Anti-protest Propaganda Intensifies

The Washington Times continues -- whether intentionally or merely through stupidity -- to prove an effective antidemocractic propaganda force. In an otherwise misleading article, which describes preparations in Los Angeles for the Democratic National Convention (failing to mention that the DNC and RNC are massively corporate-funded), Thomas D. Elias uncorks the kind of howler that often shows up in good media criticism as an exemplar of how the corporate media selectively (and often deviously) frame important issues:

Convention organizers say they believe the joint law enforcement task force will hold protests in check, just as a similar force prevented any violence when Los Angeles hosted the 1984 Olympics, where terrorist violence was considered even more of a threat than it is this summer.

First, why should law enforcement "hold protests in check" at all? They should properly do so only to the degree that those protests are acts of civil disobedience, that is, political protests that infringe the law (this is vastly oversimplified: it is the case that some civil disobedience is Constitutionally-protected political expression). There simply is no other necessarily overriding concern. Of course we'll hear a lot about public safety and the like, but that's always -- except for very rare occasions -- a smokescreen. This subtle point, that some kinds of political activity, namely, protests, must be held in check for the sake of preventing them from disrupting other kinds of political activity, namely, the national conventions of the Democratic or Republican parties, intentionally or simple-mindedly assumes that there is some Constitutional or otherwise authorized ranking of kinds of political activity by priority. That's the only way one could assume that there are kinds of political activity against which the State is obligated to defend other kinds of political activity. I know of no such ranking. But in any case to assume that the Republican and Democratic Conventions enjoy some kind of legal or Constitutional privilege that protests don't enjoy is flat wrong.

The first thing we have to do upon noticing that Elias is giving us a bum steer is to refuse to assume that the Republican National Convention has a superior claim to political legitimacy than anti-RNC protests have. We'll predictably hear from the corporate media during both the RNC and DNC that "extremists are trying to prevent ordinary Americans from pursuing their right to political expression," but that will almost certainly be total nonsense. First, the line between protest and civil disobedience moves at the whim of law enforcement, as it did in DC in April, whenever law enforcement -- fallaciously, again, following the abortion clinic no-protest zone precedent -- creates "protest free zones". These are really "political expression free zones," which means they are really "anti-status-quo political expression free zones," in other words, prior restraint on political expression based on its content. Second, if protesters are not engaging in civil disobedience, then their actions are as protected by the Constitution as anything that happens inside the convention halls and, as such, cannot be "held in check" simply because they are a nuisance, embarrassment, or an inconvenience, either to the host cities or to the national party organizations.

No one (not Republicans, Democrats, LA or Philly) has a right to avoid embarrassment or inconvenience that trumps my right to engage in political speech that embarrasses or inconveniences them. Elias informs us that, despite the wishes of law enforcement, there will not be an area around the Staples Center cordoned-off as a no-protest-zone, as in DC, because local merchants have refused it (as far as I know, the question is still open in Philadelphia). Law enforcement is eager to establish prior restraint based on the content of political speech. And the only reason they are refraining from doing so is business considerations. Thus, in the estimation of LA law enforcement and, one assumes, LA city and municipal governance, some kinds of political speech are less Constitutionally-protected than keeping local business owners fat and happy. Where, pray tell, is that in the Constitution?

Second, the allusion to anticipated terrorist violence at the LA Olympics in 1984 is an allusion to an example of propaganda and repression worthy of Orwell's 1984. But for simplicity sake, I'll pass over a detailed consideration of it here and simply point to a few discussions (here, here and here) of the 1984 Olympics. It hardly counts as a shining example of respect for dissenting political expression.

Third, slyly equating, as Elias does, terrorist bogeymen and civilian protesters is horribly distortive. Though from one perspective it's also completely true; that is, the terrorist bogeymen in 1984 and the threat of violence at the DNC are equally the fantastical creation of the media and law enforcement, and they just as equally function to suppress dissenting political expression. Elias is also, I suppose, accurate when he says that the threat of violence was even higher in 1984 than in 2000; but accurate only if he means thereby that the threat of violence in 1984 was almost entirely a media and law enforcement fabrication, while the threat of violence in 2000 is wholly a fabrication.

But enough hair-splitting about how Elias might be right. How is he wrong? He casually, deviously equates the threat of terrorism (however real or imagined it may have been in 1984) with the right of American citizens to petition for the redress of grievances. That's bad enough. That the Washington Times would gleefully print such rubbish is, while not surprising to anyone familiar with its history, about as far from objectivity as is imaginable.

So, this summer, during the conventions, when the corporate media tells you that a crazy, pissed off, weird, dirty, motley band of extremists is trying to deny real Americans their right to political expression, you'll recognize the nonsense they are trying to fob off as journalism. If that alone doesn't make you mad enough to get serious about finding alternative media voices, and mad enough to join with other Americans to create political alternatives, ask yourself this: if these protesters are so crazy or extreme or ignorant or confused or violent, why does the media consistently stack the deck against them?