D: Yes, it does, because I've already had this discussion with him, and I've already been asked to change the signs, and I did. And I looked up all the statutes.

February 16, 2006 7:32 AM

Red State, Meet Police State --take a big anti-Bush bumper sticker, some DHS cops, and an outspoken and educated federal employee. Put them in Boise, Idaho. Mix well. "It's the First Amendment for a reason--not the last, not the middle. The first."
posted by amberglow (251 comments total)

This disgusts me - here, a veteran, someone who has risked his life to protect this country's freedom, law and way of life, is attacked for exercising his rights - his own right to free speech is in jeopardy just because he doesn't toe the line and insteads shows his dissent for an illegally-mounted war. How did we get here? I am so saddened.
posted by mctsonic at 7:47 AM on February 16, 2006

Attacked?

Here we go with the over-reactions and exaggerations.
posted by Witty at 7:50 AM on February 16, 2006

Sounds like he was "attacked" to me. This was an assault on his freedom. And yours. And mine.
posted by mds35 at 7:53 AM on February 16, 2006

Ha! Can you imagine what would happen if someone from the state government showed up at a business across from a Planned Parenthood clinic and started hauling people out to remove their "Choose Life" bumper stickers?

High-larious.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:54 AM on February 16, 2006

You know what's an assault on my freedom? The fact that the link won't load for me. I demand justice!
posted by mr_roboto at 7:56 AM on February 16, 2006

Witty: "Come on, now, it's not that big of a deal, let it go, it's not important. *waves hands* look over here! Solar panels! Just ignore those guys in uniform, harrassing people for voicing their opinions. Don't over-react, now."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:56 AM on February 16, 2006

The Homeland Security Dude, aka Homie, cited 41 CFR § 102-74.415

(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in §102–71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.

From 41 CFR in §102–71.20

Public area means any area of a building under the control and custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public, including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.

So Homie, where does it say bumberstickers on private vehicles?
posted by three blind mice at 7:57 AM on February 16, 2006

He knows his rights, good for him! Fight the power, baby.
posted by Scoo at 7:58 AM on February 16, 2006

It is easy to see how we got here...

1. Lack of oversight of the executive branch (of which DHS is) from the legisiative.
2. Fear mongering.
3. A complete lack of recourse for Mr. Scarbrough.

Point three is probably the most salient for me. Him, Cindy Sheehan, etc have no recourse when they are wronged like this. DHS is allowed to come and harass him for whatever and he cant do anthing about it. It is the initimidation of people by the government to bully them into laying down. To browbeat them into submission. And you pick easy targets that the public doesnt have a lot of sympathy for (or aren't famous enough to generate sympathy). Why cant he go to court and the person responsible for this fired from DHS?

Even if the gov't rectifies this one situation, they'll write it off as some BS like "too vague" as opposed to what it really is - an attempt to stifle dissent.
posted by SirOmega at 8:01 AM on February 16, 2006

I would be fired in about 5 seconds by my employer if I in any way made my support of a political party obvious in any way. And it would be 100% legal.

This was not a private citizen harassed in a starbucks parking lot for bumper stickers on his car, he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer. What exactly did he expect (besides, that is, the very outcome that has transpired)?
posted by loquax at 8:02 AM on February 16, 2006

How does or should an officer enforce the law without being accused of "attacking" or harrassing? Every time there's a story like this, people claim harrassment and so forth. From what I read, the officer calmly asked the man to comply with the law. The man could have taken the citation, gone to court so a judge could interpret the law in more detail, both for the man and the officer. He chose to move his car instead.
posted by Witty at 8:03 AM on February 16, 2006

This is Bushit.
posted by bshort at 8:04 AM on February 16, 2006

This was not a private citizen harassed in a starbucks parking lot for bumper stickers on his car, he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer. What exactly did he expect (besides, that is, the very outcome that has transpired)?

Except that federal employees do not lose their First Amendment rights. When the speech of a federal employee is the employee's private speech on a matter of public concern, his First Amendment rights protect him. Adverse action in retaliation for that speech can form the basis of a § 1983 claim.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:06 AM on February 16, 2006

He must be doing something right if he got them this pissed off. He is doing this to piss them off and now he knows how well it is working. If these rubes actually arrest him, tow his vehicle or remove his signs they will only make matters worse for themselves. Next time he should show up with cameras and put their faces and identifying information up on the web.
posted by caddis at 8:06 AM on February 16, 2006

This happens every day now, somewhere.

My friend had the FBI show up at his door early one morning -- "You were taking photos of the Holland Tunnel." "Yes, I'm a professional photographer." "I'm afraid that's not allowed." "Why?" (various lies) "I'm sorry, that doesn't apply." (more lies) "I'm sorry, that doesn't trump my Constitutional rights." "If you persist, we'll have to bring you in front of a grand jury." "You do that, but right now I have to go back to bed." Now he's got the case number and is following it up. I admire him!

Oh, and "Witty" -- strongly consider changing your screen name to something accurate like "Boring," would you? Or at least *try* sometimes to be witty, your posting record is pretty wretched.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2006

he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer.

No, he was loudly and obviously criticizing HIS EMPLOYEE. The President works for us.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2006

Brandon brings up a good point that's often forgotten - police officers, politicians and even the President do work for us. Mostly they have forgotten this and act as though we work for them but it isn't true....
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:11 AM on February 16, 2006

>i>What exactly did he expect (besides, that is, the very outcome that has transpired)?

He expected the laws of his country to be followed. I don't see how what might or might not happen to you in your country is even remotely relevant.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:13 AM on February 16, 2006

Dammit. Anybody have a non-wanged mirror to this? I want to know what all the hubbub is... bub.
posted by antifuse at 8:15 AM on February 16, 2006

"This was not a private citizen harassed in a starbucks parking lot for bumper stickers on his car, he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer. What exactly did he expect (besides, that is, the very outcome that has transpired)?"


Yeah, sorry homie. He's Hatched, so he can't go around the office telling everyone that Bush sucks, but that doesn't apply to bumperstickers on his vehicle.

Hatch Act limitations for Federal Employees:

Federal Employees may:

* be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
* register and vote as they choose
* assist in voter registration drives
* express opinions about candidates and issues
* contribute money to political organizations
* attend political fundraising functions
* attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
* join and be an active member of a political party or club
* sign nominating petitions
* campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
* campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
* hold office in political clubs or parties

Federal Employees are prohibited via the Hatch Act from:

# se official authority or influence to interfere with an election
# solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
# solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
# be candidates for public office in partisan elections
# engage in political activity while:

* on duty
* in a government office
* wearing an official uniform
* using a government vehicle

# wear partisan political buttons on duty


Don't see anything about no bumperstickers, brah.
posted by stenseng at 8:17 AM on February 16, 2006

Oh, and "Witty" -- strongly consider changing your screen name to something accurate like "Boring," would you? Or at least *try* sometimes to be witty, your posting record is pretty wretched.

