I’ve seen this story flashed around a number of places today. Briefly, a student activist with a poster portraying Bush as a hangman (from his support for the death penalty in Texas) drew someone’s attention enough to mention it as a threat to the Secret Service. The Secret Service came by. The student did not let them in. They talked for a while, eventually saw the poster, and left.
The consensus opinion seems to be that this is yet another example of a chipping away of our civil liberties and our rights, another example of political suppression, another example of how John Ashcroft is turning the US into a police state, etc.
My thoughts:
First of all, the Secret Service reports to the Treasury Department, under Paul O’Neill. That doesn’t mean anything one way or another, but let’s not get our cabinet secretaries mixed up.
Secondly, let’s look at what actually happened. The police (maybe — maybe someone else) saw the poster. Either to make trouble, or because its image was misunderstood as a threat, someone passed word on to the Secret Service. The Secret Service responded to a reported threat against the president. They were polite. They remained out in the hallway when not given permission to enter. When things were explained, they left.
There was no kicking down of the door. No confiscation of the poster. No threats against the student.
If this gal had been a whacko who next week took a shot at Bush, or who later was found out to be sending out anthrax letters, the earlier report of something funny going on there would, if not at least checked up on, have been seized upon as how law enforcement and the secret service were incompetent dolts.
Is it unsettling to think that the things one says or displays (as, yes, protected political speech) might attract attention? Well, that’s kind of the idea, right?
Is it unsettling to think that attention might come from law enforcement? Maybe. Depending on how law enforcement reacted. There was a reported threat. An investigation. A polite conclusion. End of story.
Finally, Brown relented a bit, agreeing to open the door and show them her poster wall. “They looked in, and the lady was like, ‘Ohhhh, that’s not that bad.'” The male agent added, “We’ve seen worse.”
Still, Brown’s brush with the authorities wasn’t over. “Since they were just gawking at my wall, I decided to explain it.” The wall features Brown’s favorite art and mementos: a high-school photo project showing the perils of smoking cigarettes; a Pink Floyd poster (“It has that phrase, ‘Mother should I trust the government,’ so I had to get it”); posters for two Japanese cartoon shows; several pictures she took at protests and rallies; and a headband with “Democracy” on it. And, of course, the Bush-as-hangman poster.
Having seen the poster, Brown says, the agents questioned her further, asking: “Do you have any Afghanistan stuff in your apartment, or anything pertaining to that? Any pro-Taliban stuff?”
“I kept saying no,” Brown says, “and I was like, personally, I think the Taliban are a bunch of assholes.” With that, the investigator and the agents bid her adieu.
End of story.
Ms. Brown was not (at least not by the Secret Service, based on what is reported of their comments by Ms. Brown) targeted for being a dissenter. They weren’t there to “take her away” or “put her in jail.” She does claim that one of the agents started out by talking about a report of “anti-American material.” She says they later discussed what they had heard about the poster in question — that it was “a target of Bush” or a “picture of Bush hanging himself,” both of which were untrue — but both of which would have been a bit more disturbing.
Of course, “disturbing” speech doesn’t mean that it’s not protected by the First Amendment. But it does mean that somebody might consider it worth further investigation. The local Secret Service rep says there was a report of “a threat against the president.” While Ms. Brown speculates the tip came from the police (who came to her house a couple of times on noise complaints), there’s nothing to support it (and the Secret Service denies it).
Ulmer rejects the notion that Brown was targeted because of her politics, and he insists that the Secret Service would have checked this tip out even if it had come in before the events of Sept. 11. “We were doing our job in this particular case,” he says, “and I don’t think we could have done it any better.”
“The Secret Service takes all threats against the president seriously, and we go out to check on every one. A citizen thought that there was a threat, and we went and talked to Ms. Brown and we found that there was not a threat.” The poster, he says, was “misconstrued” by the tipster. “So it’s not a big issue. The issue is that someone misinterpreted some writing.”
Again — a threat was reported, the Secret Service checked it out, end of story.
Let’s save the hyperbole for some real impositions on civil liberties, folks.
(Via Xkot, among others)