The Village Square

"I hope you can see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law as the rabid segregationist would do. This would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly (not hatefully as the white mothers did in New Orleans when they were seen on television screaming, ‘nigger, nigger, nigger’), and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Letter From Birmingham City Jail; April 16, 1963.

Earlier this week, I took part in a couple of threads where the issue of the republicans disrupting "town hall" meetings was being discussed. On those threads, several DUers, including myself, advocated having the police arrest the people who were attending those meetings with the specific goal of disrupting them. A few people responding by questioning if this would was not advocating the limiting of the disrupters’ Amendment 1 rights to free speech, and to assemble to express their views to their elected representatives?

During the years that I have participated on this forum, I have always tried not only to advocate that US citizens understand Amendment 1, but also exercise it as often as possible. Indeed, those protected rights found within it are, in essence, the muscles of democracy. And it is not a coincidence that one of the most powerful symbols of democracy is the "public square," found in the villages and towns throughout the northeast, where citizens gathered in our nation’s past, to debate the most important issues of the day.

Because, to borrow a phrase from Erich Fromm, freedom does not equal license, those freedoms protected by Amendment 1 are not absolute. For example, I would not have a legal defense were I caught robbing a bank, to cite "freedom of religion" as protecting such a literal "eye-for-an-eye" interpretation of justice. As King noted, anarchy would be the result of such nonsense. And even Rev. King found that the law is more restrictive in regard to public assembly, than to free speech (I’ve mentioned the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Walker v. Birmingham in other DU essays).

In theory, though unfortunately not always in practice, the laws regarding limitations on public assemblies are supposed to encourage public order, while allowing for opportunity to express public discussion and even strong disagreement on any given issue. The current example of the anti-health care protesters’ tactics does not fall under protected behavior, for very obvious reasons: first, they are not engaging in peaceful assembly – they are instead seeking to intimidate others’ ability to exercise that right; and second, they are engaging in behaviors that meet the definition of "disorderly conduct" and possibly other, related offenses. Thus, I believe that they should be charged with violating the law.

This brings us to another extremely important issue, relating to some DUers questions on if taking this stance also includes accepting that anti-war protesters, such as the members of the group Code Pink, should also face arrest? I believe that my views are consistent. Our nation has a long history of citizens openly violating the law, being arrested, and accepting the consequences. One of my favorites is Henry David Thoreau, who was jailed for his failure to pay taxes, due to his objections to the Mexican-American War and slavery.

Thoreau influenced many people, ranging from Gandhi to B.F. Skinner to William O. Douglas. And, of course, Martin Luther King, Jr. The example of accepting the consequences of breaking the law, in order to use a courtroom to express one’s beliefs about what King called "unjust laws," has also been found in the experiences of Daniel and Philip Berrigan and friends, and more recently, by the St. Patrick’s Four.

There is no evidence that the anti-health care "activists" are intent upon following in the footsteps of these people. They are not looking to expand the rights of others, but rather, to deny the community the right to a civil discussion/debate of an important issue. It is wrong to allow them to continue to disrupt, intimidate, and threaten others, without legal consequence.

Thank you for reading this.

Your friend,
H2O Man

One that says our excrement does not stink, because we are the Jets. On the other hand, even if the Sharks were to attempt to make an apple pie, it would be fouler than the foulest excrement.

Back in the bad old days many DUers were calling for 'taking it to the streets'. We were supposed to disrupt traffic and shut society down in order to stop the Iraq war or protest the RNC. Oh, remember what an outrage it was here when protestors were arrested in the Twin Cities. It was fascism. Total fascism.

I myself was even an instigator. Ann Coulter was scheduled to give a talk at KU and I posted on DU that we should heckle her, and I fully intended to do so. I also found it interesting at the time that if you googled 'hfojvt' the first result was my post suggesting that Coulter be heckled. I wondered if that meant some people were reading it or linking to it. Coulter was, in fact, heckled at KU, and she lost her cool. Unfortunately, I was not one of the hecklers, since I had recently gotten out of the hospital (nothing major just a tube down my throat so I could swallow my pride again) and didn't feel up to spending money on a rental car or making the trip two or three days later.

