Yesterday I was standing on Monument Circle in Indianapolis next to my friend retired Congressman Andy Jacobs Jr at a peaceful protest of about 100 folk about the Sixth Anniversary of the War on Iraq. Andy recalled how as a freshman Congressman in 1996 he had stood right next to President Lyndon Johnson as the police hauled away noisy demonstrators. How different it is in 2009 !

... to President Bush making sure there was no flicker of public dissent at his appearances -- even T-shirts with anti-Bush messages.

In early November 2002 I attended a political rally at the convention center in Louisville, Kentucky for George Bush, who speak briefly there in person. I had on a plain sweatshirt with no message, and others had been thrown out after they took off their sweatshirts or sweaters and had anti-Bush T-shirts on underneath. I heard two of the volunteer security men talking right behind me. One told the other to keep an eye on me, the other wanted to throw me out for having my ears pierced.

Here's hoping that having a President who actually cares about civil rights will prompt a 180-degree turn on all the local ordinances, and state laws, and federal policies, that have narrowed American civil disobedience over the last two decades.

Civil disobedience is, by definition, illegal. Yet, there is no doubt that there is an established tradition that certain forms of harmless civil disobedience should be tolerated or punished lightly. On the other hand, civil disobedience is meaningless if the protesters are not willing to be arrested and suffer whatever the consequences are. There is a point at which it is the responsibility of the citizenry to maintain this tradition --- the idea being that we will not allow a despot to take it away.

If we are a nation of sheep, we will lose this tradition. And it will be our own fault. Period.

Contrary to what conservatives believe, stifling peaceful protest doesn't keep a country cowed and peaceful. It has the opposite effect -- it keeps the lid on pressures that build and build. The resulting explosions are angry mobs, not peaceful marchers.

This is essentially the reason for the race riots during the late 20th Century --- producing mottoes such as "Burn, baby, burn!" --- demonstrating beyond doubt your point, Patricia, that suppressing protest only raises the pressure point at which things will finally, and uncontrollably, explode.

Eeeek!!! 1966

I think our government(s) always feared "the mob" despite the high sounding language of our Bill of Rights. New York or Philly would have made excellent capitals for the young democracy, but there were PEOPLE there and the disorder of the French Revolution scared the bejesus out of the founding fathers. Hence the creation of Washington DC.

Even legitimate protests to racial segregation, Vietnam or police brutality at the 1968 Democratic National Convention were denied by local and state governments suggesting that those participating were "outside agitators." By so doing they were stripped of their American Citizenship.

Sharing rights equally with others who peacefully disagree, if voted on by the American Voting public, would be resoundingly defeated. I hope that the American Civil Liberties Union lives forever as we will always need them.

People need to be paying more attention to this. The biggest encroachments on free speech and assembly haven't been happening at the federal level, but at the local level, usually disguised as attempts to protect residents from noisy protesters.

That's good that this judge sided with the Constitution. But a few more years of Bush/McCain appointees and we'd probably see the right to "Free Assembly" reduced to designated "Free Speech Zones"... in Wyoming.