Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Signs of Dissent

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

Edward R. Murrow

As the nation eagerly watches to see what techniques are employed at the Republican National Convention to keep protestors out of sight if not out of mind, we are reminded that Mr. Bush’s fondness for smiley faces has been a hallmark of his administration. The only difference between then and now is that whereas until recently the suppression of frowning faces at presidential appearances was effected by removing them from where Mr. Bush might see them, today they are being encouraged to stay at home.

A protester, especially one with a sign, detracts from the president’s message that Bush is in the White House and all is right with the world. Examples abound of the great care taken to protect the president from signs of dissent.

On Labor day in 2002 Mr. Bush visited Pittsburgh. One of the people hoping to convey a message by sign to Mr. Bush was Bill Neel, a retired steel worker. He was carrying a sign that said: “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” He hoped to be on the street down which Mr. Bush would travel. The police wouldn’t hear of it. They wanted Mr. Neel to retreat to an area one-third of a mile from the speech site where his sign would not upset anyone since everyone there would be carrying signs similar to his. He refused to join holders of like minded signs and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

At Mr. Neel’s trial a police detective testified that prior to the president’s appearance, the Secret Service told police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a free-speech area. Another officer testified 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.'”

The judge threw out the charges against Mr. Neel saying: “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’?”

When Mr. Bush was speaking at the University of South Florida Sundome in 2003, a man holding up a sign saying: “War is good business. Invest your sons” was arrested because he refused to be cordoned off in an area far from where the president spoke. He was charged with “obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.” In a visit to St. Louis in January 2003 protesters were cordoned off in an area so secure that the police wouldn’t let the media in to interview the protesters and wouldn’t let the protesters out to talk to the media.

Although the foregoing suggest a Bush fondness for the presence of only fawning admirers, he is, it turns out, also worried about the welfare of the protestors.

In an interview on National Public Radio, a Secret Service agent explained: “These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non support 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.” The administration has now discovered an even better way to keep protesters safe.

For the last few weeks FBI officers have been spending their time visiting people they believe may want to protest at either the Democratic or Republican conventions. Sarah Bardwell lives in Denver and is an intern with an antiwar group. She and her house mates were visited by the FBI. The visitors wanted to know what her plans were for demonstrating. When she said she didn’t want to talk to them they told her that that was non-cooperation and they would have to use more intrusive measures to get the information they were seeking.

Three men in Missouri were tailed for days by federal investigators and then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury to discuss their plans. One of their plans was to change their mind about going to either convention as protesters. They decided to stay home. That greatly reduces the chance that they’ll get hurt. The only thing that gets hurt if they stay home is their right to speak freely about what they believe. Mr. Bush would say that’s a fair trade off. If he’s reelected we’ll all learn to agree.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. His column appears weekly in the Daily Camera. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]