Case, contrinued

On Monday I mentioned the case of the couple who had been arrested at a Bush speech, apparently because they were wearing t-shirts that said "Love America, Hate Bush." Those with pro-Bush shirts were not molested. A follow-up article in the Charleston (WV) "Gazette" (thanks, BuzzFlash) for Wednesday makes it clear that the husband and wife

aren't going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court. ...

"We weren't doing anything wrong," said Jeff Rank. The couple, who said they had tickets just like everybody else, said they simply stood around the Capitol steps with the rest of the spectators.

In the wake of the arrest, Nicole Rank was released from her job. She'd come to Charleston after Memorial Day floods to work as deputy environmental liaison officer for FEMA during the cleanup and repair. Suddenly, she was no longer needed.

"I have not been fired per se," she said. "But I was released from this job. And when they release you from a job, you no longer get paid."

The Ranks started to go home to Corpus Christi, Texas, but they only got as far as Roanoke, Va., when it occurred to them that they might not be able to contest their arrest if they weren't in Charleston on their court date. A phone call confirmed their suspicions. So they turned around.

"We’ve been living in motels ever since," said Jeff Rank, who spent Tuesday evening in his motel room with his wife, their cocker spaniel Feinman, and their marmalade cat Rowr.

"It's extremely difficult [financially]. We can only afford to do this for so long."

But they had to stay and fight the charges, he said, "because we didn't think we were guilty."

The article goes on to note that since Bush took office, banning people from displaying anti-Bush messages at his appearances had become commonplace.

The Secret Service had been telling local police to sequester anyone displaying an anti-administration message, usually in areas completely out of sight and earshot of Bush.

However, after the ACLU files suit against the Secret Service, it emerged that the agency had an internal memo dated September, 2002 saying that protesters couldn't be treated any differently than anyone else. Because the agency agreed that the censorship was wrong, the suit was dismissed - but not before the judge indicated that any agent responsible for differing treatment could be held liable.

"Prior to filing our suit in September, we'd get a couple of confirmed 'protest zone' complaints every month," [ACLU attorney Witold] Walczak said.
"After we filed, there were practically none. We had two documented incidents between September and March: one in Little Rock, Ark., and one in Knoxville, Tenn."

Still, attorneys are keeping a weather eye out: The case of the Ranks and two similar recent incidents in Pennsylvania has raised flags that the use of restrictive "protest zones" may be on the rise again. As Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia, said,

"It's an Orwellian way to keep speech out of sight of those the speech is intended to critique ... We want to nip this in the bud before it becomes a habit of future administrations."

Or even a continuing habit of this one.