Will the "I" Word get you arrested?

[tracer]

Saying things against your government without being in fear of being arrested for it, is exactly why the 1st Amendment was created.

That didn't stop ol' John "Alien and Sedition Act" Adams.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Criticize Cheney, Go to Jail - Two Days in the Life of an Environmentalist


The American officials at our self-proclaimed bastion of freedom had to backpedal and apologize to the communist leader when he was heckled by a Falun Gong (a Chinese religious group) member who posed as a journalist. The lady dissenter was arrested for speaking her mind. In Bush and Cheney's America! So much for freedom of speech in this country.


Bush's bullies: Colorado man arrested for speaking to Vice President Cheney

In today's New York Times: Man Sues Secret Service Agent Over Arrest After Approaching Cheney and Denouncing War.

Here's what you need to know:

A Colorado man who was arrested in June on harassment charges after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney to denounce the war in Iraq filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday accusing a Secret Service agent of civil rights violations. Mr. Howards, 54, said… that he was taking his 8-year-old son to a piano lesson on June 16 at the Beaver Creek Resort about two hours west of Denver when he saw Mr. Cheney at an outdoor mall. Mr. Howards said he approached within two feet of Mr. Cheney and said in a calm voice, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or as the lawsuit itself describes the encounter, “words to that effect.” Mr. Howards said he then went on his way. About 10 minutes later, he said, he was walking back through the area when [a Secret Service agent] handcuffed him and said he would be charged with assaulting the vice president.

It turns out that this isn't the first time good honest Americans have been jacked by Bush's bullies:

The suit joins two others — in West Virginia and another in Denver — charging that Secret Service agents or White House staff members violated the law in keeping people with opposing political views away from President Bush or Mr. Cheney… In the other Colorado suit, two people said they were ejected from a taxpayer-financed appearance by Mr. Bush in Denver in March 2005 because of an antiwar bumper sticker. In the West Virginia case, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jeff and Nicole Rank, who said they were arrested on July 4, 2004, at an appearance by Mr. Bush in Charleston. The Ranks had proper tickets but were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts, the suit says.

The thing about the Colorado man is he was arrested long after he made the comment and had left to go to another area of the mall.


Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones" (9/23/2003)

Fact Sheet

WASHINGTON - In many cities across the country, the Secret Service has discriminated against protesters during Presidential and Vice Presidential appearances. Such incidents have spiked under the Bush Administration, prompting the ACLU to charge government officials with a "pattern and practice" of discrimination against those who disagree with its policies.

Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation. In some cases, the ACLU is representing the individuals or groups involved. But because these cases are too numerous to litigate individually, the ACLU has asked a federal court for a nationwide injunction barring the Secret Service from directing local police to restrict protesters' access to appearances by President Bush and other senior Administration officials.

The ACLU has also documented incidents of government crackdowns on dissent in many forms in a report, Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America, available online at /safefree/resources/17281pub20031208.html

Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President's policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone. These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the President's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer. Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.

Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.

Evansville, Indiana
On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading "Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man." When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a "protest zone" more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested. Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President's policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair's constitutional rights.

Kalamazoo, Michigan
At President Bush's appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election ("Welcome Governor Bush"). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a "protest zone" behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there. The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President's foreign policy were sent to a "protest zone" located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking. Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone. One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, "We Love You President Bush." She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

Trenton, New Jersey
On September 22, 2002, the President arrived to speak at a fundraiser for a U.S. Representative at the Sovereign Bank Arena. There were 200-300 protesters who sought to protest around issues such as the war in Iraq and prescription drug policies. They were told that they had to go to a protest zone that was set up in Parking Lot 5 of the arena, which is on the other side of a double-divided four-lane highway with barricades in the middle and high wire on both sides. Some of the protesters walked around to the front of the arena where they observed pro-Bush demonstrators standing. Protesters were told that the local police had to consult the Secret Service about the location of the protest zone.

Albuquerque, New Mexico
On April 29, 2002, the President came to a somewhat isolated hotel in town to attend a fund-raising luncheon for a local member of Congress. Protesters opposed to the policies of the President, many carrying signs opposing the anticipated war in Iraq, were sent to a "protest zone" across the street from the hotel where the President was speaking. People who supported the policies of the President were allowed to be closer to the hotel. Other people were allowed free access to the hotel.

