Censorship of Anti-Bush Sentiments: First Term

2001, August 07: The White House censures a magazine for lack of censorship

GeeDubya's administration has served notice that they will not cooperate with any journalist writing for Talk magazine.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said the use of models to satirise the Bush teenagers was disrespectful. He was quoted as saying: Talk "has openly opposed and even mocked the first family's desire to keep the lives of their daughters private and have decided not only to report on it but go to great lengths to distort it."

[Uh-huh! -- Su-u-u-u-u-u-ure it has! Problem is the Bush girls have made themselves newsworthy by getting busted for under-age drinking, and that does make them public persons in a way they're being the President's daughters doesn't. See my comments and the entry for 27 Jan. In my books, this one is obviously just another case of Georgy-boy trying to hide his family's dirty linen and proof positive that GeeDubya has absolutely no sense of humor. --MN]

2001, November 04: Report of suppression of dissenting opinion

By citizens of Sacramento. During a recent visit to Sacramento by Geedubya, some thirty anti-war protesters were kept away from the street the presidential motorcade was using, while non-protesters were allowed unrestricted access. The protesters were stopped by local mounted and foot patrol officers; ostentibly due to a request made by Secret Service agents during planning meetings for the event. Both agencies are ducking responsibility for the suppression and blaming the other.

2002, September 28: Observing a protest

By Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union. She was arrested while taking photographs of protesters at the Phoenix Civic Plaza during a presidential visit. Despite having taken part in numerous demonstrations, starting back during the Viet Nam war, this is her first arrest. Ms. Eisenberg is rather angered by this incident, contending that she did nothing to provoke an arrest. The police, however, state that she had been asked several time to clear an area the Secret Service had asked be closed for security, and that she had resisted arrest.

2002, October 31: Free speech

By Bill Neel. This Butler, Pennsylvania resident was arrested in Neville Island on Labour Day during a visit there by President Bush. Mr. Neel had refused to obey police directives to step into a free speech zone which had been allocated for dissenters. District Justice Shirley Rowe Trkula dismissed the disorderly conduct charge and returned Mr. Neel's protest sign; which read, "The Bush family must surely love the poor - they've made so many of them." Judge Trkula also chastised the Allegheny County police for having gone too far in curbing protests.

[Such zones seem to be common to visits by the President and are apparently established by local police at the request of the Secret Service. This is the third case I am aware of wherein dissenting, lawful citizens were restricted to areas away from Bush while non-dissenters were allowed to approach the motorcade freely. --MN]

2002, November 01: Free speech lawsuit

By Jan Lentz, Sonja Haught, and Mauricio Rosas; two grandmothers and a gay activist. The suit was filed on their behalf by the ACLU. It alleges a wrongful arrest during a rally organized last year for President George W. Bush and Florida Governor Jeb Bush. This was on 04 Jun 2001. The three were apparently accosted by local and federal police officers at the rally for displaying dissenting opinions, and forcibly removed in handcuffs even though they were demonstrating peaceably. They had even bought tickets to get into the event. They contend that other people with pro-Bush signs were not ordered to set aside their signs as they were theirs. They also contend that the officers used unnecessary force. A few criminal charges were laid, but then dropped.

ACLU cooperating attorney W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. of Tampa wrote in the brief, "The protestors were entitled -- just like the hundreds of other people at the rally -- to lawfully exercise their free speech rights, but they were arrested in an attempt to silence them and shield the government from criticism."

[Remember what I wrote previously about "free speech zones" being established by local cops at the behest of Secret Service goons? There is no doubt in my mind that this incident is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour. --MN]

2002, December 05: Allegations of wholesale rights abuse

By Michael Maginnis. He claims that he had been arrested by Denver police and questioned by the Secret Service for photographing the hotel in which Vice-President Dick Cheney was staying. He claims that the agent interrogating him threatened him with charges under the USA PATRIOT Act, and inflicted verbal abuse by calling him a "raghead collaborator" and a "dirty pinko faggot."

He further stated that his arrest was made to disappear by the simple expedient of they're not keeping the records, and that his camera and film was essentially stolen from him.

[CAVEAT LECTOR: 2600 Magazine says they'll follow up this incident as catch as catch can, but I'm not sure how much credibility to give it at all. I mean, "dirty pinko faggot"? That rhetoric sounds too supiciously outdated and too pat to be real. And "raghead" is hate speech for middle-easterners who wear turbans; most commonly of the Sihk faith. Not to mention that the agent's reported words and attitude come across as egregiously unprofessional.

Of course, law enforcement agencies are not allowed to discriminate against political conviction, and Maginnis could have gotten a redneck bigot type. The rest of the incident sounds pretty much like what one would expect in an operation controlled by the Secret Service, given the pattern of other allegations of rights abuse contained in this chronology and reported by mainstream news outlets.