I would not have expected to be arrested. Maybe escorted out of the building, but arrested? FReepers, on the other hand, would probably love to see me arrested for something like that, and DU would use that as evidence that they are all a bunch of fascists.

Back in the day, it was considered ridiculous to call somebody a traitor or terrorist who strongly opposed Bush and his policies even if they suggested 'bird-dogging' their Representatives, something I learned about (and objected to) on DU. Now some seem to love to hurl the TnT (Traitors N' Terrorists) at Republicans.

I may not like what they choose to protest, nor how they choose to protest, but I insist on their right TO protest as a parallel of my own rights. They should be escorted out of the building, but not arrested. I think they will lose support with their tactics, but gain sympathy if they are arrested.

of thoughtful responses.

They painted the protestors in a positive light, and gave the protestors the high ground of being able to complain about the other side "calling us a bunch of nuts". I sorta wonder where that happened. Was it ever reported on the news where somebody called them a bunch of nuts?

it's yelling "riot" in a crowded theater.

:grr:

I want suggestions because I will gladly participate.

of the public meetings, I suggest calling local authorities to be sure that there will be police attending, and keeping things civil.

In terms of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a few related issues at home, I think that the time for peaceful protests -- including a willingness to accept any and all legal consequences -- is upon us.

I thought about a march on Washington against Republican inspired hatred, but it actually sounds silly. Maybe a people before profit march would be better but I know violent obsessed people are getting bolder as the political opposition stays weak and people sit at home. I haven't felt comfortable for too long of a period now.

health care reform plan, ceding that we must have at least a robust public option, would be extremely helpful within the next couple of weeks. The main purpose of the disruptions seems to be to create the impression that the majority of Americans are against reform. A massive rally *for* reform could powerfully disprove that nonsense, along with letting it be known that we have not given up single payer for dead.

without being answered. I couldn't agree more.

What form that answer takes is probably more about the leadership and presence of mind of those who respond to them in the moment than anything else. I'm not a big fan of bringing armed police officers into a situation like this.

supposed to be at events such as this .... they are certainly aware of the on-going situation. I think that they are in the best position to handle illegal behaviors.

Reading a situation like this is important. As soon as normal people confront the disrupters on their behavior, things will escalate. Maybe not in every situation, but definitely in some. Better to have the thugs taken out in handcuffs, than on stretchers.

And, in order to respond to your OP, I had to do a gut check and ask myself if I thought calling in the police would make the situation better.

Especially since our local people have been tapped for federal intelligence gathering in those "fusion" programs, I can't answer that question easily any more.

My local police, the ones that work this beat, I'd trust with just about anything. But I have also lived in other parts of this city with precincts under different leadership styles and I wouldn't call on those forces even if my murderer gave me one phone call.

So, I'm not as sanguine as you are that bringing in the police will improve the situation although I do hope that you are right and I am not.

:)

if people on the progressive left/liberal democratic side behaved like the republican thugs are, they would have been arrested at the first meeting. The police would have known exactly what was planned, and been waiting. I'm simply looking for equal protection under the law, though like yourself, I question if it's likely to happen .... and why it hasn't already.

we have equal, committed leadership who can speak for us.


Nobody said it would be easy.
-- Leslie Marmon Silko

where the folks are clearly out of line and inciting riots?

If it was Dems doing it...they would have already clubbed us and put us in prison.

How can this be? Why are their "riot control police" only for Dems and Other Protesters ...yet not for Republican Operative Protesters.

Surely our Democrats know the difference and there's a NEW Justice Dept out there who would be sending down guidelines to local police to handle these situation.

In the Bush Years ..Protestors were cordoned behind "Free Speech Impounds" (Usually a hard iron fence that corralled you in far away from any Bushie Event.)

So what's the new Dem Protocol for Protesters? Why are these Disrupters ...the "Radical Fringe Right" allowed to take over these meetings? :shrug:

I agree re: the police. The right to free speech does not extend to disrupting public meetings. At that point, other people's rights are being trampled. Intimidation and disruption is not debate.

They are cowardly pups. And they are not looking to exercise their rights; they are intent upon denying other folks their rights.

Reading your post got me to wondering, "Why aren't these thugs being arrested?" If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't Democrats be arrested -- and worse?