Neville Island, Pennsylvania
On September 2, 2002, protesters were sent to a "designated free speech zone" located on a large baseball field located one-third of a mile away from where President Bush was speaking. Only people carrying signs critical of the President were required to enter and remain. Many people carrying signs supporting the President and his policies were allowed to stand alongside the motorcade route right up to where the President was speaking. But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed. The ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh represented Neel and had all charges against him dismissed. Local police testified at his trial that the security policies, including the protest zone location, were dictated by the Secret Service.

Columbia, South Carolina
On October 24, 2002, the President was scheduled to arrive at the Columbia airport. One protester, Brett Bursey, was carrying a sign opposed to the policies of the President two hundred yards from the hangar where the President's plane was to arrive. He was ordered to a protest zone over a half-mile from that location. Several hundred protesters with signs that supported the policies of the President were allowed to stand closer to the hangar. When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. In May 2003, a group of 11 Congressmen urged Attorney General Ashcroft to drop the charges, saying that the government's prosecution of Bursey was a mistake "and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending." To read the letter, go to http://www.house.gov/frank/scprotester2003.html

Houston, Texas
In September 2002, the President came to the Hyatt Regency Hotel to speak on behalf of a local Congressional representative running for the U.S. Senate. Approximately 300 people marched from city hall to a designated "protest zone" in a plaza near the hotel. The plaza was up a one-way street and could only be seen from the hotel entrance at a severe angle. The plaza was not on the President's motorcade route and could not be seen by individuals entering the hotel to attend the President's speech. Individuals not expressing a viewpoint were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Richmond, Virginia
On June 23, 2003, the Vice President came to a fundraiser at the Jefferson Hotel. The approximately 100 protesters opposing the policies of the President were required to go across Franklin Avenue from the hotel. Spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Washington, D.C.
On June 17, 2003, the President spoke at the Hilton Hotel. Protesters from the Children's Defense Fund criticizing the President's policies were picketing on the north side of T Street, adjacent to the hotel. A Secret Service agent, who showed them his badge, directed the protesters across the street. Spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

Sheehan was arrested for wearing a tee shirt with the number of our dead soldiers in Iraq when she went invited to President Bush's State of the Union Speech.

And someone has a book out listing a number of similar cases but I can't find the link yet, can't remember the name.

But this is hardly the first time. I'm in the middle of the book, The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History. It contains an incredible amount of history from the time period. The Sedition Act at the time made any criticism of the government a crime of treason. So much history I just don't recall they ever covered in school history classes. It sounded like the countries our parents always warned us about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

deleted duplicate post

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, I thought the Kenington Farmer's market was situated in a public venue. This would be no different than any street pedler seeking out crowds to increase their chance of sales. If the "people" own the property then this is clearly not "another person's property." The property belongs as much to him as it does to anyone else situated on it.

No, it doesn't. A municipality is perfectly within its bounds to regulate commerce within its jurisdiction. For example, at the Taste of Chicago restaurants must get a permit and abide by all its provisions in order to set up a booth and sell their food. You can't just walk on in and set up your booth without the proper permit. And yes, it takes place in a public park.

The only reason he didn't have a right to vend anywhere was because he did not have the requisite license or permit and I believe this was the basis for the charges lodged against him, his arrest and his liability to a five hundred dollar fine. On the other hand if the other vendors of this market, selling their tomatoes or whatever, didn't have a license either he could argue he was being singled out for prosecution if not persecution.

I am almost 100% certain the other vendors had the proper permits, municipalities are pretty persnickety of such things. What makes you think they didn't?

 

[WildCat]

skeptigirl, there is freedom of speech. There is no constitutional guarantee to say whatever you want directly to an elected official in person. When you find an example of, say, a newspaper editor arrested for criticizing Bush in his newspaper come on back. But posting examples of asshats who get arrested while trying to get in the face of politicians in no way, shape, or form supports the case that free speech is no longer a right in this country. Just as there are legitimate reasons to keep protestors a certain distance from abortion clinics, there are reasons to keep them away from politicians.