What the...? Can't handle my differing opinion, so we insult? Typical for Mefi. And get over my username already, wouldja.
posted by Witty at 8:20 AM on February 16, 2006

Stuff like this bothers me. It was not so long ago on the internet that playing the "Nazi" card was considered the last resort of the losing arguer. But the more often I read of encounters like this, the harder it is for me to find a clear line between the USDHS and the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.

When you're confronted by uniforms simply because your message does not comply with government spin, you're already there.

What's next -- banning reruns of "American President" simply because of Michael Douglas's "The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free." message at the end?
posted by Mike D at 8:20 AM on February 16, 2006

How does or should an officer enforce the law without being accused of "attacking" or harrassing?
posted by Witty at 8:03 AM PST on February 16

Maybe DHS employees should be concerned with, you know, HS instead of some fucking bumper stickers.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:22 AM on February 16, 2006

Except that federal employees do not lose their First Amendment rights.

I acknowledge that (though I'm not as familiar with US law as I am with Canadian law), but it would seem to me that this isn't a question of free speech, but the volume and appropriateness of that free speech, as well as the nature of the privacy of the speech when it's being spoken while he's on the job as a federal employee. If he drove a different car to work, but his tricked-out truck everywhere else, would he have had a problem? Certainly not. I think it's fair to ask employees to refrain from having scale model critiques of your organization on your property. If the government were really being heavy handed, they could have simply fired him ages ago. Instead they asked him to tone it down, then asked him to comply with (an arguable) law. Hardly an attack on free speech, if you ask me.

No, he was loudly and obviously criticizing HIS EMPLOYEE

Well, he in particular was criticizing his employer when he was on federal property and no longer a private citizen, but under contract with the government.


Don't see anything about no bumperstickers, brah.

If it doesn't, he's obviously violating the spirit of the law. Is this all a non-issue for everyone involved if they were simply to add bumper stickers to the list of verboten items?
posted by loquax at 8:23 AM on February 16, 2006

Adverse action in retaliation for that speech can form the basis of a § 1983 claim.

Absolutely. And isn't that the proper initial response, rather than taking isolated anecdotes about overzealous cops to conclude we're living in a "police state"?. I mean, I know this was bad for this guy, and he was treated unfairly. That's exactly why the law gives him a remedy.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:23 AM on February 16, 2006

Boy, that's related.
posted by Witty at 8:23 AM on February 16, 2006

Maybe DHS employees should be concerned with, you know, HS instead of some fucking bumper stickers.

I agree with this, by the way, and think it's odd. Is DHS all of a sudden the default bylaw enforcement office? Isn't this more of an HR thing?
posted by loquax at 8:24 AM on February 16, 2006

Insulted?

Here we go with the over-reactions and exaggerations.
posted by badger_flammable at 8:25 AM on February 16, 2006

How did we get here?

We? Wherever those fuckwits are, figuratively, geographically, I don't count myself there with them. One nation indivisible my white ass. I live in the republic of California, thank you very much. I need to see what I can do about this "federal" cabal which is garnishing my wages. Surely that can't be legal.
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2006

this isn't a question of free speech, but the volume and appropriateness of that free speech

Stickers are silent. They don't have klaxons and loudspeakers attached.

Appropriateness? Who determines that? Maybe I'm offended by the sea of bullshit yellow ribbons, but I'm not having some overpaid rent-a-federal-cop go harass people about them.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:27 AM on February 16, 2006

Maybe DHS employees should be concerned with, you know, HS instead of some fucking bumper stickers. - Optimus Chyme

Yeah. It's sort of the Department of Whatever We Wouldn't Fund If We Called It Something Else.

But the more often I read of encounters like this, the harder it is for me to find a clear line between the USDHS and the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda. - Mike D

I know what you're saying. I wouldn't claim that the US is equivalent to a fascist state, but at times it looks like it could be on the road in that direction. So how can concerned Americans ensure that never happens?
posted by raedyn at 8:27 AM on February 16, 2006

badger_flammable - I don't get it.
posted by Witty at 8:27 AM on February 16, 2006

he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer

And the 1st Amendment is much more binding on Scarborough's employer than it is on a private entity.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 8:28 AM on February 16, 2006

More brevity. Less wit(ty).
posted by mds35 at 8:29 AM on February 16, 2006

I would be fired in about 5 seconds by my employer if I in any way made my support of a political party obvious in any way. And it would be 100% legal.

loquax lately you've made a couple of comments (last was re: your rules at public school - completely foreign to my experience) which I find very difficult to believe, given that we live in the same country & work in the same city. Who do you work for exactly? Everywhere I've ever worked there have been employees with all kinds of political stickers on their vehicles and on their cubicles. I have teachers & bosses with political affiliations made very obvious in their offices. Everyone who knows me knows I belong to the liberal party and will likely be a rep at the upcoming leadership convention, because I've got stickers & signage all over my locker at school, my binders, & my desk at work and I've talked about it openly. There are many companies in Canada where you can get paid time off to work on a political campaign for any party. You seem to live in a completely different place than I do.
posted by zarah at 8:31 AM on February 16, 2006

Mike D, you don't need to bring up the Nazis if reference to political propaganda and squelching of dissent. Almost every country has a shameful and extensive history with both.
posted by MillMan at 8:32 AM on February 16, 2006

Oh, and "Witty" -- strongly consider changing your screen name to something accurate like "Boring," would you?

You know, even though I've read some variation on that "joke" about 1,000 times, it just never gets old! LOL!!!!1!!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:32 AM on February 16, 2006

I find it noteworthy that in a thread lamenting the suppression of dissenting points of view, ideologues like Lopus cannot tolerate any divergence from his point of view, no matter how politely and reasonably expressed.
posted by mojohand at 8:34 AM on February 16, 2006

I would be fired in about 5 seconds by my employer if I in any way made my support of a political party obvious in any way.

a good reason for you to quit working for the Klan
posted by matteo at 8:37 AM on February 16, 2006

Mike D, you don't need to bring up the Nazis if reference to political propaganda and squelching of dissent.

i think it's important people do bring up Nazi references. remember when the west vowed "never again"... well, looks like it could happen again, easily.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany are very justified. The Weimar republic was a great democracy, undermined by a bunch of rightwingers who decieved the public, got into office legitimately and then royally screwed that democracy, and while doing that commited some of the greatest atrocities of the last century.
posted by twistedonion at 8:37 AM on February 16, 2006

From what I read, the officer calmly asked the man to comply with the law.

