Boing Boing spotted a story that, geographically at least, hits close to home for me.
It seems a laywer and his son purchased t-shirts with the slogan "Give Peace a Chance" at a store in the Crossgates Mall, outside of Albany, NY. While wearing the shirts in the food court, they were asked to remove them or leave by two security guards. Stephen Downs, the lawyer, refused. The local police were called and he was handcuffed and arrested.
This seems to be part of an increasing trend to stifle dissent on the war issue that will balloon greatly as war begins. For a few isolated examples, we have the kid in Michigan who was removed from school for an anti-war shirt (one story here); a college basketball player refusing to salute the flag finds opposition increasingly hostile, and I suspect more so as pro-war validations of "patriotism" are more urgently demanded (story here; and sputtering Bill O'Reilly says:
Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well. Let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in. (MWO)
There are many other similar incidents,I'm sure, and as I said, they'll only happen with increasing frequency and, I fear, severity.
Returning to the mall, for a moment, we have the issue of free speech on private property. The Supreme Court has tackled this on different occasions, usually about petitioning and leafletting in malls. In FOOD EMPLOYEES v. LOGAN PLAZA, 391 U.S. 308 (1968), they held:
Since the shopping center serves as the community business block "and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through," Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 508 , the State may not delegate the power, through the use of trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights on the premises in a manner [391 U.S. 308, 309] and for a purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put. Pp. 316-325.
The Court recognized our increasing dependence upon shopping malls as public spaces and noted that in offering malls up for similar use the malls become subject to similar heightened free speech:
The large-scale movement of this country's population from the cities to the suburbs has been accompanied by the advent of the suburban shopping center [....]
Business enterprises located in downtown areas would be subject to on-the-spot public criticism [391 U.S. 308, 325] for their practices, but businesses situated in the suburbs could largely immunize themselves from similar criticism by creating a cordon sanitaire of parking lots around their stores. Neither precedent nor policy compels a result so at variance with the goal of free expression and communication that is the heart of the First Amendment.
Therefore, as to the sufficiency of respondents' ownership of the Logan Valley Mall premises as the sole support of the injunction issued against petitioners, we simply repeat what was said in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S., at 506 , "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Logan Valley Mall is the functional equivalent of a "business block" and for First Amendment purposes must be treated in substantially the same manner.
What I'm getting at, then, is the stifling of dissent is happing in all public forums. From Ari Fleischer telling us to "watch what you say," to the public schools, to the public schools, to the public airwaves, to the public gathering spaces, anti-war speech is increasing seen as anti-American.
This sort of uber-patriotism too often dictates the language of debate. Take a look at Bill Moyer's commentary on why he now wears a flag lapel. By dictating what is acceptable speech, the pro-war paradigm forces me to justify every statement in a way they do not. "Saddam is an evil jerk, but..."; "I'm not un-American, but..."; "I support the troops, but..."; "Bush is president, but...(he's not)".
I know these issues have been covered ad nauseum in the blogosphere, but it's necessary (if simply because of the imposed paradigm) to bash at it again and again.
I'm tempted to take a trip to the mall this week.
1:56:19 AM 
|
|
