A Rude Awakening

For those of you, like me, who believed the freedom to protest political actions and officials was certainly a given, Rank v. Jenkins is an unfortunate wake up call. Turns out political demonstration may not be as free as I previously thought it to be.

In June of 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on behalf of Jeffery Rank, Nicole Rank, Leslie Weise, and Alex Young against Gregory Jenkins for alleged first amendment infringements. [1] Jeffery and Nicole Rank attended a Fourth of July Speech in Charleston, West Virginia where the president was scheduled to speak. They obtained tickets and were not disruptive, but wore t-shirts that expressed their disagreement with President Bush. The Ranks were asked by White House Officials acting under the advisement of Jenkins, the Director of the White House Advance during the Bush Administration, to cover their shirts or leave. When they refused, they were removed and arrested for trespassing [2]. The procedure followed is outlined in Presidential Advance Manual. [3] Laying out guidelines for dealing with demonstrators at events attended by the president, the document has received much attention for its freedom of speech violations.

Clearly, this is a blatant infringement of the Ranks’ freedom of expression. There is really no other way of looking at it. The Bush Administration could argue this event was private, and therefore removal of persons based on content was allowable. However, there are some serious flaws in this argument. First of all, the event was held on the grounds of the West Virginia state capital, so it would be difficult to assert that this event was not public. The courts have consistently been suspicious of this private event defense, and, in Wickersham v. City of Columbia, the court ruled that restrictions on the content of freedom of speech at private events could not be imposed if there was shown to be significant government involvement. It would be difficult to substantiate the claim that the government was not heavily involved in this event.[4] Therefore, it is certainly my opinion that the courts would have very little choice but to rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Another aspect that makes this case so unnerving is the content of the Presidential Advancement Manual, which serves as guide for staff to deal with demonstrators at presidential events. It includes instructions like “Proper ticket distribution is vital to creating a well-balanced crowd and deterring potential protesters from attending events.” [5] VIP tickets are only given to those extremely supportive of the administration; demonstrators are minimized by setting aside specific areas for demonstrators that are far from the press or the motorcade; rally squads are to be strategically placed throughout the demonstrators to drown out any dissent. However, the most blatant disregard for the first amendment is shown when the Manual states security should remove demonstrators from the event if their antagonistic presence cannot be controlled. Additionally, it charges administrators to determine whether actions against political demonstrators would cause more damage in the press than if simply left alone.[5] I highly doubt there are many out there who would consider that consistent with the rights our fore fathers set down.

This Manual in itself makes the actions against the Ranks unconstitutional. The simple fact that it is written by the Bush Administration makes any action taken in these situations action by the government. Since in this case, the removal of the couple from the event was based on the content of their shirts, this is a classic case of content discrimination by the government, and is in my opinion inherently unconstitutional. No justification can be made under the guise of danger to the president as the two were simply wearing t-shirts. I doubt many would consider wearing clothing threatening actions as the vast majority of us do it on a daily basis with no harm to those around us. Hopefully, this will be a clear cut case for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I only have one recommendation for the Bush Administration. Perhaps next time, they should be more specific when they give guidelines on when action will cause significant damage in the press. They certainly failed miserably this time.

Works Cited

Albrecht-Taylor, Kymberly. “HOW WE VOTE: ELECTRONIC VOTING AND OTHER VOTING PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES: NOTE: GIVING DISSENTERS BACK THEIR RIGHTS: HOW THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL ADVANCE MANUAL CHANGES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND STANDING DEBATES.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 539.17 (2008). LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis. 10 Mar. 2009 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/‌universe.

Office of Presidential Advance. Presidential Advance Manual. 2002. 10 Mar. 2009 http://www.aclu.org/‌pdfs/‌freespeech/‌presidential_advance_manual.pdf.

Rank v. Jenkins. No. No. 07-cv-01157. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 28 June 2007. 9 Mar. 2009 http://www.aclu.org/‌pdfs/‌freespeech/‌rank_v_jenkins_complaint.pdf.

Secret Service and White House Charged with Violating Free Speech Rights in ACLU Lawsuit . 14 Sept. 2004. American Civil Liberties Union. 8 Mar. 2009 http://www.aclu.org/‌freespeech/‌protest/‌11462prs20040914.html.

Weignant, Chris. ACLU Provides Concrete Evidence Of Bush’s Contempt For Free Speech. Weblog. 29 June 2007. The Huffington Post. 9 Mar. 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/‌chris-weigant/‌aclu-provides-concrete-ev_b_54453.html.