Hey, there! Log in / Register
President of Brazil trumps First Amendment
By adamg on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 7:32am
In advance of a visit by the Brazilian president today, the Secret Service no less ordered Occupy MBTA evicted from the State House steps last night. State Police provided some trucks so the protesters could move their stuff; they'll be allowed back today after the departure of Dilma Rousseff, her eyes protected from the sight of Americans clinging to the quaint idea they have a right to peacefully assemble.
AmberPaw reports from the scene.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Let us wax Brazilian
I am a stickler for my and our Constitutional rights, but the right of the people to peaceably assemble has limits. You may not assemble in my front room at your whim, for example. The Secret Service is charged with not letting elected officials get killed, and they take that job pretty seriously. They thought that the crowd was a potential hazard so they broomed them off. When President Rouseff is gone, they can come back. I don't necessarily like it but I know why the Secret Service has to do it.
In unrelated news, the next
In unrelated news, the next round of elections have been cancelled, as they've been deemed a public safety concern.
.
^ typical uhub commenter jumping to the most extreme conclusions
Yeah, that's a good alternative
My dear Anon, without entities like the Secret Service, there would be no elections at all, just an endless procession of assassinations much like the Klingon Empire's government.
I prefer
The Trisolian form of government.
I like the Secret Service
I've worked with them over the years when an entourage is too big for govt vehicles. They are pretty much hardworking Americans that have a job where they have to step in front of bullets and bombs. Like any job, you have the occasional asshole, but it's not the norm. I've never seen a SSA act rude or unprofessional to a civilian and they don't kick people out of public places unless they have to.
Then again, some moron who read 1984 too many times in high school and keeps "Brazil" on their cloud account might not agree...
What do you do for a living?
OccupyBoston/MBTA has no complaints against Brazil
and therefore there is no reason for the Secret Service to perceive them as any sort of threat to Brazil's president. The Secret Service should not be protecting foreign dignitaries from seeing free speech.
All due respect, Ron
The SS doesn't kick people out of public spaces because they have a problem with their message. The less people around the less chance of something happening to their principle.
Once they are gone, they could care less how many people are in front of the State House.
I agree- didn't know that was part of their job
They should have enough work to do protecting U.S. presidents, current, former, and potential. And, of course, investigating counterfeiters (not sure why they do that either).
Also agree that it wasn't because there was anything more dangerous than an "aesthetic threat".
And I love all the "I like the Constitution but not when people use it to say things that get on my nerves a little." Face it, you guys just don't like the Constitution all that much. It's okay to admit that you might like to excise, or at least trim, the Bill of Rights.
stickler? I do not think that word means what you think it means
- Lanny Budd
- First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
So
You are arguing that the freedom to assemble has no limits?
Peaceable assembly, yes
If people are assembled to petition without weapons and are not using incendiary or assaultive speech, then yes - the constitution says the federal government cannot abridge their right to do so. Last time I checked the Secret Service was part of the US executive branch.
Sure this right can be inconvenient for those in power, and sure, in the indulgent paranoia of post-9/11 America our rights have been chipped away and abused, but that doesn't make this sort of repression valid.
The Founding Fathers knew well about mobs and protests. They weren't ignorant about the kind of shit that could go down when the public's anger at the abuse of government power got out of control (cf Boston Massacre). That's why they explicitly put the right to peaceful assembly in the Bill of Rights - so that the government could not use the fact that humans are innately dangerous creatures to stamp down and repress the citizens who have greivances against them.
Is there any evidence - one iota - that the Occupy MBTA crowd poses an existential threat to visiting dignitaries? That they even care about some wonk from Brazil?
No, this was a pretty transparent example of the government doing the easy-instead-of-right thing and pre-emptively restraining Americans so it's not embarrassed in front of guests.
There were no snipers during the founding fathers time.
Snipers and political assinations have basically changed the landscape of public assembly for security reasons.
The occupy movement is no threat to a Latin American leader, but if someone did want to harm the president, blending in with a group like occupy and coming out firing isnt all that hard.
They were called Minutemen
Why do you think the British got so pissed off and started committing atrocities in Menotomy?
They were getting picked off by ... snipers!
That was battle, true, but guerrilla warfare wasn't invented by the Viet Kong.
Right but.
Political assassinations have become more prevelant in the 20th century, and the methods to prevent them have come a long way as well.
But what would happen if a court ruled that the secret service had no right to move people from the steps? The would simply find another place to meet out of the public eye.
More prevalent?
Not so sure about that - the methods changed, however. Instead of lots of poisonings that may or may not be detected as such, we now have high caliber firearms with high accuracy at long range, allowing an assassin to (in theory) escape.
Handguns too.
Handguns from assassins in crowds have been deadly in the last century or too. Revolutionary/ anarchist thought has also made the practice more common.
I guess knowing where people are going to be, and the ability to get there faster makes it easier to plan attacks.