Did you read a different story than the rest of us? The man broke no law. He was being harassed.

You're simply wrong, as usual. How does it feel to be wrong?
posted by wakko at 8:39 AM on February 16, 2006

...in a thread lamenting the suppression of dissenting points of view...

By all means, let the idiots speak, lest they remain hidden from us.
posted by mds35 at 8:43 AM on February 16, 2006

I was put off as soon as I read,"[...] the same as Ghandi." Why can't the DHS do something useful? Like spellcheck local newspapers?
posted by pantsrobot at 8:45 AM on February 16, 2006

Working Coral mirror here btw.
posted by skallas at 8:48 AM on February 16, 2006

The man broke no law. He was being harassed. - wakko

Well, the officers claimed he was breaking a law. They even quoted the exact bit they believed he was breaking. My laymans reading of the statute suggests he was not breaking the letter of the law, but I'm fully aware that mine is not an educated reading of it. I don't automatically assume my reading is correct, even if several other laymen read it and come to same conclusion.

But if they really did believe he's breaking a law, they should have taken action - cited him or whatever is appropriate under the statute they claim he's contravening. Then it could have gone to a court and we could have heard a legal intrepretation.

If they never did intend to take official action, just quote legislation to try and intimidate him into compliance, then that is inappropriate and Big Brother-ish.
posted by raedyn at 8:50 AM on February 16, 2006

From what I read, the officer calmly asked the man to comply with the law. The man could have taken the citation, gone to court so a judge could interpret the law in more detail, both for the man and the officer. He chose to move his car instead.

It seemed to me, from the transcript, that the officer wanted Scarbrough to take his signs down immediately. Scarbrough could not have just taken a citation and gone to court later. It was pretty obvious that Scarbrough was waiting for something like this to happen, having a tape recorder on him and all, and if I were him I probably wouldn't have gone with the "harrasment" argument. Violation of first ammendment rights seems like the best argument to me. Then again, IANAL. Are you?
posted by anomie at 8:54 AM on February 16, 2006

zarah, about the other thread, I went to private school in Toronto, the rules may well have been different and more strict. About this, Canada's charter of rights and freedoms, as well as any employment law, does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, or in fact any acquaintance one keeps. In my job specifically, I deal with elements of the provincial and federal government, as well as the courts, and it would be detrimental to the company for me to make my position on any political issue known, let alone wearing buttons. And if my company chose to fire me for it, I would have no recourse, as they are well within their rights in Canada to do so. Not the same situation as this gentleman, I was just trying to say that constitutional rights and employment law and standards don't always mesh well.

a good reason for you to quit working for the Klan

Actually, it's Hamas.
posted by loquax at 8:55 AM on February 16, 2006

undermined by a bunch of rightwingers who decieved the public

Actually, didn't Hitler get in on the explicit promise to do away with democracy?
posted by slatternus at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2006

The man broke no law.

It was the opinion of the officer that he had. One time, I was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding. I told him that I thought he was mistaken (since the car I was in was loaded to the gills with "stuff", wasn't very fast anyway, and couldn't possibly reach the speed he was suggesting). He basically told me to "tell it to the judge". We went back and forth for a couple of minutes, to no avail. So I took the ticket, went to court, contested it and found out that the officer's equipment was faulty. I certainly didn't start barking about harrassment.
posted by Witty at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2006

"If it doesn't, he's obviously violating the spirit of the law."


Good thing in America, the letter of the law, and not the "spirit," whatever the shit that is, is the metric by which we determine the legality of a circumstance.

He's not in violation of Hatch, and his signage is not on Federal Property, but on personal property (his vehicle,) hence he is not in violation of any statute, and is well within his first amendment constitutional rights. End of story.

Reichstag Security can suck it.
posted by stenseng at 9:01 AM on February 16, 2006

From TFA:

Scarbrough gets his share of negative attention--including plenty of people "flying the bald eagle," as he likes to call it--but he savors such attention. He likes to call his truck a "sociological experiment on wheels," and whether you like the message of that experiment or not, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Scarbrough is the type of extreme voice that the First Amendment--that one about free speech--is intended to protect.

So he's anti-war and anti-Bush. His protests involve bumper stickers on his car. That makes him an extremist in Idaho?
posted by salmacis at 9:02 AM on February 16, 2006

but it would seem to me that this isn't a question of free speech, but the volume and appropriateness of that free speech, as well as the nature of the privacy of the speech when it's being spoken while he's on the job as a federal employee.

It isn't a question of free speech, but of volume and appropriateness? Give us a break.

Don't hide your true meaning behind weasel language. Come right out and say what you mean.

By the way, if you are a Canadian living in Canada, I resent the fact that you would dare to redefine free speech in my country. Maybe you are an American living in Toronto, I don't know, but if you are a foreign citizen, you are waaaay out of line.
posted by edverb at 9:02 AM on February 16, 2006

I wouldn't claim that the US is equivalent to a fascist state, but at times it looks like it could be on the road in that direction. So how can concerned Americans ensure that never happens?

They can't, because each step will be incremental, so incremental that the likes of loquax will say, "What's the big deal?"

And taken separately, they might not seem like such a huge deal. Taken together, then constitute one very big deal, indeed.

The question I've got in this particular case is - was the initial DHS officer acting on orders from above, or was he just some ultrarigid asshole (not like there aren't a whole lot of those in law enforcement, eh?) who, of his own volition, decided he was offended and would do something about it.

The latter is execrable but you're always going to have cops who do it. The former is the bigger concern by far.
posted by kgasmart at 9:03 AM on February 16, 2006

And it would be 100% legal.

Really? Man, if I did that, I could only manage 82% legal.

Of course, I had a habit of getting girls only 73% pregnant before I got married, so I have trouble with that whole 100% thing.
posted by thanotopsis at 9:05 AM on February 16, 2006

Actually anomie, the officer said "if you don't take them off right now, you understand that I have to cite you?" to which he replied "I'll just move my car. But this is harrassment! Harrassment! I'm being harrassed! Get my supervisor so he can see this harrassment!" Every time the officer tried to say "you need to get those signs off government property" he went off into a rage about being harrassed. I would pretty clearly describe what was on that dude's truck as a "sign," despite his protestations to the contrary.
posted by antifuse at 9:05 AM on February 16, 2006

Without the the first ammendment this country is no different than China, Stalin's Russia, or Mein Kampf's Germany.

