Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Oppressed BCC Students Take It To YouTube

1

I can't say I approve of the Cantwell conduct, but this is hardly new. In 2004, Bush wouldn't allow non-supporters into any events.

As for the First Amendment claims, private parties can infringe on political speech if they want. BCC could not prevent students from entering a BCC event because of wearing the shirts. But, when BCC rents the room to a private actor (which even though Cantwell is a federal official, her campaign is not) the private actor can discriminate on the basis of speech if they so choose.

The First Amendment applies to Federal action only. The "activist" courts applied the 1st Amendment to State action through the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has yet to apply the 1st Amendment across the board to private conduct.

Posted by Am a Lawyer | October 31, 2006 2:14 PM
2

A couple things: I know the repuglicans put this stuff all the time, and turn about is fair play, but I think the Dems should be above this kind of petty BS. We're the party that's supposed to be supporting free speech, not suppressing it. So lets get over a couple kids in tshirts.

Secondly, these kids are good. A well edited, catchy video on youtube is going to do a lot for their cause, especially since they got a large portion of the interaction on tape. Good job guys. Way to work the new media!

Posted by John | October 31, 2006 2:14 PM
3

And just how sure are we that this little publicity stunt, and professionally-produced video, aren't a staged act put on by the McGavick campaign or some other Republican group, using YouTube to get around any kind of campaign controls?

Posted by Fnarf | October 31, 2006 2:17 PM
4

If it is a dirty trick, Fnarf, they couldn't have pulled it off without an assist from the Cantwell campaign. Unless the Cantwell aide is part of this conspiracy and secretely working for McGavick, the fault still lies with the Cantwell camp.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 31, 2006 2:23 PM
5

What a totally inept move by team Cantwell. Why do this? And, if you are going to do this, who in their right minds does it on camera!

McGavick's entire campaign is based on his being the "civil" candidate. Let the little whiny Bellevue brats in, red shirts and all. Let them make a fuss standing in the back of the room, heckling or whatever lame activity they were planning. What a great showing of "civility" for McGavick they would have been.

Instead, they get to be little right wing celebrities. Ugh.

Posted by golob | October 31, 2006 2:25 PM
6

Republicans willl do anything to avoid talking about the issues facing our country and the self-induced crises they've created.

Posted by Andrew | October 31, 2006 2:27 PM
7

Cantwell should applogize and offer to meet with them. I fully realize that they have nothing to say to each other, but it's the only way to recover from this.

With that said, I don't think this is a fatal mistake by any means, but it would be the adult thing to do. That's why the GOP would be at a loss to respond.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 31, 2006 2:42 PM
8

that "i won this room" guy should be fired and hung to dry.

what an ass.

seriously.

Posted by seattle98104 | October 31, 2006 2:53 PM
9

that "i own this room" guy should be fired and hung to dry.

what an ass.

seriously.

Posted by seattle98104 | October 31, 2006 2:53 PM
10

Anyone know who that Cantwell staffer is?

Posted by Bacon Cheese Egg | October 31, 2006 3:18 PM
11

Just submitted at her website:

Senator Cantwell:

I'm writing in regards to the recent incident at Bellevue Community College, where, at one of your campaign events, some students were turned away for wearing T-shirts with your opponent Mike McGavick's name on them.

While I understand that this was a private meeting and your staffers were within their rights to turn away anyone they chose, this was an action I would have expected from a Republican, not someone such as yourself that we can presumably trust to protect free speech. Your campaign and the Democratic Party's cause would have been much better served to welcome these students in and allow them to participate peacefully in the event. Instead, your staffers chose to follow Bush and Cheney's lead and screen the audience for supporters. Bad move. Now, one week before the election, you've got a PR problem on your hands.

While I doubt that you were directly involved in the decision to exclude these students, you can fix this situation. Please schedule a meeting with them and apologize for their treatment. Taking the high road in this matter will starkly highlight the true differences between us and the Republican Party.

Posted by david | October 31, 2006 3:43 PM
12

Just because you throw on a McGavick T-Shirt and fire up a video camera doesn't mean you get automatic entry into every private event. The guy on the video is right - if his rental contract says he gets to decide who comes in, then he gets to decide who comes in. Doesn't matter whether it's a political event, a kid's birthday party, or a wedding.

Posted by Sean | October 31, 2006 3:54 PM
13

I agree, Sean - but it would have been much better to let them in anyway.

If they had just sat there, they would have looked like dorks.

If they had made a scene, they would have looked like assholes, and then they would have plenty of reason to escort them out.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 31, 2006 4:16 PM
14

Why aren't they serving in Iraq?

Well?

Enough excuses, enlist.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 31, 2006 4:18 PM
15

Oh, and at least they weren't pummelled by her staff. That's what the GOP do to people wearing Dem t-shirts at their campaigns (story online today).