Well snipers don't work from inside crowds
And I'm pretty sure that 18th century Americans knew how deadly firearms could be, having just fought a war where about one out of every twenty inhabitants of the colonies was killed by a gun, bomb or bayonet. And not just rifles - handguns were used all the time to kill people 200 years ago. Aaron Burr ring a bell? First President of the Senate, killed a rival in a pistol duel? Oh yeah, that rival was Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury! He fired a gun that day too. In fact, this sort of thing was so prevalent (and lethal) that it was explicitly illegal. Yes, 18th century handgun laws!
But I guess that was a duel, not a political assasination... Oh wait, the first recorded assasination with a handgun took place in 1570! (the Earl of Moray)
But leaders in the 18th century didn't have to worry about terrorists, right? Uh oh...Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the English Parliment with a bomb nearly two centuries before the Constitution was penned!
The idea that the Founders were living in a safer less violent era, with no easily carried deadly ranged weapons, and no contemporary or historical appreciation of the threat of assasination - is complete and utter nonsense.
They undoubtably understood the potential hazard of the assembled crowd. They just had a greater appreciation for the ever-nascent tyranny of the ruling class, and the long-term and corrosive danger of repression.
Relax Jeff F.
999/1000 judges are going to rule that removing people from the Statehouse steps are within the rights of the government. You can share your sarcasm with that one judge who might agree with you.
Of course Emma Goldman and the like would also agree with you.
The fact is that security for world leaders has changed basically every decade over the past 100 years. Do you notice any difference between the security of past assassinated people and our current world leaders?
pulling numbers out yer yoink
999/1000? Cite?
You mistake my sarcasm for disdain at sloppy reasoning.
Tell me, if you believe that the rate of assasination has increased over the last decades (and I'm dubious about this), does that mean that abbrogation of constitutional rights is justified to counter this trend? Or if you discover that the rate has decreased, will you claim that interfering with the right to peaceful assembly has been effective, and should therefor be continued?
I've mentioned before that I can respect the individuals working for the security and military state, without believing they get it right 100% of the time. The increasing willingness of agents of the government to ghettoize protesters in the name of security is counter-productive to the long term health of our democracy. It increases people's cynicism and it enables those radical/reactionary outliers who would seek to turn those frustrations to more confrontational ends.
Let's be honest Pete. Brazilian President Roussef was around huge crowds during her trip. She was at Harvard, she was at MIT, and everywhere she went, there were all sorts of people - and all sorts of opportunities for mischief. The reason the government moved the MBTA protest not just from the steps (arguably legitimate for immediate access and safety reasons) but even from the sidewalk across the street (which is what really made me sit up and yell foul), is that Brazil is a big trading partner (both for the US and specifically for MA) and they didn't want her to see any embarrasing protesters. Vanity and mercenary desire outweighed ethical restraint and respect for our founding principles.
999/1000 is my opinion
And I don't see any legal action being taken do you?
Read the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. It does a good job detailing Presidential protection and how presidents were basically unguarded even after Garfield was shot. Protection methods have gone a long way since then, and yes, an "abbrogation of constitutional rights" has been justified by the courts. A decrease in attempts or successes also won't matter as all that shows is that potential assassins are being disuaded from actually attempting the act. Garfield's assassin ended up telling authorities that he had 3 chances to shoot an unprotected Garfield before he actually went through with it. Today there are basically no chances.
I honestly don't think the Secret Service cared about the Brazilian leader seeing protests about increased fare hikes and unrestrained capatalism in the US. I think they are moving the protesters for saftey reasons only.
Jeff, I have to say I don't necessarliy disagree with what you say above. The freedom to protest is a tough one. Free Speech Zones should be illegal, and I thought the Boston one was pretty inhumane, but protesters today have found ways to basically disrupt events with tactics that come just short of violence but still end up disrupting the event. The events themselves should be able to go as planned without disruption from private citizens.
Realllly, Pete?
How much time did you spend at the Lucy Parsons center studying anarchist thought, Pete?
Um, maybe the KKK and authoritarian thought has more to do with it? Just pulling that out of my ass, too here.
I'm pretty sure anarchists were pretty involved
in the political assassination field. They weren't really too keen on government restrictions either. And yes, Goldman had no problem with violence to promote her goals.
And although I have not spent any time at the Lucy Parsons center, I have read and studied Goldmans "The Psychology of Political Violence" and other works. Very interesting.
Never Forget
That anything singular anarchists ever did could hold a candle to the rise of fascism and Nazism, both of which depended heavily on unquestioned and unchecked police power used against the citizenry.
Of course.
But my point is that I don't think removing people from the Statehouse steps is the work of a fascist government. A fascist government wouldn't allow those people there at any time. Our government should be reasonable about it, and they are in my opinion in this case.
Time, place, manner.
Of course the Viet Kong didn't start guerrilla warfare
That would be King Kong.
And you spelled gorilla wrong.
So you agree that there are
So you agree that there are limits on the right to assemble. Now the discussion is just about what those limits ought to be.
Sure there are limits to all our rights.
Oh I'm on your side. Freedom of speech does not mean we can yell fire in a theater, libel or slander someone, sexually harass someone, use profane language in front of young children, threaten someone with words, etc, etc.
