Sign carrying has always been a part of peaceful protest and free speech in our country, and dissenting viewpoints have always been welcome - if not debated - in our democracy. Without protest or dissent, there might never be change. As The Impolitic says:
The way I see it, the purpose of civil dissent is to peacefully disrupt the status quo.
This law could reach beyond official political events too, as Hy Dudgeon at Michigan Liberal points out.
Remember Duncan DeBruin, the man who was ejected from Ford Field for holding up a "Fire Millen" sign at a Lions game?
DeBruin better not think of a repeat performance at Super Bowl XL, especially if President Bush decides to attend the game--like his father did the last time they played the Super Bowl in Michigan. He might wind up doing time in federal prison.
Dudgeon also points out that "there have been about 20 NSSEs since 1998. They included the 2000 and 2004 national party conventions, presidential inaugurations, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and Super Bowl XXXVII in New Orleans." And don’t forget about the three teachers in Medford, Oregon, who were thrown out of a Bush rally for wearing T-shirts reading "Protect Our Civil Liberties" because a Bush campaign worker deemed the shirts "obscene."
Sen. Feingold has already spoken out against this reauthorization act. He said he will do everything he can to stop it, including a filibuster, because the act does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms. We all need to step up and help Feingold. As Hy Dudgeon points out:
Floor debate on the Patriot Act starts today. Please contact our senators and ask them to join Senator Feingold's effort to stop this legislation. Congress can't afford to hand any more power to the executive branch. Especially one headed by a president as arrogant as George W. Bush.
2 comments:
Exile, darn, I think I got that little bug you had when I visited your blog over the weekend! I am feeling very under the weather.
Anyway, I don't know what happened to the comment I left here last night, but let me try again. I read the material you sent me and all the comments at The Impolitic and your comment here. However, I still tend to side with Libby and Hy. I think Section 602 is more of an effort to control the message than protect from terrorism.
I agree that unlawful entry and weapons should be illegal, but how does a sign fit in this scenario? If you're sitting at the Super Bowl legally, after getting searched upon entry for weapons, and you see Bush is there in a suite and suddenly decide to write "Bush Is a Moron" across your shirt with a magic marker, how can that be construed as a terroristic act?
I find it especially troubling that this section can affect public venues like the Super Bowl or public areas like streets outside of convention halls. The political parties use the airwaves to generate advertising that smears and slimes people, but normal citizens can't carry a homemade sign? Once again, the people with the power get what they want and the little guy gets screwed.
Sorry, like Libby, I grew up through the Vietnam era, so my perspective is different from yours, but I do think our democracy will be hurt if this is allowed to happen. It's a slippery slope. The day will come when you can't even drive past the White House with a derogatory bumper sticker on your car.
Anyway, I'm willing to let you try to convince me. You're the attorney and I'm not, so I'm sure our perspectives differ on the matter because of that - and our ages. ;-)
Peace!
Exile, some tea and a couple Tylenol have been soothing.
I wanted to mention this point you made: That is, the sign was only entered into the scenario because Ben Masel said so. Mr. Masel, from my reading yesterday, has been the primary proponent of this.
What about Feingold? He's threatening to filibuster. Are his objections based on other points? I couldn't find anything definite about his objections.
Also, you pointed out that there would be situations when a person's actions wouldn't be deemed terroristic. So, basically, a judge would make the final determination, right? And any citizens charged with a crime under this Act had better hope he/she gets a timely trial - more timely than Padilla, etc. This one act of free speech could result in years in jail and hefty legal fees.
Geez, the whole thing is vague. Maybe that's what the government wants to accomplish. Make it vague enough to scare people into submission.
Do you like the Act the way its written? Do you support it 100%?
Post a Comment