Also, a keypal of mine wrote that 2600 seems to be the sole source for this article, that it is not reproduced at any other news site or online magazine. Highly suspicious. This report should be considered untrustworthy. --MN]

2003, February 12: Anti-War poetry

By American poets. First Lady Laura Bush had organized a symposium on the poetry of illustrious artists such as Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes, and Walt Whitman. A number of the poets invited, however, wanted to exploit the occasion to protest the hostilities against Iraq; so it was cancelled. The cancellation was referred to as a postponement, but no future date was set for the event.

It was reported at Freedom Forum Online that a spokesperson for Ms. Bush had explained that the symposium was not an appropriate forum for such a protest, commenting, "While Mrs. Bush respects the right of all Americans to express their opinions, she, too, has opinions and believes it would be inappropriate to turn a literary event into a political forum." Boston Globe Online reported a White House statement as saying, "It came to the attention of the First Lady's Office that some invited guests want to turn what is intended to be a literary event into a political forum. While Mrs. Bush understands the right of all Americans to express their political views, this event was designed to celebrate poetry."

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

2003, February 13: Dissenting opinion

By Andrew J. O'Conner. This former public defender was arrested by Santa Fe police officers at 2100 hours in the St. John's College Library for the high crime of talking about George Bush in an online chat room. He was arrested at the terminal, handcuffed, taken to the police station, and detained for approximately five hours for questioning by Secret Service agents from Albuquerque. The police accused him of making threatening remarks. Mr. O'Conner says he wrote that Bush was way out of control. Mr. O'Conner also speculated that he was being observed because at one time he had been involved with a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder, Colorado. The chat room he was in allowed face-to-face chat [via streaming video, I assume], and the woman with whom he was conversing wore a button saying "No war with Iraq".

Earlier this same day, officials at the college, and at the College of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Community College, had warned students and faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of "suspicious" people on campus within the past month. Mr. O'Conner has said that he is going to sue everybody involved.

[So the FBI was monitoring all internet traffic at three major schools and had someone picked up for expressing his political opinions about Bush as a suspicious person. Sweet. And my friends wonder why I go ballistic over the mere establishing of systems where shit like this is so patently a potential of the program. --MN]

2003, February 17: Dissenting tee shirt

By Bretton Barber. This 16 year old, Dearborn High School junior, wore a tee shirt to school with a picture of George Bush Jr framed by the words International Terrorist. He was ordered to either take it off, turn it inside out, or to go home. He opted to go home. The rationale for this move offered by Dearborn Public Schools spokesman Dave Mustonen was, "It was felt that emotions are running very high. The shirt posed a potential disruption to the learning environment at the school. Our number one obligation is to make sure we have a safe learning environment for all of the students." Lindsey Hoganson, another 16-year-old junior, disagrees, however: "A lot of people are worried about the war. We talk about it at school a lot. Talking about it isn't going to disturb the learning environment, because the topic's already been brought up in school."

[Smart kid. Smarter than the twits who are supposed to be seeing to her education. The basis for this action is that approximately 55% of the 17,600 students in the district are of Arabic extraction. What was not explained in the article I saw was how many of those students are in favour of hostilities against Iraq and how many are against and what kind of tensions there might be in the school. Prima facie, it appears very much that school officials decided that because Arab-Americans outnumber caucasians, then speech about American-Arabic relations should be suppressed as unpopular opinion. The .JPG of the tee-shirt was copied from a WireTap.com article from 25 Mar 2003 and is mirrored here without permission. --MN]
(see 01 Oct 2003)

2003, March 12: George W. Bush caricature

By Allison Moore, student. As part of Concordia University's annual Art Matters Festival, Moore drew a depiction of President Bush with an enormous trouser-fly extending outward from the front of his pants in the shape of the World Trade Center towers. The annual art festival is designed to make students "pay attention to art", and this piece was certainly provocative. Moore had intended the piece to provoke an attack, and everyone expected it. This work was hanging in the mezzanine of the Henry F. Hall Building and visitors were encouraged to comment on the work by writing with felt pens on huge sheets of brown paper on the floor in front of the canvas. Comments ranged from condemnation to praise, and the University received two official complaints; one of which was filed anonymously.

On this day the work was torn down and a comment was written on the canvas itself, although the black-and-white drawing itself was not defaced. The piece was rehung until its scheduled dismantling on 15 Mar. Art Matters Festival co-producer Emily Pearlman was quoted as saying, "If the artist wants to take it down, it's up to her. It's a political statement, yes, but if the purpose of art is to make us ask questions, to think, then it is doing its job."

2003, March 19: Free speech condemned by fiat

Dixie Chick Natalie Maines had uttered a criticism of George Bush, saying, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." She said this in public the week previous to this one. Subsequent public outcry in the U.S. included groups of fans destroying Dixie Chick CDs en masse (reportedly with bulldozers), and a nation-wide boycott by Clear Channel radio stations and possibly others. On this day, a resolution was introduced in the South Carolina state legislature condemning her exercise in free speech. The resolution demanded that the Dixie Chicks toe the party line with charity performances for service members and their families. It passed by a vote of 50 - 35.