Don't see anything about no bumperstickers, brah.

If it doesn't, he's obviously violating the spirit of the law. Is this all a non-issue for everyone involved if they were simply to add bumper stickers to the list of verboten items?


loquax, 'the spirit of the law' is a bit broad for defining how to behave, spirit could be solidarity, could be blind following of the dictator. Just because we work for someone it doesn't mean we have to follow their lead in non-work activities, which politics is definitely one of!
posted by uni verse at 9:06 AM on February 16, 2006

One time, I was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding. ...

That analogy is only relevant if you do not believe Scarbrough was singled out because of the content of his stickers.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:06 AM on February 16, 2006

He's not in violation of Hatch, and his signage is not on Federal Property, but on personal property (his vehicle,) hence he is not in violation of any statute, and is well within his first amendment constitutional rights. End of story.

Umm. His VEHICLE is on federal property. If you want to be this pedantic about it, you could post a sign on a stick on government property, and say "Well technically that sign is on my private property (the stick) so it's not actually on federal property."
posted by antifuse at 9:07 AM on February 16, 2006

I think it's fair to ask employees to refrain from having scale model critiques of your organization on your property.

I don't see any ciritiques on the back of his truck:

On the back, he tapes weekly updates of the number of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq. Beneath that, on a large, white (and also taped-on) placard: "Support our returning troops and their families when they need help: Give them this number: GI RIGHTS HOTLINE: [phone]." On both doors, in bold capital letters: "DEATH IN IRAQ IS NOT A CAREER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG AMERICANS." Taking up nearly half of the back window: "Veterans for Peace Chapter 117, Idaho." On the driver's side wheel well, also in all caps: "PERHAPS GOD BLESSES EVERY NATION, NOT JUST THE USA." And interspersed between them all, he places a variety of purchased bumper stickers and magnetic ribbons reading, among other sentiments, "Support our Troops: Bring them Home Now," "Support Diversity" and "Honor Vets, Wage Peace."

The closest to a critique is perhaps the line DEATH IN IRAQ IS NOT A CAREER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG AMERICANS, but that doesn't say anything about the US gov't. Death in anything is not a career opportunity for anyone.
posted by furtive at 9:08 AM on February 16, 2006

volume and appropriateness of that free speech

THERE IS NO VOLUME OR APPROPRIATENESS FOR FREE SPEECH. IT ISN'T FUCKING FREE OTHERWISE, IS IT?

idiots
posted by twistedonion at 9:08 AM on February 16, 2006

Reffernce:



FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
41 C.F.R. § 102-74.415

Code of Federal Regulations Currentness
Title 41. Public Contracts and Property Management
Subtitle C. Federal Property Management Regulations System
Chapter 102. Federal Management Regulation (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter C. Real Property (Refs & Annos)
Part 102-74. Facility Management (Refs & Annos)
+ Subpart C. Conduct on Federal Property
+ Posting and Distributing Materials
>>§ 102-74.415 What is the policy for posting and distributing materials?

All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from--

(a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around Federal buildings, as mandated by Section 636 of Public Law 104-52;

(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property, except as authorized in § 102-74.410, or when these displays are conducted as part of authorized Government activities; and

(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in § 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.


SOURCE: 64 FR 39084, July 21, 1999; 65 FR 10027, Feb. 25, 2000; 67 FR 76830, Dec. 13, 2002, unless otherwise noted.

AUTHORITY: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); E.O. 12191, 45 FR 7997, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p 138.
posted by BeerGrin at 9:09 AM on February 16, 2006

loquax writes "I think it's fair to ask employees to refrain from having scale model critiques of your organization on your property. If the government were really being heavy handed, they could have simply fired him ages ago."

Do you see it as at all threatening to a democracy if all government employees are required to hold the opinions of the party currently in power?


"Well, he in particular was criticizing his employer when he was on federal property and no longer a private citizen, but under contract with the government."

In a republic (from the Latin res publica, "the public thing"), in which each citizen partakes in "ownership" of the government, is employment (or a contract) sufficient to make someone "no longer a private citizen"? doesn't a citizen of a republic have a duty -- similar to due diligence in an employee -- to maintain a critical independence of the government he is a partial owner of, regardless of how he earns his daily bread?


Do you see any problem with requiring that a man's private conscience can no longer be free if he is a government employee? If the government can limit political speech by its employees, can it limit religious speech by its employees?

That's not so farfetched: do you recall the various civil disabilities and Test Acts that, in Britain, precluded Catholics and dissenters form government service? Why do you think the Test Acts were ultimately repealed in Britain? Do you think it was a mistake to allow Catholics and dissenters to participate in government?
posted by orthogonality at 9:10 AM on February 16, 2006

To make a statement, he should have peacefully refused
to move his vehicle, and allowed himself to be peacefully
arrested, or to make them tow his vehicle.

I don't want to live in Loquax and Witty's America.
posted by the Real Dan at 9:13 AM on February 16, 2006

"I wouldn't claim that the US is equivalent to a fascist state, but at times it looks like it could be on the road in that direction. So how can concerned Americans ensure that never happens?" - moi

They can't, because each step will be incremental, so incremental that the likes of loquax will say, "What's the big deal?"

And taken separately, they might not seem like such a huge deal. Taken together, then constitute one very big deal, indeed. - kgasmart

So that's it. There's nothing you or I can do, if They want to take away our rights, They can do it, there's no recourse, and democracy is already dead in America?
posted by raedyn at 9:14 AM on February 16, 2006

Maybe he should only be able to display bumper stickers on a car parked in the "Free Speech Parking Garage", upon exiting which he could enter the barbwired "Free Speech Zone" and discuss these matters there in "the correct volume and spirit". Yeah, that's the ticket.
posted by prostyle at 9:15 AM on February 16, 2006

I would be fired in about 5 seconds by my employer if I in any way made my support of a political party obvious in any way. And it would be 100% legal.

This was not a private citizen harassed in a starbucks parking lot for bumper stickers on his car, he was a federal employee on federal property loudly and obviously criticizing his employer. What exactly did he expect (besides, that is, the very outcome that has transpired)?