It's the "right of the people peaceably to assemble"
And the Constitution allows no federal limitation on it beyond that. So as much as you think you're playing clever rhetorical tricks by dropping a word or two and trying to move the goalposts, the Treasury is till overstepping when it arranges to have peaceful petitioners removed from the seat of government.
Interesting
So I do have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?
No limitation?
On public land? On private land? On a public street? On a public street promoting violence or the overthrow of the United States? During judicial hearings? On a street? On the Statehouse? In the statehouse? In Deval Patricks office? During halftime of the superbowl? On an airplane? In an airport? During the Nutcracker? On Rt. 128 during Rush hour? On the White House lawn? On the White house steps? On the White House sidewalk?
What about Cox vs. Louisiana? Or Brandenberg vs. Ohio? Or Gertz vs. Welch? Or Miller vs. California?
Time, Place, Manner has been a restriction upheld and shot down by Courts in this country for a long time, and it is the restriction that would be upheld in this case as well. You might not agree with it, but that is why we have a judicial system with people who know the law.
Also, it says Congress shall make no LAW, and I don't think the Secret Service are enforcing any laws here, they are just setting a limitation, and it is a limitation that even an ignoramus like myself can figure out.
The right to assemble to
The right to assemble to petition the gov't (or originally the king) was a right guaranteed in the English Bill of Rights of 1688/89. In originated in the Glorious Revolution that brought William and Mary to the throne. So the Founding Fathers were incorporating into the US Constitution a right they had had as English subjects.
The story here ought to be...
Hell, that sounds like a pretty good deal for the Occupistas. I would have thought that the State Police, or as some here like to refer to them, "our overlords", would have just picked up a bullhorn and screamed "you have 5 minutes to leave - everyone out!".
I imagine that all over talk radio right now are comments like "whaddaya talkin' about? my tax dolliz were spent on movin' dese people's sh-t for them?"
I imagine that all over talk
So how would that come out if it was black people speaking? Share with us your version of 'black talk.'
Your attempt at race-baiting is transparent and uncalled for
My comment was intended as a play on the local accent, which in my opinion is better represented on talk radio than nearly anywhere else.
Your inept attempt at race-baiting is transparent and totally uncalled for.
Right! And everyone knows
Right! And everyone knows race baiting is strictly prohibited on UHub.
Whitey's just upset...
He's had a bad week with a pack of losing twenty dollar scratch tickets, his generic cigarettes went up another 20 cents a pack and he just found out that large donation he made on George Zimmerman's new website isn't tax deductible.
Crowds are a good place to hide...
Just because Occupy-WorthlessDegree isn't a treat, doesn't mean someone can't use them for cover / blend in / distraction to get at the president. Have none of you watched action movies?
There are two differences between the secret service agents and the Occupiers and their left wing supporters like Ronny
-They have jobs
-Part of their job is to be willing to take a bullet to the head to protect someone.
Next time you're whining about your high deductable or long work hours, remember that, you latte drinking, useless educated, macbook using history majors.
hey! watch it with the history majors!
We Historically Minded Folks are on your side, friend!
We can tell you (in detail) all of the reasons why the choice to become a secret service agent is dangerous!
we study that stuff! Without us, you wouldn't have access to all of the information you will use to bak up your valid argument!
we're not the useless degree people you need to watch out for!
Who invited Colonel Jessup?
No need for a "Code Red", bro. Authority worship was never supposed to be part of the American playbook.
not quite
The state house opens the front gates for three and only three events:
1. the first/last day of a governor's term in office.
2. the visit of a sitting US President or Foreign Leader
3. The return of a Massachusetts regimental flag.
So, no he doesn't "trump first amendment rights." They are blocking the entrance.
We never get to open the front gates for any kind of special fun stuff! The last sitting US President to visit the State House was Calvin Coolidge! Even JFK, as President-Elect had to use the Side door.
Also, I'd ask them to move from across the street too! the side walk is about 1 person wide! where exactly were they?
That corner of Park and Beacon is like the tourist Hunger Games.
Maybe I'm just bitter, because even my hippie, liberal activist heart is getting a bit sick of this occupy-whatever-we-can sort of attitude. the 99% of Massachusetts? well, since the MBTA only serves about 1/2 the state, no. also, i find it hard to believe that most of "the 99%" can't afford a T pass.
I was 100% for Occupy Wall Street and do believe the entire banking system needs an overhaul.
but this seems a bit much to me.
the service cuts suck. yes. that's true. we need to fix the system.
MassDOT layoffs? can't see the problem from here! It seems like a lot of people weren't doing their jobs!
But the fare increase is fair!
Between gas, routine maintenance, insurance and my car payment, I pay over $400 every month for the privilege of sitting in hours of traffic on my reverse commute to the suburbs for work.
I would much rather pay $80 for a T pass.
I am a disgruntled and reluctant car owner who spends her days pining away for Breakdowns on the Red Line, T cars with no air conditioning in the summer and becoming snuggle buddies with hundreds of grumpy strangers.
Clearly I'm delusional, I accept this.
but is this a trampling of 1st amendment rights? I really don't think so.
Ahhh the snark is strong with
Ahhh the snark is strong with this one. <3