[Basically: led by Rep. Catherine Ceips, 50 of the 85 members of the South Carolina legislature shit all over the Bill of Rights and the principle of free speech. Have a nice day you bunch of hillbilly yokels. And you and your cousin don't stay out too late on prom night.

Somebody explain to me why it is in the U.S. it takes two years for a bill to become a law but human rights violations can be passed on the same day? (Yeah, yeah, . . . I know that a resolution is essentially meaningless snivelling. I don't care that it's meaningless snivelling, it's the principle of the thing and the principle behind this resolution is one of suppression.) --MN]
(see 08 May 2003; 17 Aug 2003; 02 Jun 2006; 10 Jun 2006)

2003, May 07: Free speech lawsuit

By Gerald Rudolph. He is suing the Secret Service for the right to protest in areas where he can be seen by President Bush. In his lawsuit, he alleges that the Secret Service is treating anti-Bush protesters unfairly. The suit stems from an incident in which his sign was confiscated and he was ordered out of a restricted area and relegated to a "free speech zone" approximately a half a mile from where the president was speaking in Columbia in Oct 2002. Mr. Rudolph says that Bush supporters were allowed to keep their signs and remain the supposedly restricted area. One of the problems is that the boundaries of restricted areas seem to be fluid and depend on where on any given Secret Service agent wants them to be.

Secret Service spokeswoman Jean Mitchell was quoted as commenting, "We're not prejudiced against who you're protesting for or against. We don't designate a protest area based on the message." This statement, however, seems to fly in the face of other reports about suppression of free speech by the Secret Service.
(See 08 May 2003; 06 Aug 2003)

2003, May 08: Report on Dixie Chicks censorship movement

In which the Chicks Strike Back and DJ's are punished for playing their songs.

The cover of the 02 May issue of Entertainment Weekly features the three gloriously nude and magnificiently hot Dixie Chicks exercising their free speech rights. As you can see, no mammilae, genitalia, or even pubic areas are exposed, but the girls have a number of epithets, denigrations, praises, and slogans stencilled on their bodies. Each stencil is of something the girls have been called for Ms. Maines having dared to commit high treason by criticizing George Bush Jr. This exercise in free speech is in direct response to the exercise of censorship being directed against them (and is mirrored here without permission).

Meanwhile, Dave Moore and Jeff Singer have been suspended by station KKCS for daring to break the censorship ban against Dixie Chicks songs. There had been some talk about lifting the ban and the two DJ's got impatient and jumped the gun. The punishment was levied by station manager Jerry Grant.

[I love it when people who properly understand that the answer to free speech is more free speech put that principle into action. Especially when they do it the way the Chicks have done here! Whoo-hoooo! --MN]
(see 19 Mar 2003; 17 Aug 2003; 02 Jun 2006; 10 Jun 2006)

2003, May 08: Free speech lawsuit

By Gerald Rudolph. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Perry ruled that he was unable to grant Mr. Rudolph's request for an injunction against the Secret Service because there was insufficient evidence the agency had planned to infringe his free speech rights. However, the Secret Service promised to not interfere with his protest during Bush's visit to University of South Carolina commencement on 09 Apr. They also promised to reserve an area on a sidewalk about a block away from the entrance to the arena specifically for protesters without tickets. The only limit the Secret Service set for protesters who would be allowed inside because they have tickets is that signs must not be on pickets as the sticks of wood could be used as weapons.

[In making his decision Judge Perry said, "I have only the October 2002 incident to look to. I know in the view of the plaintiff that's enough." It's certainly enough for me, but, then, I don't sit on the bench. I still say that the Secret Service is suppressing free speech and that it is a consistent pattern of behaviour, but I shall have to qualify that opinion by allowing as to how is seems to be a general trend rather than a concerted movement. Somebody needs to send a memo to all Secret Service offices to tell all agents to be more mindful of free speech rights. --MN]
(See 06 Aug 2003; 23 Sep 2003)

2003, May 12: Criticism of the king

By the Fair Taxes for All Coalition, Nebraska chapter. This group was relegated to a "free speech zone" well away from where President Bush was to enter the Airlite Plastics Co. plant in Omaha, Nebraska on a visit on this day. The group, which had contacted the Secret Service the week of 04 May, when it learned of the presidential visit, was told on 10 May that their designated rally location was at the back entrance of the plant; which is a half a mile away and out of sight of news cameras and reporters covering the event. Patrick Pannett, a leader with Nebraska chapter, was quoted as saying, "There really isn't a viable or visible opportunity for us to get our point across. It's just a blatant political move." and, "Are they going to put the pro-Bush supporters who didn't get tickets a half-mile away? I doubt it." Jack Gould, of Common Cause Nebraska, a political watchdog group, commented, "They're willing to go through security. They're not terrorists. It's more a question of freedom of speech. Any group that's responsible and willing to go through the security and background checks should be allowed to be there."

