Category Archives: Law: Free Speech

A note from Joel Sipress, whom I mentioned in Land of the Free (except near Bush).

Dear Professor Froomkin,

I came across your blog while doing a google search looking for coverage of the Duluth, Minnesota anti-Bush protests. I saw the entry/discussion of the fact that my mug shot was circulated by Secret Service at the Bush rally in Duluth. Thought you might be interested in hearing some more details. The most likely explanation of how I ended up on the Secret Service list is that I was identified in our local newspaper a few days before Bush's visit as the organizer of an anti-Bush protest (as was Joel Kilgour, another one of the three people whose mug shots were circulated). The protest that I helped organize was held about six blocks from Bush's event with the knowledge and approval of our local police force (who, by the way, went to considerable lengths to make sure that local people could gather and speak freely during Bush's visit). Apparently, organizing a legal event at which citizens gather and speak their minds is now enough to get one labelled a security risk. Pretty serious stuff, at least as I see it. (Our rally, by the way, drew about 1500 people, with several hundred more doing sidewalk protests around town.) Feel free to use this information as you see fit.

Best Wishes,

Joel Sipress
Duluth, Minnesota

Incidentally, this is part of a trend. Seems that even wearing the wrong t-shirt can cause the SS to bar you from a rally to which you have a valid ticket (spotted via Dan). Or even get you taken away in handcuffs. Oh, and then you lose your federal government job (FEMA) too.

Note: the Secret Service's official line is that they’d “do the same thing at a Kerry rally.” Has this in fact ever happened at a Kerry rally?

Via my brother's White House Briefing comes a dead-pan rendition of this very very disturbing story:

John Myers writes in the local paper, the Duluth News Tribune: “The president entered the DECC Arena just before 6 p.m., nearly 10 minutes ahead of schedule, to darkened lights, blaring music and a giant W-shaped spotlight that moved across the crowd.

“As the president entered the Arena, screams erupted among his raucous supporters who had waited in line for tickets, waited in line to clear security, then waited still longer for the president's arrival.”

Chris Hamilton of the Duluth paper adds: “It was a tightly controlled event staffed by dozens of volunteers with laminated badges. The Secret Service set up metal detectors and had mug shots of local anti-Bush activists Joel Kilgour and Joel Sipress.”

But it's Michael Larson they should have been watching for.

As Myers reports: “Bush's speech was interrupted for a few seconds when a protester, Michael Larson of Duluth, stood up in an aisle and yelled, 'Shame on you.' Bush stopped speaking only briefly and didn't acknowledge Larson, who was wearing a white T-shirt with fake blood painted on it. Larson was immediately ushered out by police and Secret Service. He was ticketed and released by police.”

Wait a minute.

The Secret Service blocks dissidents from attending a public meeting based on the content of their speech?!? That's vile.

Heckling gets you forcibly ejected by cops? And ticketed? (This only rates one “?” as I can imagine how this might be 'creating a public nuisance' or something, but given that it's unlikley that an enraptured pro-Bush interruption would cause an arrest, I still think there's an issue here.)

What's taking so long for that ACLU lawsuit about so-called free speech zones anyway? The complaint in ACORN v. Philadelphia was filed last September. Is nothing going to happen before the election?

Jurist reports

Government watchdog group Project on Government Oversight (POG0) filed suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft Wednesday over the reclassification of documents relating to a whistleblower's claims of security lapses in the FBI's translator program. POGO argues that reclassifying documents that were previously in the public domain is illegal and unconstitutional. During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Ashcroft took responsibility for the decision to classify the documents, citing US national interests. AP has the full story. POGO provides background on the retroactive classification.

I had thought the question of classifying public domain information was settled long ago in the 'classified at birth' debate, when the government climbed down from its assertion that some scientific discoveries with military implications (e.g. strong cryptography or strong decryption methods) could be classified even if derived entirely from non-classified sources by persons unaffiliated with the government.

The seemingly technical question of the government's ability to classify public information is in fact very important. If Ashcroft were to get his way, the government would have the ability to shut down debate on a set of public policy issues by waving a classified stamp. That would take us another (not-so-little?) step in the direction of authoritarian government.