 

[WildCat]

In the City of Chicago, as Democratic as any city in the USA (49 of 50 aldermen, and the Mayor are Democrats):

Peddler

License Information


A Peddler License is required for individuals who travel along the public way selling merchandise or fruits and vegetables directly to the public. Fee: $165 - ($88 for veterans and persons age 65 or better)
Municipal Code Reference: 4-244
Inspections: Food & Dairy required for food peddlers

And they do enforce it!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

deleted duplicate post

see below

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl, there is freedom of speech. There is no constitutional guarantee to say whatever you want directly to an elected official in person. When you find an example of, say, a newspaper editor arrested for criticizing Bush in his newspaper come on back. But posting examples of asshats who get arrested while trying to get in the face of politicians in no way, shape, or form supports the case that free speech is no longer a right in this country. Just as there are legitimate reasons to keep protestors a certain distance from abortion clinics, there are reasons to keep them away from politicians.

So this guy in Colorado who walked up to Cheney who was in a public place and made an unfavorable comment to him had no right to do so? Is that what you are claiming?

Or are you claiming that after doing so, and leaving, going somewhere else in the mall, the secret service had every reason to go arrest him and make sure of what? that he wasn't going to come back with a gun or something?

Or are you just referring to the technique of controlling free speech by making sure any protests go unseen?

I suppose then you approve of trumping up a charge in order to fire the controversial tenured professor, Ward Churchill, after being unable to fire him legitimately? Free speech but only if it doesn't offend thee?

Controversial college professor vows to sue Univ. of Colorado

Re the guy with the buttons, if they used the legal technicality only because they wanted to get rid of a protester, then it isn't OK. So the question becomes how many other unlicensed street peddlers are evicted from the market on a regular day? Because it is pretty common for street peddlers to come unlicensed to public areas of such markets.

 

[marksman]

Because it is pretty common for street peddlers to come unlicensed to public areas of such markets.

Not any in my area. We had a guy who came in to sell battery operated toys. no political speeches. Heck, I don't even remember if he said anything. And he wasn't even competing with the farmers. And he was escorted out tout suite.

On the other hand, when I lived in the Village, markets were pretty much free-for-alls. Some of the vendors may have had licenses, but I tend to doubt it.

And if anybody ever gets arrested in Greenwich Village for bashing Bush, I will definitely believe that free speech rights in this country are being curtailed!

 

[marksman]

I suppose then you approve of trumping up a charge in order to fire the controversial tenured professor, Ward Churchill, after being unable to fire him legitimately?

Where's the evidence it's a trumped up charge?

The article you cited said:

"Three faculty committees had accused Churchill of plagiarism, falsification and other misconduct in portions of his research"

That seems like grounds to fire a professor to me.

As for the guy in the mall, I'd like to know what the "words to that effect are". Because if they included any sort of threat against Cheney, then it might make sense that the Secret Service secured Cheney and then went looking for the guy to hold him, run a background search and then release him.

I have a feeling the words he used are not so polite as the paraphrasing he gave the NYT. They made it a point ot say "to that effect", indicating they didn't think it was a direct quote, and the man hadn't given them the exact words.

 

[WildCat]

So this guy in Colorado who walked up to Cheney who was in a public place and made an unfavorable comment to him had no right to do so? Is that what you are claiming?

Or are you claiming that after doing so, and leaving, going somewhere else in the mall, the secret service had every reason to go arrest him and make sure of what? that he wasn't going to come back with a gun or something?

"The father of two admits he might have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder." - Source. Wasn't just speech, was it? And it is his claim that he was apprehended 10 minutes later. The charges (by the county for harrassment) were dismissed, btw.

Or are you just referring to the technique of controlling free speech by making sure any protests go unseen?

This makes no sense whatsoever. Unseen by who? Certainly not the public, since they are broadcast on television and written about in newspapers and the internet.

I suppose then you approve of trumping up a charge in order to fire the controversial tenured professor, Ward Churchill, after being unable to fire him legitimately? Free speech but only if it doesn't offend thee?

Controversial college professor vows to sue Univ. of Colorado

Complete BS on your part "skepti"girl. The plagiarism case against Ward Churchill was as solid as it gets. But I note you're willing to ignore such basic affronts to intellectual honesty and discourse if the person has views similar to your own? Or you support plagiarism regardless of the persons views? This is truly mind-boggling. As much so as if I repeatedly violated Rule 4 and was banned from here, then claimed it was because of some position I took here.