2003, May 28: Report on opposition to suppression by the Department of Justice

By eleven members of U.S. Congress. Ten democrats and one Texas republican wrote to the Attorney General urging him to stop the prosecution of Brett Bursey, who was arrested after refusing to comply with directives by Secret Service agents to retire to a free speech zone at Columbia Metropolitan Airport on 24 Oct 2002. The area, apparently designated specifically for protesters, was a half a mile from where the speech was delivered. Although local charges against Bursey were dropped, federal authorities are still pursuing the case under a statute that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas during a presidential visit.

[Except if they are going to restrict access to a given area, they have to restrict access for everyone, not restrict only those who dissent and allow those who support. --MN]

2003, July 17: Report of being investigated by the FBI for reading in public

By Marc Schultz. A freelance writer with Creative Loafing, an independent newspaper, he was interviewed by two FBI agents over an incident where he had been reading an editorial on politics. The piece in question was Hal Crowther's Weapons of Mass Stupidity from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa and sister paper to Creative Loafing, which is based in Atlanta. Mr. Schultz wrote in his piece about the interview that one agent said to him, "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."

Weapons of Mass Stupidity is a political polemic as much as an anti-biased-media polemic. It is a most acerbic assessment of Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News network, as well as staff members Bill O'Reilly and Nick Cavuto. The piece mixes the two in that it derides Fox News for a blatant pro-Bush administration bias in its reporting and editorial stance, but it is also very highly critical of the posturing by George Bush jr. and his administration.

2003, August 06: Free Speech lawsuit

By Joe Redner, Adam Elend, and Jeff Marks. They are suing the Secret Service, the local Sheriff's office, the University of Southern Florida, and Sun Dome Inc., the company which operates the public university's arena. The three had been arrested by Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies in Nov 2002 at a campaign rally for Gov. Jeb Bush, because they would not move into the Secret Service designated free-speech zone. The rally which was held at the University of South Florida, was specifically to protest such zones. This zone was about a half a mile away from the event being picketed. As is usual with such incidents, supporters of the president, and in this case of the governor as well, were allowed free access to the limits of security.

2003, August 17: A brief analysis of the Dixie Chicks's free speech movement

By Ken Paulson. This opinion/editorial on how the Chicks fought back against censorship is at the First Amendment Center web site. It is a brief examination of how the answer to free speech is more free speech.
(see 19 Mar 2003; 08 May 2003; 02 Jun 2006; 10 Jun 2006)

2003, September 23: Free Speech lawsuit

By the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four advocacy organizations. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania, asking the federal courts to prevent the U.S. Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close. Witold J. Walczak, legal director for the ACLU's Greater Pittsburgh chapter, commented, "The pattern we found was at presidential and vice presidential appearances, protesters were restricted to areas where they were out of sight, out of earshot and often out of mind. Protecting our nation's leaders from harm is important. Protecting our nation's leaders from dissent is unconstitutional." The four advocacy groups are:

• National Organization for Women;
• United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war group;
• ACORN, an advocacy organization for low- and moderate-income families; and
• USAction, a group that supports universal health care and better public education and which opposes the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts.

[Secret Service spokesman John Gill was quoted as saying, "The Secret Service does not comment on pending litigation. However, we have a long-standing policy of recognizing the constitutionally protected right of the public to demonstrate and voice their views to their elected officials." Given the consistent pattern of behaviour of the Secret Service toward protesters and dissidents, I consider that statement to be utter bullshit. --MN]

2003, October 01: Report on disposition of free speech case

By Bretton Barber. On 29 Sep, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan ruled that Mr. Barber had a right to wear a tee shirt to school with a political message on it. Judge Duggan wrote in his ruling, "There is no evidence that the T-shirt created any disturbance or disruption," and, "The record does not reveal any basis for (the assistant principal's) fear aside from his belief that the T-shirt conveyed an unpopular political message."

[In this case the message was unilaterally deemed to be unpopular by a reactionary without any indication that it actually was unpopular. The ruling does, however, support those opinions which actually are unpopular by weight of numbers. --MN]
(see 17 Feb 2003)

2003, October 03: Report of U.S. censorship of Al Jazeera

It was reported at ArabNews.com in an article on 03 Oct, and in a follow up article on 04 Oct, that the Unites States had employed an egregious use of political force to get two cartoons pulled from the news service's web sites. John R. Bradley, a Managing Editor, wrote of the incident:

The two cartoons were pulled "without any hesitation" from both the Arabic and English language websites after a US government official complained about them, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. One cartoon was of so-called "green card soldiers", young Latino men shown going through an immigration tunnel to emerge from the other side as US soldiers ready to leave for military service in Iraq. The other was of the Twin Towers imploding, and two giant fuel pumps rising to replace them from the ashes. Neither cartoon is now available in Al-Jazeera websites' cartoon archive.

