Careful with that effigy

So, can we burn Bush in effigy? Some progressive friends of mine have been debating whether a dramatic public protest would raise any consciousness about Chimpy and his dreadful policies. Certainly if anyone in recent memory deserves it, its hgot to be him. Although one has to wonder what the courts would do to the protestors. The case of the effigy of "Chief Wahoo" is an example of what is coming. Yes, you have freedom of speech just don't try to make a dramatic example that might get some press coverage, otherwise we will get you for some public safety issue.

Great quote here from one of the dissenting judges in this case. Remember people when you burn Mr. Preznit in effigy that you have taken care to guard against the flames. Remember to wear your hazmat outfit or your Ossama halloween outfit just to be safe.

Of course, this means that the wholesome image of "Chief Wahoo" will be protected, right? That is after all the point, isn't it? Protect the corporate image not the freedom of expression.

Its not like the protestors started a meaningless war or anything.


High court rejects Wahoo-burners’ plea

Justices say threat from burning of effigy overrides protesters’ free-speech rights

Thursday, December 16, 2004
Jon Craig
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Protesters who burned effigies of the Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo lost in the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday but will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm their free speech rights, their attorney said.

The state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Cleveland police did not violate the First Amendment rights of five protesters by arresting them when windblown debris flew from two burning effigies in April 1998.

Cleveland lawyer Terry H. Gilbert said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"It’s a really baffling, almost bizarre decision," Gilbert said. "The whole point of burning is to express a viewpoint."

Those arrested were part of a larger group that gathered outside Jacobs Field on Opening Day to hand out literature and hold up signs and banners protesting the baseball team’s continuing use of a grinning caricature of an American Indian as its corporate logo.

Some consider the picture of the red-faced Indian racist. City attorneys argued that the fire was hazardous and not protected by the First Amendment.

Justice Maureen O’Connor, writing for the majority, said there was no question that burning the mascot by itself was constitutionally protected speech.

But O’Connor said police officers were acting within their duty to protect the public when they arrested Vernon Bellecourt, Juan Reyna, James Watson, Charlene Teters and Zizwe Tchiquka.

"Though we generally agree with this (First Amendment)proposition, we find it inapplicable here because any suppression of speech was incidental to Cleveland’s important interest in preventing harm caused by fire," O’Connor wrote.

Police made the arrests when the burning debris blew in the direction of bystanders. The protesters were jailed overnight for aggravated arson but never formally charged.

"The record demonstrates that Cleveland arrested (them) not because they burned effigies, but because of a perceived public safety threat in the manner in which they burned effigies," O’Connor said.

Gilbert said the protest was announced in advance and did not create a hazard because firefighters and officers with extinguishers were present.

"You couldn’t have created a more safe environment to do a burning of a symbol," he said. "Nothing they did fit the definition of arson."

In his dissent, Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer agreed that the city had no authority to make arrests based on an arson charge.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer agreed, saying, "If we allow flag burning in this country, we should certainly allow Chief Wahoo effigy burning. Our flag stands for over 200 years of freedom and unity; Chief Wahoo stands for 56 years — and counting -of baseball futility."

Gilbert said he will use that argument when he asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"That flies in the face of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that burning a flag is protected under the First Amendment," he said.