I'm pretty sure the rules for the federal government are diffrent then those for private employers.
posted by delmoi at 9:15 AM on February 16, 2006

It really is sobering reading how many MeFites are willing to give up our First Amendment rights. Especially since they love to exercise them every day on a website.
posted by NationalKato at 9:20 AM on February 16, 2006

Would those of you calling these signs:



"Bumpers stickers" please stop?? It's driving me crazy.
posted by antifuse at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2006

I like this man Dwight Scarbrough. Thank god for people that are willing to stand up against the bullshit.

Whenever I find myself staring directly into the face of the state over some perceived injustice I always end up backing down. I'm such a coward.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:22 AM on February 16, 2006

It really is sobering reading how many MeFites are willing to give up our First Amendment rights.

or worse still, foreigners willing to give them up for us. Not sure, but that seems to be what's going on with loquax above.

I welcome a correction if my assumption is wrong
posted by edverb at 9:23 AM on February 16, 2006

Not sure, but that seems to be what's going on with loquax above.

Yes, loquax lives in Canada and likes to frequently remind us of a few things: 1) these issues are nothing to worry about and 2) he's scared shitless of terrorists.
posted by prostyle at 9:26 AM on February 16, 2006

please stop?? It's driving me crazy.
posted by antifuse at 9:21 AM PST on February 16

Okay they're not bumper stickers; what happened is still grade-A bullshit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:28 AM on February 16, 2006

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:31 AM on February 16, 2006

Loquax, reading more of these comments its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. This isn't Canada with a pussy-ass charter of rights that we can override whenever we feel like it. This is America, land of the free, and home of the brave!

What the government can and can't do about its employees speech is regulated by law, much more so then what can and can't be done by private employers. If you're a government employee, you can criticize the government as much as you want, even though you couldn't do that if you worked for Microsoft, because it is the Government.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 AM on February 16, 2006

About this, Canada's charter of rights and freedoms, as well as any employment law, does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, or in fact any acquaintance one keeps. - loquax

You're wrong. From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

There have been some concerns raised regarding enforcement and erosion of part (d), yes. But you can't say there's no protection in Canadian law, as it's right there at the top of our Constitution.
posted by raedyn at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2006

By the way, if you are a Canadian living in Canada, I resent the fact that you would dare to redefine free speech in my country. Maybe you are an American living in Toronto, I don't know, but if you are a foreign citizen, you are waaaay out of line.

Edverb, I'm not sure where to begin asserting the invalidity of your statement. Given your government's behavior over the last few years, I think it would behoove you to take advantage of some advice coming from foreigners. I don't agree with the sentiment you oppose in your statement, but I do vehemently believe that you are trying to stifle speech on authoritarian grounds.

So, please, don't redefine free speech for your country. Thanks.
posted by jon_kill at 9:36 AM on February 16, 2006

Please don't assume that loquax speaks for Canadians.
posted by raedyn at 9:37 AM on February 16, 2006

I think the biggest issue here is that it is the DHS making the beef, rather than his supervisor.

If there have been complaints, his supervisor should deal with the issue.

If the DHS is suddenly in the business of enforcing these kinds of regulations, why did they not first contact his supervisors and inform them of the new initiative?

Don't they have more important jobs, like looking for Canadian pot and Mexican immigrants?
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:38 AM on February 16, 2006

I don't agree with the sentiment you oppose in your statement, but I do vehemently believe that you are trying to stifle speech on authoritarian grounds.

No one's saying "stop talking or we'll physically punish you or have you arrested"; we're saying "don't encourage the supression of free speech because you're so irrationally afraid of terrorists, you fuckin' weenie."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:39 AM on February 16, 2006

I'm pretty sure the rules for the federal government are diffrent then those for private employers.
Would you agree a person working in a department not directly related to security may be allowed to voice his political opinions? Can a man have a pro-war sticker? If so then can he have a ant-war sticker?
posted by uni verse at 9:39 AM on February 16, 2006

If I remember correctly, the courts have pretty much agreed that the fourth amendment (there's one of those pesky constitutional rights again) covers your automobile, much as it would cover your home or other private property. That's why police can't search your vehicle without probable cause or your consent. It's your private property. You can put any damned sign/sticker/etc. you want on it, and unless you venture into public indecency/fire in a building type limitations, you're covered under the first and fourth amendments to the United States Constitution. Which is, let me remind my fuzzy headed friends, the Supreme law of this land. Buck. Stops. Heah.
posted by stenseng at 9:40 AM on February 16, 2006

And as a fellow loudmouthed liberal Idahoan, with family members who are Federal employees and regularly park their vehicles with "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home" stickers on them at Federal facilities, I'm proud to say "Way to go, Dwight!"

Now I may have to cut a check to the Boise ACLU chapter on payday.
posted by stenseng at 9:42 AM on February 16, 2006

So I took the ticket, went to court, contested it and found out that the officer's equipment was faulty. I certainly didn't start barking about harrassment.

Presumeably the officer in your case was pulling over any car that his equipment said was speeding.

Scarbrough was told that no signs were allowed. But do you really imagine that these DHS guys levelled the same FR charges at the owners of every single car in the lot that had any sort of bumper sticker? What about lettered license plate frames? Car names? Manufacturer logos? Those are all signs. That would basically mean (as Scarbrough pointed out) that virtually no vehicle at all could ever be allowed on Federal property.

I say it counts as harrassment because the officers in this case not only made false charges, they clearly did so in a discriminatory way.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:44 AM on February 16, 2006

I think it would behoove you to take advantage of some advice coming from foreigners.

Even bad advice?

I don't agree with the sentiment you oppose in your statement, but I do vehemently believe that you are trying to stifle speech on authoritarian grounds.

If/when Loquax can vote here, if/when Loquax pays taxes here, then Loquax can make his voice heard on the volume and appropriateness of free speech in America. And, in a courtesy I would expect in return...I may disagree with what he's saying, but would defend his right to say it.

But for a foregner (any foreigner, even a Canadian) to define freedom downwards for Americans? Hell no. That's not received wisdom, it's an incursion on dearly held principles which are not weaknesses, but strengths.

FWIW, I love Canada. Nothing personal, strictly policy. Foreign wisdom is welcome, foreign support for repression is quite unwelcome.
posted by edverb at 9:46 AM on February 16, 2006

I'm still trying to understand how "signs on a truck" equals "Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property," OR "Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers" -- clearly, the statute is vague and poorly written. The officer was confused by this language, and he made a mistake. Otherwise, these consequences will have to apply to everyone else.