"The journalists on the Arabic language website didn't give a damn," the source said, "but those on the English site were furious. However, their complaints were dismissed."

The revelation that Al-Jazeera was so easily cowed by US pressure over the "offensive" cartoons will be seen by many to undermine its combative and independent image.

According to the article of 04 Oct, the Bush administration had effected the censorship of Al Jazeera by threatening economic and political sanctions:

If Al-Jazeera failed to reconsider its news content, the e-mail reported the committee as having concluded, the US would in turn have to reconsider its relations with Qatar. Suggestions made, the Al-Jazeera journalist wrote, included transferring its largest military Gulf base to another Gulf state, minimizing its civilian presence, canceling the 50-year-old defense treaty between the US and Qatar, and withdrawing most other US support for the tiny Gulf state.

[So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave. You can see the cartoons, in animated .GIF format at The Memory Hole web site. --MN]

2004, January 06: Political activism outside Secret Service Speech Free zones

By Brett Bursey. On this day U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant ruled that Mr. Bursey had been protesting peacefully and was not engaged in any "wantonly criminal" act, but also defended the government's view of the importance of restricted areas for the president's safety. He found Mr. Bursey guilty of trespass under an obsure and seldom invoked 1971 law and fined him five hundred dollars, but also ruled that Mr. Bursey would not have to pay pending his appeal. The conviction was based on Mr. Bursey's inability to provide evidence in support of his contention that the Secret Service had discriminated against dissidents by relegating them to a Free Speech Zone a half a mile away from the president.

You can see the article at the First Amendment Center, or see the article at The State.com of South Carolina. There are too many details in this case to include them all here.

[For my money Bursey sells himself short when he says activists like Madison and Jefferson were far braver than he is. I'd rank him right up there with them. --MN]

2004, May 07: Free Us G W

By Frank Van den Bosch. This resident of Montfort, Wisconsin was subjected to three censorial actions while engaging in a peaceful protest during a presidential motorcade. According to the motion asking that the citation be dismissed, Mr. Van den Bosch was standing along a street in Platteville on this day, with his sign, waiting for Bush's motorcade to pass. Police told him he could not display the sign, so he changed it to read, "Free Us G W", adding "End the Occupation" on the back. A few minutes after that another police officer came over and ordered him to surrender the sign. Instead, he rolled the sign up and moved to the back of the crowd. As Bush went by he unrolled the sign and held it up, For that, the police handcuffed him and took him to the police station, where he was photographed, fingerprinted, cited $243 for disorderly conduct, and then released.

Van den Bosch had written the letters "R E E" and "S" in tiny print, and according to Platteville Police Lt. Tom Schmid, a business owner along the street had complained about the sign. The officers also thought children might see it. Mr. Van den Bosch, a member of the social issues group Southwest Peace Fellowship, commented about his arrest, "It's just a creeping theocratic fascism that's moving into the land here, where dissent is unpatriotic."

[Schmid is quoted as saying, "We had to take some action. If we were wrong, then the citation will be voided and taken care of that way. That's the way the system is supposed to work." No, dumbass, that is not how the system is supposed to work. The assumption is of innocence, not of guilt. The way the systmem works is: when in doubt, do not arrest. And even if a child was to see the sign, how many of them would know that F U G W stood for, "Fuck You, George W. [Bush]"? And even if they did, there are court rulings to the effect that "Fuck (this)" is protected speech. This is a clear and present free speech rights violation. --MN]
(see 26 Aug 2004)

2004, May 07: Dissenters denied entrance to Bush event in Dubuque

By -- nobody's really sure, since the principals involved are ducking responsibility. President George Bush was in Dubuque to speak at the convention center on this day, at what was billed as a public event, but only self-proclaimed Bush supporters could get in. Security personnel at the entrance, apparently members of the Dubuque County Republican Party, asked people about their political leanings and turned away those who did not support the President. In an article published on 20 May, following up the story broken by the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Matthew Rothschild, of the Progressive, (and reprinted at Common Dreams News Center) reported the following personal anecdotes by a few of those who were turned away.

• Bill Ward, member of the 45th Infantry Division during World War II: "When I got up there, they asked to see my license and so forth, and I showed it to them. And then this young guy asked, 'Are you a Bush backer?'

  "And I said, 'No, I didn't vote for him the first time, and I'm not going to vote for him this time.'

  "And he said, 'Get out.'

  "I said, 'I don't have to take this crap. I'm a World War II vet.'

  "He said, 'Escort him out.'

  "I said, 'I don't need an escort. I can find my way out.' (Ward proceeded right down to the offices of the Telegraph Herald. "I was teed off," he says.)

• Nick Lucy, Vietnam veteran and past commander of the American Legion in Dubuque; "I blow taps two or three times a week for veterans.":

  "One of my Republican friends, a prominent businessman, gave me two tickets," he recalls. "I promised to go because I've seen almost every President since Johnson."