Re the guy with the buttons, if they used the legal technicality only because they wanted to get rid of a protester, then it isn't OK. So the question becomes how many other unlicensed street peddlers are evicted from the market on a regular day? Because it is pretty common for street peddlers to come unlicensed to public areas of such markets.

Then show that other unlicensed vendors commonly sell their wares at that farmer's market and are not ticketed, or admit you have absolutely no evidence for your claim and have pulled it out of thin air so as to exploit the angle you wish to pursue.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The guy wasn't arrested for selling buttons. he got citations for that, but he was arrested for refusing to leave after being told too, and being previously told that if he returned and harrased people he'd be arrested. Why do you think all his supporters were there? They went there deliberately knowing that his actions would lead to his arrest.

Alan McConnell, who had been selling his "Impeach Him" buttons at the Howard Avenue market for about a half-hour without a permit, lay down on the pavement after Montgomery County police asked him to come with them. After McConnell failed to respond to a request that he "please stand up," four officers each grabbed one of his limbs and carried him to the front seat of a squad car.

Kensington Mayor Peter Fosselman said previously that he would order McConnell's arrest if he showed up yesterday at the market.

others said their objections to McConnell's activities had nothing to do with granting him his political voice -- they simply think that he bothers customers by aggressively selling non-farmers-market products.

"They keep trying to make it about their political position, and it's not about that," said Kim Kaplan, who began selling plants at the market in June. "It's about the fact that he wants to sell his buttons and get in people's faces when he's doing it."

Three weeks ago, McConnell was issued a trespassing warning after being asked to leave the market. McConnell has said that he sold the buttons at the market for months without a license. Last week, Fosselman canceled the market because he was concerned that McConnell's "potentially aggressive" supporters might endanger the safety of customers. On Thursday, two Montgomery County police officers issued McConnell an updated trespassing warning, while a Kensington official gave him a citation for selling at the market without a permit. That ticket carries a possible $500 fine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where's the evidence it's a trumped up charge?

The article you cited said:

"Three faculty committees had accused Churchill of plagiarism, falsification and other misconduct in portions of his research"

That seems like grounds to fire a professor to me.

As for the guy in the mall, I'd like to know what the "words to that effect are". Because if they included any sort of threat against Cheney, then it might make sense that the Secret Service secured Cheney and then went looking for the guy to hold him, run a background search and then release him.

I have a feeling the words he used are not so polite as the paraphrasing he gave the NYT. They made it a point ot say "to that effect", indicating they didn't think it was a direct quote, and the man hadn't given them the exact words.

I don't think very many people believe this guy was fired for any phony charge of plagiarism. He wrote some very controversial stuff that the 911 victims were "little Eichmans".

Ward Churchill

On July 24, 2007, he was fired from his position for academic misconduct including plagiarism.[5][6] [7] Some observers infer that the investigation and these actions are in retaliation for Churchill's controversial statements about the World Trade Center attacks because it began in the midst of national media coverage of his statements.[8][9] Other observers note that Churchill was accused of “misrepresentations” and “fabrications” in scholarly journals years before he wrote his 9/11 essay [10] [11]. University of Colorado officials pointed out that while accusations against Churchill had been published as early as the 1990s, no one ever filed a complaint of research misconduct with the university until 2005. The investigating committee that found Churchill guilty of misconduct itself questioned the motives of the University in bringing charges against him in their report...

...In its report, the investigative sub-committee "expresses its concern regarding the timing and perhaps the motives for the University's decision to forward charges made in that context." The Standing Committee's final report, however, states that they could not ignore the charges against Churchill given the seriousness of their nature.

Mind you I don't think what this guy wrote was correct by any stretch. There are reasons to look at the role the US has played around the world but the people in the twin towers had nothing to do with the US government actions from previous decades.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"The father of two admits he might have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder." - Source. Wasn't just speech, was it? And it is his claim that he was apprehended 10 minutes later. The charges (by the county for harrassment) were dismissed, btw.

After he was hauled off to jail he was released without charges. Oh that makes it OK. That actually confirms he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Unseen by who? Certainly not the public, since they are broadcast on television and written about in newspapers and the internet.

So protest zones out of sight of the event being protested is going to get the same coverage as protesters closer to the event?