If this means that any stickers and signs are prohibited on any vehicle parked in a government lot, then ALL stickers and signs must be removed from ALL vehicles. Enforcement can't come down to personal preference. That is the whole problem, and the entire point of the First Amendment.

So which is it to be? It's really pretty simple and clear cut. This rule needs to be modified to clearly mention "political speech" or else get out the razor blades and scrapers, federal employees, and start removing all stickers from your vehicles. This includes "Pro-Life" signs, "My kid is an honor student" and everything else. Including park registration stickers, yellow ribbon magnets, and whatever else is on your vehicle.

Free speech is a bitch, no?
posted by mooncrow at 9:48 AM on February 16, 2006

IMO, whether you're pro-war or anti-war or pro-life or anti-life, or pro-anything or con-anything, posting your opinion SO MUCH LOUDER THAN EVERYONE ELSE is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment.

This wasn't a bumper sticker - it was a huge billboard on the side of his car. He put it there because he wants attention, and now he's bitching because he got it? He may innocent in terms of the law, but he's guilty of being a jackass.
posted by b_thinky at 9:50 AM on February 16, 2006

Even bad advice?

You can't dismiss bad advice on authoritarian grounds alone.
posted by jon_kill at 9:52 AM on February 16, 2006

Slarty Bartfast: Whenever I find myself staring directly into the face of the state over some perceived injustice I always end up backing down. I'm such a coward.

Don't feel too bad -- they have bigger guns than you.
posted by LordSludge at 9:53 AM on February 16, 2006

He put it there because he wants attention, and now he's bitching because he got it?

In other b_thinky news, women dress provocatively because they want to be raped.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:56 AM on February 16, 2006

So that's it. There's nothing you or I can do, if They want to take away our rights, They can do it, there's no recourse, and democracy is already dead in America?

He could have taken the citation and fought it in court. I agree that there's a lot more gray area in this country where there probably shouldn't be... free speech being one of them. But just because you were approached by an officer and asked to comply with a law, when you think you're in the right, doesn't mean you're being harrassed. Either fight it in court or accept the officer's opinion. This guy moved his car, then cried harrassment and posted it on the web. My sympathy dissolves at that point.

In other b_thinky news, women dress provocatively because they want to be raped.

If his co-workers burned his truck to the ground because of his stickers/signs, then you would have a point.
posted by Witty at 9:58 AM on February 16, 2006

b_thinky writes "posting your opinion SO MUCH LOUDER THAN EVERYONE ELSE is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment. "


So, uh, b_thinky, are you intimidated by these ? Or this: ? Or this ?


I admit, the last one scares me, but because of the content. Content the First Amendment is supposed to be, you know, neutral to.
posted by orthogonality at 9:58 AM on February 16, 2006

You can't dismiss bad advice on authoritarian grounds alone.

Oh no? Watch me. ;-)

If so, I'm using an authoritarian argument to challenge the authoritarian's argument.
posted by edverb at 10:03 AM on February 16, 2006

mooncrow is right on the mark. As the article also pointed out there are "dozens of people parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among other sentiments, 'My Dad is a Marine,' 'Create Peace,' 'POW/ MIA,' and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety." By the letter (not the "spirit") of the law, no law was broken. INO this was a clear case of selective "harassment" (not "enforcement"), singling out the "content" of the sticker/sign affixed to a private vehicle. If such is to be prohibited, no private vehicle should/would be permitted to drive on federal land displaying any sign, logo, content -- from FedEx delivery trucks to a spouse of a federal working, driving a family van with a bumper sticker saying 'Give Peace A Chance' or 'Pro-life Faimly Onboard.'
posted by ericb at 10:04 AM on February 16, 2006

Yes, Scarbrough seemed too quick to overreact, but then again, I've never been confronted by a DHS officer (yet) and the transcript doesn't convey the officer's tone of voice or his posture, so I can't really judge. I think Witty brings up a salient point, especially since Scarbrough had complied with the officer's request in the end by moving his truck. He could've complied and challenged the citation and possibly taken up a harassment suit against the officer and the DHS. I tend to agree with antifuse that defining his vehicular decorations as bumper stickers as opposed to signage is dubious. And nitpicking that the arguable signage is on his privately owned truck parked on fed property but not necessarily on fed property is equally dubious (given what I know in both cases). The law is vague. It could be seen that Scarbrough had affixed flyers onto his truck which is on GSA controlled property. The Hatch Act does specify that bumper stickers are okay and size doesn't matter but does paper board affixed via duct tape equal a bumper sticker? I honestly don't know. If he had discussed this with his supervisor and they had determined that it is such and it was permissible, then Scarbrough was right to request that his supervisor be called to the scene. And regardless of this, the DHS officer was incorrect to insist that such an action was unnecessary and inappropriate.

I in no way condone the conduct of the DHS officer or what it might portend in regard to free speech. And I commend Scarbrough for standing up for his rights. I think if his arguable signage were commercial advertising of some sort, I might be more inclined to allow his superiors to protest his decorations, but still, not a DHS officer. I think this particular Homie's supervisor should have a discussion with him as to what his duties entail. And if parking lot policing of minor offenses to federal law is within the purview of DHS officers, then I think we should take issue with that with our representatives. The officer obviously knew it was an employee, if he should've done anything, he should've had a discussion with the employee's supervisor and perhaps the property manager.

And I think the comparison between free and potentially offensive speech of an individual as it applies to their relationship to a commercial employer and free political speech of a government employee is improper.

Overall, I think the law needs to be further clarified to allow this sort of expression and this circumstance is very unfortunate. I'm glad it didn't escalate.
posted by effwerd at 10:05 AM on February 16, 2006

*of a federal worker*
posted by ericb at 10:06 AM on February 16, 2006

It is rather striking that even though the article is fully sympathetic with this man they have to describe him as an "extreme voice".

antifuse: Umm. His VEHICLE is on federal property.

Well, then, I'm just wondering, isn't everything federal (or state?) property, unless it's privately owned? What about the roads? How does that work?

If you take the view that private vehicles are no longer private when they're in public property, wouldn't that mean you are only allowed to display signs on your vehicle... as long as it's kept in the garage?

Besides, the article says there's political stickers of all kinds on other vehicles parked in government-related property, so, if they haven't raised this issue with anyone else, it would seem rather hard to deny it's got to do with the kind of message in these signs, rather than laws.
posted by funambulist at 10:06 AM on February 16, 2006

IMO, whether you're pro-war or anti-war or pro-life or anti-life, or pro-anything or con-anything, posting your opinion SO MUCH LOUDER THAN EVERYONE ELSE is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment.

