A Tale of Two Protests, Source Materials (emails)

^.^

Okay, so maybe I wasn't as polite as I thought...but here is my initial email, and the response it received...

---
^.^
Ok. A couple of things for you to consider...

First off, GET OVER IT! Clinton and impeachment were about FIVE YEARS ago, and you still insist on crying about it...

Second, if you don't have a permit to protest Mr.Starr, then university security can and probably WILL do something about it. Your rights of free speech do not mean that you can prevent the university from functioning in that area of the building, nor does itmean you can block the free speech rights of Ken Starr, or people who agree with him.Your rights of free speech also don't do you much good if you get hauled away from the area. Do yourselves a favor and apply for a permit.

John B.
Laramie, WY

---
Here is the response I got from Josh Thompson, a member of SUFP:

With all due respect:

(a) Clinton's impeachment proceedings concerned the obstruction of justice charge related to the Lewinsky investigation. These are the matters with which most Americans are very familiar, and will always be the subject of controversy regardless of how you feel about that... Why doesn't that right wing neocon cabal responsible for the replacement of the first independent counsel with Starr and Starr go after Bush for his obstruction of justice that potentially killed 3,000 Americans in blocking FBI and CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and others that may have prevented September 11 because of his family's unequivocally proven business relations with them through Carlysle and Arbusto? Or after his lies to the American people to justify the War on Iraq or about his relationship with Kenneth Lay? Which were more egregious, really? I'msorry, but the President is the moral compass of our children... What will my son do now that President Bush has so much more frequently and substantively lied to the American people on national television? LOL... I'm sorry, but I think it's important to point out all of the hypocrisy in regards to all of this wonderful right wing moralism... Next, a good number of people believe that Ken Starr abused the public trust and wasted tremendous taxpayer resources on what, prior to Lewinsky, were completely scurrilous charges and baseless allegations (from White Water to Flowers toTroopergate, there most certainly was a nefarious right wing cabal financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and others). Essentially, I'll never "just get over" the fact that Kenneth Starr wasted $30 million dollars on an investigation that was ultimately unable to prove the allegations and leaks Starr was frequently making to the media? I think Starr should be dis-barred, frankly. I think he violated his code of ethics in many ways...Yes, it may have happened five years ago, but that is irrelevant. What, to most of us, is relevant, is the fact that the mainstream corporate American news media was absolutely negligent in its coverage of these issues, and that because of the same, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious as to all of the reasons we disdain Starr's conduct. What is important is informing others. It appears clear in your reply that you do not fully understand Starr's conduct. I highly encourage you to attend our re-screening of The Hunting of the President that Friday evening and to watch for the details to be announced... It's free.

(b) I've had two potentially precedent setting First Amendment cases surrounding protest, and beg to differ with your interpretation of FirstAmendment case law. Don't worry; we're not stupid, and we will decide on a protest permit if we think in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both. But we do not need a protest permit to express our First Amendment rights on the grounds of a public state institution. Period. University security CANNOT do anything unless we are disruptive simply because we have not asked somebody for permission to do what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a vast body of case law guarantees us the right to do... And if they do, we will have legal observers and video cameras, and the University will be paying dearly for any illegal political repression, and such officers will be facing the consequences that contingent action will bring to them... We will ensure that our expression is well within the confines of current case law because none of us want to go to jail. But we will also ensure that law enforcement does not overstep their bounds and will ensure that all involved are well-educated as to what they can and cannot do... We are not having a parade, and a protest permit is not necessary, seriously...

(c) while you have the right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree; the College of Law and those who've brought Starr at public expense or the expense of law school students have had their opportunity to express themselves in extending the invitation and bringing him here, who is most clearly a very controversial partisan political operative; we have the right, and some might argue, the duty, as American citizens, to express ourselves in kind; you may disagree with the means of expression, but you cannot fundamentally disagree with our right to do so ourselves and publicly express that disagreement and work to educate others without being a fascist; I would never myself ever prescribe for you how and when and where you should exercise your rights guaranteed to you by the First Amendment; personally, I find that fundamentally un-American ; please extend us the same courtesy, or if you disagree with us, organize your own counter-protest; that's certainly your right...

---
My counter-protest is right here...in the pages of my own personal soapbox. However, I reserve for you the right to read this, and any of my blog articles and respond to them. I encourage the exchange of ideas and debate. In fact, your letter may inspire me to delve deeper into your insinuations. March may turn into a busy month for me...

John B.