  But once he got to the checkpoint, the security staff said, "You're name is not on the list," he says.

  Lucy explained who had given him the tickets, and he suggested that the security staff call up his Republican friend then and there.

  "I don't care who you want me to call," one of the security people said, according to Lucy.

  When Lucy tried to take the man's picture, "he put his notebook in front of his face," Lucy says. And then the man told the police to get him out of there, Lucy recalls.

• Jan Oswald and three other members of Women in Black were also denied entrance, even though they had proper tickets:

  "I went the morning they were giving out tickets," she says. "It was a two-and-a-half-hour wait in the Dubuque Building, which is downtown."

  The screening process was obvious, she recalls. "Everyone was being asked whether they supported the President, or were they registered Republicans, or would they put up a sign in their yard or a sticker in their car," she says. But for some reason, when she got to the front of the line, the woman handing out tickets let her buy four of them without any questions asked, except for the names and phone numbers of all four women, Oswald says.

  On May 7, since she had a ticket, she expected to get into the event. "We walked up to the check people, and we had our drivers' licenses out and the tickets, so they looked up our names and they said we were on the list to get in. But then a gentleman said, 'You do not look like the kind of people who are here for the right reasons,'" she recalls.

  "I responded, 'You know, I'm an American. I've got a ticket that matches. I have identification, and I want to see the President.'

  "The man said, 'This is a private affair. You are not welcome.' At that point, he ripped up our tickets."

• Matt Trewartha, student of political science at Northeast Iowa Community College:

  He stood in line for an hour and a half on May 3 to get a ticket for himself and three friends. While there, he acknowledged to another person in line that he was not a Republican or a Bush supporter but nor was he a Kerry supporter. When he got to the front, he was told he would not be able to get a ticket because of the comment he made about not supporting Bush, he says.

  "I'm a nineteen-year-old political science major, and I thought it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the President in my hometown," he says he told the ticket people.

  But to no avail.

  Trewartha then asked what he was supposed to do about the three tickets he was trying to buy for his friends.

  "Well, as long as they're Bush supporters they can come on down and get their own tickets," the man told him, according to Trewartha.

  Trewartha's professor of American history, Ralph Scharnau, upon hearing of his troubles, decided to give him one of his own tickets.

  "The day before the event, I went back to the same office and explained the situation and asked whether I could transfer the names on the tickets," Trewartha says. "And they said it was absolutely no problem. But then someone came out and said, 'Sir, you look familiar. You were here Monday. And you couldn't get a ticket then, and you can't get one now.' I said, 'Can I at least have my ticket back so I can give it back to my professor?' And she said no."

• Arthur Roche, coordinator of Dubuque Peace and Justice:

  He also waited in line for two hours to get his ticket. Unlike Trewartha, he got a ticket.

  But he did not gain entry into the event.

  "As I was approaching the gate, a guy said, 'You need to have your ID and your ticket out,' so I did that, and the woman asked to see them, so I gave them both to her," Roche explains. "She raised her eyebrows when she saw my name, and she said, 'Just a moment please,' and walked about twenty feet away to confer with three men. She and one or two of those guys came back over to me and said, 'Sir, you're not invited. You'll have to leave.' She handed me my driver's license and my ticket back, and then one of the guys grabbed the ticket out of my hand, tore it in half, and threw it in the garbage."

  Roche says he tried to retrieve it, but the man said, "You can't have that. That's our property. You'll need to leave now."

The Chairman of the Dubuque County Republican Party, Steve Bateman said the screening policy was not his idea, and is quoted, "I wasn't in charge of President Bush coming to Dubuque. The Bush campaign ran the event." The Bush campaign did not return phone calls for comment.

[And you were just following orders in perpetrating this wholesale civil liberties violation, so you consider yourself blameless, right? Ever hear of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials? --MN]
(see 07 Aug 2004)

2004, July 14: Report that a vague and overbroad restriction is struck down

By McLennan County Court-at-Law Judge Tom Ragland. On 09 Jul he dismissed all charges against five anti-war activists who were arrested and convicted of protesting in violation of a city ordinance in Crawford (Texas, locale of the Bush Jr. ranch) in 2003. He ruled that the ordinance was "overly broad on its face and in the manner in which it was implemented and enforced by the City of Crawford and therefore contravenes the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America." The five defendants, Tricia Major, Michael Mashicek, Amara Malizewski, Ken Zarifis and Amanda Jack, were on their way from Austin to President Bush's ranch in May 2003 to protest the war in Iraq when they were arrested and put in jail overnight. They had not even been demonstrating at the time of the arrests, but were stopped by a police blockade and some had gotten out of their cars to try to negotiate with the officers.

2004, July 15: Anti-Bush T-shirts

By Jeff and Nicole Rank. This couple had worn tee shirts with the slogan Love America, Hate Bush to the President's Fourth of July speech in Charleston. Because it was billed as an official Presidential appearance and not a campaign stop, the White House tried to keep people from bringing political paraphernalia into the event; White House spokesman Taylor Gross explained, "As a general rule, when the White House does an official event for the president, we don't allow any political signage in. That's either for or against." People managed to slip campaign buttons and political t-shirts into the event anyway; the Ranks wore shirts over their anti-Bush T-shirts when they went through the Secret Service's security check. The police did let some people who brought political items stay for the speech, including two children who wore anti-Bush shirts to the speech. Others, however, were asked by White House officials to cover up or leave, including six people sporting items supporting the president's re-election bid, Gross said. The Ranks were approached by an event staff member who told them to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts or leave. When they refused, the staff called the police and they were handcuffed, escorted out of the event, and ticketed for trespassing.

After court opened for business at 7:30 a.m. on this day, assistant City Attorney Dolores Martin dismissed the charges against the Ranks because city code does not cover trespassing on Statehouse grounds.

[Core political speech is not allowed at political events. . . . How's that again? Boy, I'd like to know how long that policy has been place. --MN]

2004, August 07: Mixed signals about loyalty oaths

By the party faithful. Both George Bush and John Kerry pledged they will not require "loyalty oaths" from those wishing to attend future appearances in West Virginia. Some residents of New Mexico were refused tickets to hear the Vice President speak at an event near Albuquerque, during the last week of Jul, unless they signed an oath that they "endorse George W. Bush for re-election". Whereas there will be no such pledges in W.Va., New Mexico GOP officials reportedly said they plan to require signed loyalty pledges at future Bush-Cheney campaign events, and apparently stated that they are meant to curb demonstrations by anti-Bush activists; in short: the purpose of the oaths is to specifically violate free speech provisions. Despite Bush's pledge, Republican National Committee spokesman Yier Shi said on 05 Aug, "If we feel our event will get disrupted again, we will use the same method to make sure it's a positive event."
(see 07 May 2004)

2004, August 26: Free Us G W

By Frank Van den Bosch. Andrea Baker said that city of Platteville, Wisconsin, will pay $12,086.45 through its insurer to settle the federal free-speech violation claim filed on behalf of Frank Van den Bosch. The stipulation that led to the dismissal is a release of all claims of liability. The charge of disorderly conduct, with its attendant fine of 243 dollars had already been dismissed. Police Chief Earl Hernandez said his officers were responding to a complaint and had no choice but to issue the citation: "The way our ordinance was written, and it has since changed, a complaint from one person is enough for us to respond, and we had about six complaints." The law had not allowed for any latitude. That ordinance has since been rewritten to allow responding officers a degree of discretion.
(see 07 May 2004)

2004, August 29: Students banned from just listening to Bush

By the Secret Service. Once again the Secret Service summarily barred private citizens who had already gotten tickets from attending a campaign event. This is the third such incident in West Virginia alone. Students Jeff Rogers and Jessica Williams, both of Wheeling, got tickets for this rally from a friend, but when they got to the ticket table a Secret Service agent said he believed Rogers worked for Kerry's advance team, which Rogers denies, although he had interned with the Ohio County Democratic Party. Ms. Williams was undecided. The two thought they would compare Bush's speech with what they'd heard from Kerry on his July 31 visit to the city. Mr. Rogers is quoted, "I was just there to listen ... and get a perspective of what he thinks about the issues. Neither one of us was going to cause any disturbance. We were just going to respectfully listen, and afterward, process through what we agreed with and disagreed with." He is further quoted, "They said, 'We're not going to let you in. Nice try, though.'"

A separate incident along the same lines ended differently, however. John Prather was briefly ejected from the rally but then allowed to return. The source article wrote of the incident thusly:

Prather was removed from a Bush rally in Cambridge, Ohio, on July 31 and came to the Wheeling event to find out whether he had been blacklisted. He stood quietly in line with no campaign memorabilia, wearing a T-shirt with the phrase, "D is for Democracy." But once inside, a campaign volunteer found him.

"He asked whether I was a Bush supporter. I said no, and he said, 'This is a Bush rally. We don't want other people here'" The volunteer then took his ticket. Outside, the volunteer asked a Secret Service agent where to send protesters.

The Secret Service person asked me, 'Are you leaving of your own accord?'" "I said, no, and he said, 'Escort him back in.'"

This incident was attributed to an overzealous volunteer.

2004, September 04: Report on King George -- off with his head bumper sticker as a threat

By Derek Kjar. He was visited by the Secret Service after neighbors complained about an anti-Bush sticker on his car. The decal, which Kjar printed from a web source, had a cartoonish depiction of Bush's head wearing a crown, with the words, "King George -- off with his head." Special agent Lon Garner, who is in charge of the Service's Denver field office, confirmed the investigation, and said agents had ruled out a threat to the president. He said it was the agency's job to investigate all reported threats to figures under Secret Service protection -- including Democratic candidate John Kerry, and is quoted, "We are bound by law. We take them very seriously, regardless of who the protectee is."

