The Constitutional Right to Be Heard

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is clear and unambiguous, prohibiting the enactment of any law that would interfere with the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is a substantial body of case law on this right, none of which explains the content of a White House Manual on how to handle protesters at presidential speeches and appearances.

The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 with the stamp "Sensitive - Do Not Copy," was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at Charleston, West Virginia in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush's presidency, but the Manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit.

They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing. The government says that both sides may have been wrong. The only thing that the Ranks did wrong was attend an open-to-the-public, taxpayer-sponsored Independence Day speech by the president on the grounds of the state capitol, sporting homemade anti-Bush T-shirts. Their shirts had a red circle and a diagonal bar covering the word Bush. (His said, "Regime change starts at home," on the back; hers said, "Love America, Hate Bush.") The Ranks neither said nor did anything to disrupt the speech. The only bad thing these individuals did was peacefully disagree with the president in an open political forum. And while Rush Limbaugh may be able to get away with talking exclusively to people who worship him, the president should not.

The Manual, much of which has been redacted but is on-line at the ACLU web site, has two essential aspects. The first I feel is usual and understandable. It deals with protesters bearing signs and being visibly non-supportive at political speeches and, for all intents and purposes, photo opportunities. The administration does not want carefully crafted images disturbed as for example, the use of uplifting and inspirational words on a colored backdrop.

The Manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be "extremely [sic] supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for anti-administration signs.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems. . . . These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators," the Manual directs. "The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA! USA! USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: "If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator's effect."

It is the second aspect of the Manual that disturbs me greatly and is symptomatic of Mr. Bush's attitude and that of his staff. The Manual gives at least lip service to the right to protest and that such protest is within the meaning of the Constitution's right to petition, provided that the president is shielded from the protests. The White House is not necessarily against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the Manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."

This deliberate move to hide dissent from the president is in neither his nor our best interests. This president is not an intellectually curious person; he will make no effort to inquire, to search out the truth. He is far more likely to accept that which he is told or what he feels is consistent with his Divine Role.

As I have said, I can understand, and somewhat sympathize with the hope that a presidential talk be given at least a modicum of respect.

It's vital, of course, that the Secret Service protect the president from physical threats when he appears in public. And it's understandable that the White House wants to have the president speak without disruption from people who disagree with him. But it's important that cloistered presidents know that there are people who disagree with them, and there are disorderly conduct laws to deal with protesters who cross the line.

Dissent is a bedrock of our system. The administration, with its penchant for secrecy and order, never quite gets that and repeatedly tries to draw the line too broadly.

If you profess to love "the freedom for people to speak their minds," as Bush told the Charleston crowd in 2004, you have to assume you're not always going to love what they say

Many, many years ago, I participated in the defense of three young women who, with several other college students, disrupted traffic on a New York City bridge as part of an antiwar protest. I argued that their disruptive actions were a vital part of the right to petition the government; when just letters were written and a few speeches were made, no one listened. If a Constitutional right to petition the government had any meaning, then the government had an obligation to at least listen. Alas, my brilliance was not accepted by the Court completely -- but I still believe the position to be valid.

In Mr. Bush's administration, he is prevented, by his own direction, from being exposed to the peoples' petition, remaining unaware that he is losing - or has lost - the support of the people. Listening is an active exercise. Instead of a lengthy manual on preventing and handling demonstrators, Bush's advance people need a refresher course on a somewhat older manual. It's called the Constitution of the United States

Check out these sources:

www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662.html?hpid=topnews