That's about the silliest argument I've ever heard.
posted by delmoi at 10:07 AM on February 16, 2006

Does anyone else get the sense that some Bush-freak at the building Scarborough works in got a hair up their ass over his bumper stickers and phoned Teh Authoritay?

Also, on behalf of Canadians everywhere, I'd like to point out that we're not all rowing the same boat loquax is.
posted by illiad at 10:08 AM on February 16, 2006

b_thinky is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment. (my opinion)

Witty is over-reacting and exaggerating. (my opinion)

Dwight Scarbrough feels harrassed. (his own opinion)

Nobody asked you to be sympathetic or like the "jackass".
posted by badger_flammable at 10:09 AM on February 16, 2006

Well, then, I'm just wondering, isn't everything federal (or state?) property, unless it's privately owned? What about the roads? How does that work?

Good point. Should Scarborough be prohibited from driving on a federal highway with his stickers/signs affixed?
posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on February 16, 2006

As we all know the Integrity of The Parking Lot must be maintained at all times. Otherwise you can kiss your professional environment goodbye!
Fin.
posted by prostyle at 10:09 AM on February 16, 2006

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security"...

... "Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."
posted by tvjunkie at 10:10 AM on February 16, 2006

Well, then, I'm just wondering, isn't everything federal (or state?) property, unless it's privately owned? What about the roads? How does that work?

Good point. Should Scarborough be prohibited from driving on a federal highway with his stickers/signs affixed?

I think the matter at hand involves GSA controlled property. Calling it fed property in this case would be considered shorthand for that.
posted by effwerd at 10:14 AM on February 16, 2006

Does anyone else get the sense that some Bush-freak at the building Scarborough works in got a hair up their ass over his bumper stickers and phoned Teh Authoritay?

Yes.
posted by effwerd at 10:14 AM on February 16, 2006

effwerd: the law is vague
the law is not vague: it has been posted on this page more than once. It prohibits distributing fliers. Stickers are not fliers, no? Be careful of generalizing where generalizing relocates people off the fence and into the fray.
posted by uni verse at 10:16 AM on February 16, 2006

The statute reads: "Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property,"

Dwight Scarborough's Truck != GSA-controlled property.

End of story.

"IMO, whether you're pro-war or anti-war or pro-life or anti-life, or pro-anything or con-anything, posting your opinion SO MUCH LOUDER THAN EVERYONE ELSE is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment. "


IMO, that's a stupid opinion, and totally irrelevant to the question of legality.


"This wasn't a bumper sticker - it was a huge billboard on the side of his car. He put it there because he wants attention, and now he's bitching because he got it? He may innocent in terms of the law, but he's guilty of being a jackass."

He is innocent in terms of the law, and is well within his constitutional rights to speech. Meanwhile, you are clearly innocent of understanding the inalienable rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and are clearly guilty of being a muddleheaded enabler of neo-fascist thuggery.
posted by stenseng at 10:17 AM on February 16, 2006

You will respect my AUTHORITAY!
posted by orthogonality at 10:19 AM on February 16, 2006

the Real Dan writes "To make a statement, he should have peacefully refused to move his vehicle, and allowed himself to be peacefully arrested, or to make them tow his vehicle.

"I don't want to live in Loquax and Witty's America."

You do realize you're in agreement with Witty in this instance, right? He's stated, multiple times in this thread, that instead of arguing with the officer, Scarbrough should have "taken the citation, gone to court so a judge could interpret the law in more detail, both for the man and the officer." Which is pretty much exactly what you're advocating. Where's the disagreement?

Also, it's Loquax's North America.

uni verse writes "the law is not vague: it has been posted on this page more than once. It prohibits distributing fliers."

Distributing or posting, actually.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:20 AM on February 16, 2006

"posting your opinion SO MUCH LOUDER THAN EVERYONE ELSE is intimidating to others and not conducive to a professional environment. "

Federal Statute 181.32.554 requires that bumperstickers affixed to automobiles in the U.S. must be rectangular in shape with dimensions no larger than 2.5"(h) x 7"(l) with typefaces restricted to no bold and only Courier New or Times Roman -- no larger than 48 pts. in size.

Print may by black-on-white background or white-on-black backgroud. No "loud" colors may be employed, so as to insure that no message is considered "louder" or "intimidating" to others who may not hold the same belief, viewpoint or weltanschauung as you.

All text must be in proper English; foreign languages are prohibited (except for the use of the German word weltanschauung).

posted by ericb at 10:21 AM on February 16, 2006

orthogonality: do you really not see the difference in non-inspirational corporate logos and controversial, divisive political rhetoric?

When you see a FedEx logo, you think... nothing.

When you see a "Bushit" sticker you think "hell yeah! Right on!" or "fuck you moron!" depending on your perspective.

Professionals typically leave their controversial opinions at home in order to prevent isolating himself and intimidating others. This is akin to an employee stating "Betty in accounting has nice tits" or something like that. It's rude and intimidating.
posted by b_thinky at 10:22 AM on February 16, 2006

"(you) are clearly guilty of being a muddleheaded enabler of neo-fascist thuggery."

I like that line. I'm gonna get it tattoo'ed on the palm of my hand and whenever anyone pisses me off by being a neo-con apologist I need to have the "talk to the hand". Yes, it's judgemental, yes, it is it's own form of partisan discrimination, but it also can be applied to the politically correct "we must think of the children" Democrats as well.

Now if only I got fit that on a branding iron...
posted by daq at 10:22 AM on February 16, 2006

b_thinky writes "He put it there because he wants attention, and now he's bitching because he got it? He may innocent in terms of the law, but he's guilty of being a jackass."

Ohhhh, irony, you are my friend today. AskMefis by b_thinky include:

Some friends arrived from overseas yesterday, but didn't clear customs and are being deported tomorrow. Do we have any rights or options in this situation?
posted on Feb-4-06 at 8:18 AM EST

I want to start a "hate" site dedicated to my crappy dealings with a major corporation. What do I need to be wary of?
posted on Aug-2-05 at 8:21 PM EST

posted by orthogonality at 10:24 AM on February 16, 2006

effwerd: the law is vague
the law is not vague: it has been posted on this page more than once. It prohibits distributing fliers. Stickers are not fliers, no?