[Having been a security agent for nine years I can fully agree with and support law enforcement attitudes towards taking all threats seriously. What I take exception with is that these neighbours who essentially turned in a false alarm do not seem to have been chastised for abuse of due process. To be fair: at bottom, one would have to apply the reasonable person standard in any trial against someone making baseless accusations about anti-Bush proponents. On the flip side, trying some knee-jerk reactionary for making such accusations would have the same chilling effect on those who would be honest whistleblowers that violating press confidentiality would have. This sort of thing, however, is a perfect example of why the TIPS program would never have worked. Too many people would have exploited it to turn in dissenters. I predict that if Bush is re-elected, there will be an increase in such incidents. It's a safe bet, because, 1: there will certainly be more anti-Bush protest; 2: some Bush supporters will be emboldened by a sense of security. --MN]

2004, September 14: Anti-Bush tee shirts

By Jeff and Nicole Rank. This couple filed a federal lawsuit alleging their First Amendment rights were violated at the 04 Jul event from which they were removed in handcuffs. Nicole Rank's shirt had the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and Jeff Rank's had "Regime change starts at home" on the back. Their lawsuit was filed in federal court in Charleston by the American Civil Liberties Union, and names as defendants: Gregory Jenkins, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance, and W. Ralph Basham, director of the U.S. Secret Service. The couple is asking that any policy that led to their arrest be declared unconstitutional, and are seeking unspecified monetary damages for emotional harm. Spokesmen for the Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Justice refused to comment, both saying their agencies did not comment on ongoing litigation.

The Charleston City Council and Mayor Danny Jones have publicly apologized to the Ranks. Mayor Jones has said the police officers who arrested the Ranks were told to do so by Secret Service agents. A spokesman for the Secret Service, Charles Bopp, had previously said the agency did not direct the arrests. The event was not a campaign event, but an official visit.
(see 15 Jul 2004)

2004, October 18: Trial for an exercise of free speech

By the Smoketown Six. In Jul, when President Bush was in Pennsylvania, enroute to Lancaster County, six men stripped down to thong underwear and formed a human pyramid on the motorcade route to protest the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. They were arrested by the police and on 09 Jul were charged for disorderly conduct. The men said they were trying to shame the president by re-creating an image of naked prisoners who had been forced to assume a similar position by U.S. soldiers in Abu Ghraib. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $300 fine [apiece?]. Paula Knudsen, the ACLU attorney who will defend them, commented, "The First Amendment protects many types of speech. What the defendants did in this case was clearly protected by the First Amendment, even though some people found it offensive."

[It is not entirely clear from the source article from what that charge stems exactly. It seems that particular charge might have been laid because some people might have been offended by the thongs, which would cover only the pubis in front, but leave the cheeks of the buttocks fully exposed. While leaving little to the imagination, the strategic areas would still have been covered. --MN]

[Addendum (30 Oct 2004:) An article by Dan Eggen of The Washington Post, and which was reprinted at Truthout.org, reported that charges against the Smoketown Six had simply been dropped. Lancaster County's Republican district attorney dropped the charges, declaring that their "symbolic conduct" was protected by the First Amendment. The article looks at the tactic of arresting protesters and then never bringing them to trial. Christopher Hansen, an ACLU lawyer who tracks arrests and removals, is quoted, "Every president wants to suppress speech at one point or another. That said, the incidents seem to be more numerous this time around." It also illustrted some of the ducking responsibility that goes on over incidents such as those chronicled here.

A spokesman said that the Secret Service strives to stay out of any confrontations or disputes that do not involve a security threat and that the agency is often wrongly identified as being involved in arrests.

"As long as there's no security threat, the responsibility for removing someone from the site is the responsibility of the site's sponsor," said spokesman Tom Mazur.

At the very least, local agencies would take their cue for enforcement from the Secret Service and react accordingly, and the Secret Service will always err on the side of protecting the President. --MN]

2004, November 16: Report on a talent show protest song as terrorist threat

By the "Tali-banned". During the week of 07-13 Nov, at Boulder High School (Colorado), an impromptu band of students and one teacher was rehearsing Bob Dylan's Vietnam-era protest song "Masters of War" for a talent show scheduled for 12 Nov. An unidentified student misheard the song lyrics and claimed that the group had modified the lyrics to: "George Bush, I hope that you die/And your death will come soon." She told her mother, who phoned it in to a radio-talk show, and that brought the Secret Service down on the group.

The group changed its name from "Tali-banned" to "Coalition of the Willing" under the urging of the faculty, but it was reported on this day that the Secret Service investigation was continuing even though it was clear that the "threat" was simply misunderstood lyrics and the talent show was over and done with on the previous Friday evening.