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of
>>  nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local
>>  police from spying on those groups who may oppose government
>policies.
>>
>>  On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI
>>  surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One
>FBI
>>  internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews
>>  with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it
>will
>>  enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further
>service to
>>  get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every
>mailbox."
>>
>>  The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of
>the
>>  FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be
>prevented
>>  because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate
>>  commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate
>report.
>>
>>  On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting
>surveillance
>>  of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by
>>  extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal
>law
>>  enforcement official.
>>
>>  Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the
>>  past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual
>who
>>  falls into official disfavor.
>>
>>  /James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling
>Freedom,
>>  Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is
>adapted
>>  from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American
>Conservative./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu