In other news, Ashcorft has discovered that 4th ammendment should end with

July 25, 2003 6:25 PM

Don't fear the police state, fear semicolons.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly (15 comments total)

I don't know which is the scariest, probably the second. Devil's literally in literal details.
posted by elpapacito at 6:43 PM on July 25, 2003

The colon "is obviously a typogrphical error and should be read as a semicolon," Barton wrote.

Heh.
posted by carter at 7:09 PM on July 25, 2003

The colon "is obviously a typogrphical error and should be read as a semicolon," Barton wrote.

Heh.
posted by eddydamascene at 7:11 PM on July 25, 2003

jinx!
posted by dabitch at 7:12 PM on July 25, 2003

jinx! (don't ask me why it took me several minutes to compose my comment)

on preview, I am getting scared.
posted by eddydamascene at 7:13 PM on July 25, 2003

As an English teacher, I am dying to read the text in question. I know younger more web-chattinger denizens are rolling their eyes at me...but I find punctuation fascinating...and this proves its importance. (BTW, in formal writing, I am not quite as promiscuous with my use of ellipses.)

Regarding the more important free speech issue...I took my daughter to an anti-Bush rally nine months ago. It was about the Iraq war, and it was held because Bush was in town (for - guess what - fundraising!). We were not allowed anywhere near our president.

My daughter being young and all, she didn't want to listen to the leftist speeches, so we walked down a couple of blocks and watch Bush speed by (fast!!!). We recognized him by his ears. If there were any protestors, I'm sure he couldn't have read their signs.
posted by kozad at 7:16 PM on July 25, 2003

The statute in question is almost certainly 18 USC 1752, which governs "temporary residences and offices of the President and others." Section 1752 of Title 18 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to designate, by notice-type publication, buildings and grounds which constitute the temporary residences or offices of the President and other Secret Service protectees, and to restrict areas where the President is or will be temporarily visiting. These designations and regulations are published in the Federal Register at 31 C.F.R. Secs. 408.1 to 408.3. Section 1752(a) also applies to any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President is or will be temporarily visiting. This provides protection for the President during his/her travels without requiring advance formal designation. Cross references in 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(4) makes those subsections applicable to restricted areas.

The statute itself sets out four unlawful acts, which are located in paragraphs (a)(1) - (4) of the statute:

a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons -
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices of the President and his staff or of any other person protected by the Secret Service, or
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto:
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).

Notice the colon at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(ii), which I've bolded. That would make it appear, at least arguably, that paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) should be read together, and that (a)(1) can only be violated if the defendant willfully and knowingly entered or remained in any restricted area and did so with the intent or effect of impeding or disrupting government business. That would make the case a lot more difficult to prove, because this guy likely did not disrupt anything.

However, the colon is almost certainly a mistake. The structure of the statute makes that pretty clear. First, the four separate paragrpahs are pretty clearly just that, separate. Second, the requirements of (a)(2) are different from (a)(1). Paragraph (a)(2) applies only to "buildings or grounds," whereas (a)(1)(ii) applies to any restricted area. This is clear on the face of the statute, and is verified in the Senate report. See S.Rep. No. 91-1252, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 9, 11 (1970). This appears to reflect an accommodation with First Amendment considerations.

If this seems pretty picky for a judge, consider this quote from a recent case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

"Our task of parsing through this paradox within this statute is not made any easier by reference to its punctuation. After the disjunctive "or", the statute offers as a complete crime the words, "possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition". The statute then closes those words not with a comma, but with a semicolon. The use of the semicolon, rather than a comma, suggests the end of a clause or a completed thought, rather than a pause in an enumeration of related ideas. See, e.g., Wm. Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style 5-6 (3d ed. 1979)("clauses grammatically complete" joined by semicolons, not commas); H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 587-89 (2d ed. 1965) (contrasting commas and semicolons). But it is very difficult to discern how this punctuation helps our understanding of "possess" or of the differences among the three crimes § 922(g)(1) imposes on convicted felons with differing word formulae."

In this case, the judge is likely to view the colon as a scrivener's error--a typo, in other words--based on the structure and language of the statute, as well as the Senate Report I noted above. See United States v. Wilson, 112 S. Ct. 1351 (1992); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504 (1989). If that's the case, this guy's best strategy should be to attack the constitutionality of the restriction under the First Amendment, as the DOJ itself has anticipated.

posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:34 PM on July 25, 2003

*wanders back in after ordering books*

Heh.

monju_bosatsu: that is completely fascinating. Thanks.
posted by carter at 7:41 PM on July 25, 2003

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
posted by dhartung at 9:37 PM on July 25, 2003

monju_bosatsu, thanks. If this is the colon in question, it looks to me like there is indeed a typo, because otherwise the outline made by (a)-(1)-(i) etc. is mis-subordinated.
posted by azazello at 11:22 PM on July 25, 2003

azazello:
does this mean we can throw the jack-booted thugs out in the street?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:38 PM on July 25, 2003

They must have hired an out-of-work computer programmer as the typist.
posted by gyc at 11:43 PM on July 25, 2003

Protesting should be outlawed. It infringes on our right to hear our elected officials free speech*.

*Elected officials speech is not free. Your taxes have been raised accordingly.
posted by fatbobsmith at 11:45 PM on July 25, 2003

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and arm bears, shall not be infringed.

The current version is an obvious typo.
posted by signal at 11:19 AM on July 26, 2003

Demonstrator arrested getting too close to a visiting President? BAH! Next thing you know they'll start running EVERYONE going to NY City Hall through the metal detector. HAH! Like that'd ever be needed.
posted by HTuttle at 10:21 PM on July 26, 2003