As far as coverage goes, there were two protest marches with ~100,000 or more in attendance which got very little coverage in the last decade that I am aware of. One was a women's rights march on WA DC that was only really covered on CSPAN. The other was the protest at the Republican Convention before the 2004 elections. Considering how big the turnout was and how often the news covers 100 people with signs yelling on a street corner, all I saw of the ~100,000 on the MSNs was when they burned some little cart in the street. Those were incredibly extreme examples of large protests getting very little coverage.

The March for women's lives got coverage, but it was very minimal considering the size of the march. Do you recall seeing much news coverage relative to Hundreds of thousands of abortion-rights advocates swarmed the National Mall yesterday in what some said might have been the largest women's rights rally in history?

And how much coverage did the 2004 Republican National Convention protest activity get? Not much considering how many people were there.

However, lack of coverage of some large protests or covering a large protest and a pitiful counter protest so it appears as if they had equal representation is not an issue with the government. It's an issue with monopoly owned broadcast media.

Complete BS on your part "skepti"girl. The plagiarism case against Ward Churchill was as solid as it gets. But I note you're willing to ignore such basic affronts to intellectual honesty and discourse if the person has views similar to your own? Or you support plagiarism regardless of the persons views? This is truly mind-boggling. As much so as if I repeatedly violated Rule 4 and was banned from here, then claimed it was because of some position I took here.

See my last psot. Not everyone agrees with you about how solid the case was. Considering no action was taken until his controversial position on 9/11 you cannot say you know for certain what went on in the board's decision process. In your world view, no one is suppressing government dissent. In my world view, I can't believe you are that gullible.

Then show that other unlicensed vendors commonly sell their wares at that farmer's market and are not ticketed, or admit you have absolutely no evidence for your claim and have pulled it out of thin air so as to exploit the angle you wish to pursue.

I have no idea about the facts in the button vendor case. I merely proposed it could be suppression of speech or simply someone not following the rules.

 

[WildCat]

After he was hauled off to jail he was released without charges. Oh that makes it OK. That actually confirms he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

And you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that this is part of some plot or trend to restrict free speech. You do know it was Cheney himself who dropped the charges, don't you?

So protest zones out of sight of the event being protested is going to get the same coverage as protesters closer to the event?

A few hundred yards is "out of sight"? Media can't travel 100 yards to cover a story? Since when can't protests be restricted to a certain area, or permits required? Happens all the time - even when it's all Democrats involved. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that any of this is part of some trrend to restrict free speech. Can you do so?

As far as coverage goes, there were two protest marches with ~100,000 or more in attendance which got very little coverage in the last decade that I am aware of. One was a women's rights march on WA DC that was only really covered on CSPAN. The other was the protest at the Republican Convention before the 2004 elections. Considering how big the turnout was and how often the news covers 100 people with signs yelling on a street corner, all I saw of the ~100,000 on the MSNs was when they burned some little cart in the street. Those were incredibly extreme examples of large protests getting very little coverage.

The March for women's lives got coverage, but it was very minimal considering the size of the march. Do you recall seeing much news coverage relative to Hundreds of thousands of abortion-rights advocates swarmed the National Mall yesterday in what some said might have been the largest women's rights rally in history?

And how much coverage did the 2004 Republican National Convention protest activity get? Not much considering how many people were there..

So what? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee media coverage for a protest?

However, lack of coverage of some large protests or covering a large protest and a pitiful counter protest so it appears as if they had equal representation is not an issue with the government. It's an issue with monopoly owned broadcast media.

Which is a small percentage of news media. You seem to get 100% of your news from leftist blogs w/ an axe to grind, so how does it affect you?

See my last psot. Not everyone agrees with you about how solid the case was. Considering no action was taken until his controversial position on 9/11 you cannot say you know for certain what went on in the board's decision process. In your world view, no one is suppressing government dissent. In my world view, I can't believe you are that gullible.

The facts speak for themselves and are overwhelming. The vote was 8-1. Frankly, the only reason it took so long was the controversey involved, anyone else would have been out on his rear long ago. IMHO, he should have been fired the minute it turned out that he lied about being an American Indian, since the job was supposed to go to one and he's as lily-white as I am.