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 31, 2006 4:21 PM
16

Why are the previous commentators confused? As a tort law attorney I can assure you that the Washington State Constitution and the Washington State Administrative Codes 132h protect these students rights! The 9th circuit right here has clear and precise case law that even mandates this constitutional right to supercede private events...... And this for heavens sake children, was a public event, ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS THAT THE STUDENTS WERE OFFICIALLY INVITED TO without stipulation. Go ahead and argue public venue/private venue on political grounds..... It's already speeled out in black and whit case law. The WAC codes specifically spell this stipulation out for Bellevue Community College. THIS IS A FRANCHISE CASE! SOLID.

Posted by Carlton | October 31, 2006 4:27 PM
17

Look, the Democrats don't have to let Republicans vote in their primary elections, and they don't have to allow them into their private party functions. THEY OWN THE ROOM. If the idiot students wanted to attend they should have changed their shirts. Easy schmeezy.

Posted by so what? | October 31, 2006 4:29 PM
18

This reminds me of a saying my mother used on me when I was learning to drive. "Being dead right is not always right". In that case, she was referring to my highly aggressive, if technically legal, driving habits. I might not be breaking any laws, but it might get me killed anyway.

Yes, if the Cantwell campaign rented the auditorium for a private campaign event, they do have a right to limit access. But the campaign worker, "I own this room", was behaving like a total ass in front of a video camera, which is at the very least really bad PR. Just because Shrub routinely stacks his audience with ditto heads doesn't mean Democrats should follow suit. Dissent is a good thing. Politicians of any party should allow dissenting opinions to be heard. As long as the Repugs were doing nothing more than wearing McGavick tee shirts, I see no harm. (On the other hand, if they'd started causing any kind of disturbance, they rightfully should have been tossed out on their asses.)

The main problem seems to be a mix up between the campaign staff (this is a private event) and the college staff (this event is open to ALL students). And it was handled badly by all parties.

Having said that, the red-shirt wearers running crying to the ACLU is a joke. Despite the mix up and the bad PR, it doesn't appear there were any true violations of free speech in the constitutional sense. And comparing a boozing Cantwell to Castro pretty much negates any moral high ground they were attempting to find. Any sympathy I briefly had for them has completely evaporated.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 31, 2006 4:35 PM
19

The students did not post this kids! Bystanders with video coverage have collaborated. If need be, as another student at BCC I can advocate how this actually was put on YOU TUBE! GREAT work media center!

Posted by Jon | October 31, 2006 4:41 PM
20

UH-OH...... The Cantwell campaign has been putting out an official statement that THE STUDENTS WERE RALLYING, PROTESTING, HOLDING UP SIGNS, AND CLEARLY THERE TO DISRUPT! Good job incriminating yourselves in the Seattle Times and King County Journal Cantwell Campaign!!!!!! Go ahead and make the case even easier for these students. Cantwell and the College are sinking. By the way, watch the original footage on KOMO 4 news tonight! Everyone here at the campus has been updated!

Posted by Jon | October 31, 2006 4:48 PM
21

Who cares? Aren't there more important isses affecting our state, like education, healthcare, or the environment? I’m a card-carrying ACLU member, but I don’t care about this. It was poorly handled by the staffer, but it’s so clearly a stunt. Either way, they were going to disrupt the press conference – they just got to do it on the outside.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2006 5:30 PM
22


So, if I have my wedding at BCC and some McGavick supporters want to attend, I have to let them in? That doesn't make any sense. (okay, okay, in this pretend case, I'm not inviting all BCC students to my wedding either, but whatever.)

Anyway, Cantwell's people screwed up. If there were 150 McGavick people there, it would be one thing, but it looked like there were 5. They would have been drowned out by the Obamans. Let'em pass.

Posted by dum | October 31, 2006 5:54 PM
23

"But the campaign worker, "I own this room", was behaving like a total ass in front of a video camera, which is at the very least really bad PR."

I disagree. He paid the money, he owns the room. He was asserting his right to deny them entry. He didn't cave in just because they had a camera.

If being assertive makes you an asshole, then we need more assholes on our team.

Posted by Sean | October 31, 2006 8:12 PM
24

I'm a conservative but I completely side with Cantwell on this. If I was working security for Bush I'd NEVER let those "World Can't Wait" cunts in the door. It's Cantwell's gig she can decide who she wants there.

Posted by RIGHT TURN AHEAD | October 31, 2006 8:23 PM
25

As this thread shows, opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one. Three questions matter:
1. What restrictions does WAC place on BCC facility rentals?
2. Does BCC's email (in the video) change that?
3. What did BCC represent to Cantwell's campaign in the contract?

Either the campaign is or isn't permitted to limit access, and either they did or did not know that.

Students, post the unedited video.

Posted by Troy | October 31, 2006 10:13 PM
26

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Posted by Solomon Schuster | November 12, 2006 12:44 PM
27

TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...

Posted by Roland Laroche | November 16, 2006 7:05 PM
28

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Posted by Charlie Fabian | November 17, 2006 12:31 AM
29

hardcore milf free hardcore porn movies A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

Posted by Junior Mitchel | November 21, 2006 9:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).