Let's review. This important document is pretty clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So I really don't understand this legal 'logic:'
Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and this week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush’s.
“They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive,” said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.
"Disruption," when peaceable, is a Constitutionally protected right. "Free Speech Zones" are patently unconstitutional, and ejecting two people from a public speech by Bush is even more so. Frame, frame, frame. Even people who "disagree" with Bush have a right to listen to him, speak publically that they don't agree, and assemble in places where he is going to be.
We've really fallen down on this issue. This case seems minor, but truly, if we can't hold the line on the First Amendment, why are we bothering at all? As TChris says:
Young and Weise were removed from the audience in a public event because of their political viewpoint. Their antiwar bumpersticker may have telegraphed a difference of opinion with the president, but differing opinions are not in themselves disruptive. They are, in fact, the foundation of democratic government. The president and his followers may want to control the message, but they have no right to control the thoughts of everyone else.
If dissenters can be kicked out of the president's audience, can dissenters be kicked out of the president's country for fear that they might become disruptive? Alberto Gonzales should look into it after he's done rehearsing his lies testimony.
We already know the authoritarians would answer that last with a "yes."
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Free Speech
exists solely at the pleasure of the President.
But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!
But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!
About those front page comix at WaPo
which you mentioned in another post, I was puzzled because I didn't get to WaPo until later in the morning than usual.
Just read it. Now I see what you mean:
Since of course if Dear Leader asked for it, that makes it a "not-improper" reason!
D'uh. I am so dense. I am ashamed that it has taken me so long to absorb the teachings of Correct Thought. We must all do all we can at all times to increase the Pleasure of the President via our Correct Thoughts.
...wanders off in oddly zombilike fashion seeking another dose of the koolade, which giveth clear understanding and Correct Thought.
Seek truth from fax, Xan
The RNC blastfax, that is.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The Privatization of America, part MCCLXXIII
To the Bushies, who either do not understand or do not acknowledge that there are differences between public space and private space, kicking two people out of an appearance by the Maximum Leader should be no different from kicking them out of a shopping mall. It's easy if you believe that there is no such thing as society, or worse, that society is only constructed to serve a Leadership Class that rules by Divine Right.
If dissenters can be kicked out of the president’s audience, can dissenters be kicked out of the president’s country for fear that they might become disruptive?
Don't we already have that? Doesn't the PATRIOT Act have provisions for stripping the citizenship of any American who they believe may be associated with terrorist organizations? (I don't know, I didn't read the whole thing - but hell, nobody who voted for it did either...)
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us