I have no idea about the facts in the button vendor case. I merely proposed it could be suppression of speech or simply someone not following the rules.

But that didn't stop you from running around like chicken little, did it?

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think very many people believe this guy was fired for any phony charge of plagiarism. He wrote some very controversial stuff that the 911 victims were "little Eichmans".

The fact that Ward Churchill is a nut in no way invalidates the fact that he is also a plagiarist who got his job on false pretenses.

 

[Upchurch]

skeptigirl, there is freedom of speech. There is no constitutional guarantee to say whatever you want directly to an elected official in person.

Wait, what?

You're telling me that if you are somewhere and the elected official is there, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to open your mouth and say anything to him/her that you want, short of physical threats? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[BPSCG]

I don't think very many people believe this guy was fired for any phony charge of plagiarism. He wrote some very controversial stuff that the 911 victims were "little Eichmans".

The president of the University of Colorado appears to disagree with you:

University of Colorado Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill was fired this week after the university's Board of Regents approved my recommendation to dismiss him for academic fraud.

The ongoing drama now moves to state court, where Mr. Churchill has filed a lawsuit against the university alleging that it violated his First Amendment rights. Mr. Churchill drew considerable attention to himself in an essay that compared 9/11 victims to notorious Nazi Adolf Eichmann.
While no action was taken by the university with regard to his views on 9/11, many complaints surfaced at the time about his scholarship from faculty around the country. The university had an obligation to investigate. The complaints led to the formation of three separate investigative panels -- which included more than 20 of his faculty peers and which worked for over two years -- to unanimously find a pattern of serious, deliberate and repeated research misconduct that fell below minimum standards of professional integrity.

The panels found that Mr. Churchill rewrote history to fit his own theories. When confronted, he asserted he was not responsible. According to one report, "Professor Churchill has, on more than one occasion, claimed that certain acts that appear to have been his were instead the responsibility of some other actor: his editor or publisher, his assistant, or his former wife and collaborator." The report goes on to note that "we have come to see these claims as emblems of a recurrent refusal to take responsibility for errors . . . and a willingness to blame others for his troubles."

(...snip...)

And just as the public has high expectations for us, we expect our faculty members to be accountable for maintaining high standards of scholarship. A public research university such as ours requires public faith that each faculty member's professional activities and search for truth are conducted according to the academic standards on which an institution's reputation rests.

The University of Colorado's reputation was called into question in the matter of Ward Churchill. His claim that he was singled out for his free speech is a smokescreen.

Controversy -- especially self-sought controversy -- doesn't immunize a faculty member from adhering to professional standards. If you are a responsible faculty member, you don't falsify research, you don't plagiarize the work of others, you don't fabricate historical events and you don't thumb your nose at the standards of the profession. More than 20 of Mr. Churchill's faculty peers from Colorado and other universities found that he committed those acts. That's what got him fired.

 

[marksman]

Wait, what?

You're telling me that if you are somewhere and the elected official is there, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to open your mouth and say anything to him/her that you want, short of physical threats? How do you come to that conclusion?

Obviously, it depends on the context. A politician may be attending a rally on a public park, the rally having obtained the proper permits. If you disrupt the rally -- without using violence -- but shouting loudly, the police can take you away, even arrest you if you refuse to leave.

If a politician is surrounded by Secret Service agents and you rush up to them intending to you yell in his face, the Secret Service is justified in restraining you and preventing you from getting close to the politician.

You have the right to speak your mind. You don't have the right to do it in proximity to any given individual. Again, this falls under "time, place and manner" limitations.

Here, the person involved acknowledged that he got close enough to Cheney that he evaded the Secret Service and managed to physically touch the Veep. Even based on the individual's own version of the facts and not having heard the Secret Service's position, it sounds like there may have been enough there to warrant him being questioned.

I'm not saying his arrest was justified or unjustified. I don't have enough facts to make a judgment in either direction. But skeptigirl certainly hasn't, by citing this example, evidence a governmental curtailment of free speech in the country.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect a confluence of reasons for that. Would he have been fired just for the professional misconduct if he was not so controversial? Possibly. Would he have been fired if he had maintained high standards of professional conduct and been controversial? Unlikely

I kind of wonder how much his views made people look more closely at his conduct. Of course it is likely both stem from him being a self absorbed obnoxious twit.