Well, I thought I read the words "affix" and "flyers" which I read as potentially including duct taping paper board to a car on GSA controlled property. I don't mean to sound as if I'm an authority pronouncing the truth. I'm just giving my take on the situation. I just don't like always qualifying all my statements with "I think" "It seems to me" and "IMO", though I still manage to get them in there often.
posted by effwerd at 10:24 AM on February 16, 2006

On a tangent, you know you're reading some quality journalism when you come across "(VERIFY)" in the middle of the article.
posted by scottreynen at 10:25 AM on February 16, 2006

He is innocent in terms of the law, and is well within his constitutional rights to speech.

Then why did he move his truck? If I built a tool shed behind my house and some county worker came by and told me that I couldn't have it, even though I had every reason to believe I could, I certainly would tear it down before taking to issue to court.

You're saying he's innocent. Great! That's your opinion. What did the judge have to say? We'll never know. Had this story ended with a judge siding with the officer 100%, then my opinion might be different.
posted by Witty at 10:25 AM on February 16, 2006

"Professionals typically leave their controversial opinions at home in order to prevent isolating himself and intimidating others. This is akin to an employee stating "Betty in accounting has nice tits" or something like that. It's rude and intimidating."

That's one hell of a strawman you're kicking the shit out of there b_thinky.

Meanwhile, Dwight Scarbrough is well within his constitutionally protected rights to speech and security of his property. Which is what this thread is about.

So. What's your point?
posted by stenseng at 10:25 AM on February 16, 2006

ooops... wouldn't tear it down.
posted by Witty at 10:28 AM on February 16, 2006

b_thinky writes "Professionals typically leave their controversial opinions at home in order to prevent isolating himself and intimidating others. "

Well, b, when I see the "Domino's Pizza" sign I think about how Domino's owner, Tom Monaghan, contributes lots of money to anti-abortion groups. But be that as it may.

Do you think that "professionals" should not discuss their religious beliefs at work? Should they refrain from mentioning that they are Jews or Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses?
posted by orthogonality at 10:29 AM on February 16, 2006

Orthogonality is owning them today.
posted by uni verse at 10:29 AM on February 16, 2006

"Then why did he move his truck? If I built a tool shed behind my house and some county worker came by and told me that I couldn't have it, even though I had every reason to believe I could, I certainly would tear it down before taking to issue to court.

You're saying he's innocent. Great! That's your opinion. What did the judge have to say? We'll never know. Had this story ended with a judge siding with the officer 100%, then my opinion might be different."

Well... like, the constitution is really vague man, and like, that's just your opinion...

Had this story ended with the judge siding with the HS goon, then the Judge would be as dense and ignorant of the constitutional protections we enjoy as Americans as you seem to be.
posted by stenseng at 10:29 AM on February 16, 2006

When you see a FedEx logo, you think... nothing.

When you see a "Bushit" sticker you think "hell yeah! Right on!" or "fuck you moron!" depending on your perspective.

I get it. You're saying we should restrict speech based on its content. Okay. Yes, that is a capital idea.

This is akin to an employee stating "Betty in accounting has nice tits" or something like that.
posted by b_thinky at 10:22 AM PST on February 16

Mm, no, it's actually nothing like that.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:29 AM on February 16, 2006

Woah. A few things:

1 - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not prevent discrimination on the basis of group (including political) affiliation. You're free to do whatever you want, just as your employer is free to fire you for it. The ESA 2000 in Ontario specifically leaves out political affiliation as a prohibited ground for dismissal. If US law is different, fine, great, wonderful, I already said I wasn't familiar with it. In any case, this guy wasn't fired or otherwise reprimanded at all, so this thread isn't about that - I was trying to indicate that such a situation is hardly unique to the US, much to the shock of some, apparantly.

2 - Sorry folks, but "freedom of speech" is not absolute. It's not good enough to cite that rite as an absolute defense to any charge. I wholeheartedly believe that this guy in general has the right to believe and say whatever he wants whenever he wants. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable that his employer, the federal government, would think his actions on their property would be inappropriate (regardless of the law, for a moment), not just because of his political beliefs, but because of the disruption in the workplace and potential for conflict. Being outspoken and loud about your beliefs is an honourable tradition and right in both Canada and the States. Perhaps, however, the workplace (especially a government workplace) is not the best location to choose to exercise that right. Or at least, if you're going to do it, expect problems. I still haven't read of anyone attacking his right to free speech on the street, in his home, or ANYWHERE BUT THE FEDERAL PROPERTY WHICH IS HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. I don't see how this translates into Nazi Germany Redux. Maybe I'm crazy! I've already been accused of being a klansman in this thread.

3 - My point about the "spirit" of the law referred to the arguments in this thread that were making technical legal points about what was or wasn't allowed under the regulations cited. I asked if the law specifically said bumper stickers (or whatever) on cars in federal parking lots were not allowed, would there be an issue? If you say no, then we are arguing about a legal technicality, not a constitutional issue. If you say yes, then who cares what the law says, because you should believe the whole thing is unconstitutional.

4 - I never claimed to speak for Canada, or Canadians, and I find it amusing that so many here are rushing to distance themselves from their fantasies regarding how I would run the continent (believe me, it would include an invisible mental shield created by yogic flying). What exactly did I say that would frighten you all so? That you shouldn't have the right to brazenly and openly criticize your employer while acting in their employ? That this is really a discussion about a legal technicality? That freedom of speech is not an absolute right in all circumstances? Are these really the words of a Canadian Goebbels?
posted by loquax at 10:32 AM on February 16, 2006

Had this story ended with the judge siding with the HS goon, then the Judge would be as dense and ignorant of the constitutional protections we enjoy as Americans as you seem to be.

Well, like I said, we'll never know.
posted by Witty at 10:34 AM on February 16, 2006

I think it's reasonable that his employer, the federal government, would think his actions on their property would be inappropriate (regardless of the law, for a moment), not just because of his political beliefs, but because of the disruption in the workplace and potential for conflict.

If that's the case everyone in the parking lot should be asked to remove their "signs," bumper stickers, etc. from their automobiles parked in the same lot. As the article also pointed out there are "dozens of people parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among other sentiments, 'My Dad is a Marine,' 'Create Peace,' 'POW/ MIA,' and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety."
posted by ericb at 10:35 AM on February 16, 2006

Mm, no, it's actually nothing like that.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:29 AM PST on February 16 [!]

It's exactly the same. The comment divides, intimidates and creates an uncomfortable atmosphere - generally not positives for the workplace.

This stuff is fine for driving down the highway or hanging out at a bar, but not the office.
posted by b_thinky at 10:36 AM on February 16, 2006