Rahm’s “Sit Down and Shut Up” Laws

There are times when being a dispassionate observer of society is painfully difficult. The recent “Sit Down, and Shut Up” Laws passed by Chicago’s selectmen is one such occasion. By now we’ve seen how such laws are enforced in northern California.[1]

 

Even before the recent outbreak of repression on Oakland’s street, Rahm Emanuel (the quintessential suburban political usurper) and the City Council passed their own response to the indignation on the streets; a set of laws which can only been seen as a blatant indifference for the Constitution of the United States. Lawyers are going to have a hay day with this one, which is certain.

The Constitution of The United States of America

Not too many years ago a low administrator in the Bush Administration floated the idea that quoting the Constitution would make an individual a suspected terrorist. That 2003 source is now lost to antiquity. Perhaps some Anon can snoop the archives to check it for validity. Anecdotally, however, it shows the level that despots will sink to prevent questioning authority. For the sake of this article, however, it is worth the reminder what our collective rights are in the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ~ The Constitution of The United States of America: Amendment 1 (Ratified 15 December 1791)

Before running off with the common misconception that such laws only apply to the federal government, the Amendment 14 was passed on 9 July 1868.[2]

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ~ The Constitution of The United States of America: Amendment 14, Section 1

It is the passage “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” in conjunction with “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (italics, of course, are mine) is what is important in our discussion. 

Chicago’s Sparkling New Law

It is still, some nineteen days later, hard to get a fix on what exactly was passed. On 17 January 2012, Truthout reported on an increase in fines, a one-million dollar liability insurance bond from organizers, "a description of any recording equipment, sound amplification equipment, banners, signs, or other attention-getting devices to be used in connection with the parade", registration with the city to protest, and new language that would exclude, or include, sidewalk protest, and “allow the police Superintendent to deputize FBI, DHS, ATF, and DOJ employees as Chicago police officers.”[3] The law was passed 41 to 4.
 

The Chicago Sun-Times reported on the Mayor’s proposal in an article from the same day.[4] Quoting Rahm, the article states, “We don’t want to give the impression that we’re looking to do anything about the First Amendment except protect it. It’s really that simple. Even if it’s just a perception issue, we want to avoid that.” I am sure that there are many people out there who will agree with this reasoned statement.

Truth on The Street

This far, the Chicago Police Department has done everything but “protect” the First Amendment. As reported in the chicagoist[5] “[An] Occupy Chicago member, Keilah Becker, … [reported] a female officer took her cell phone, turned it off and deleted the footage… informing her that recording police officers is a class 4 felony.” One has to wonder how exactly Rahm, the Chicago City Council, the State of Illinois, or the U.S. Department of Justice for that matter, is protecting the First Amendment.

Where are We at Now?

As far as Illinois almost unenforceable “eavesdropping law,” the chicagoist reports that, “State Rep. Elaine Nekritz is sponsoring an amendment which would legalize recording police.”[6] This, of course, makes sense because the Police do everything they can to record citizens activities. 

We are still in some kind of quazi grey area concerning Rahm’s law. It is blatantly illegal to “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is a period there. That is the end of the statement. What is more obvious than that? These laws are illegal! Congress cannot legally deny the right to free speech, and peaceful assembly, the state cannot deny the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, and only a lawyer could argue that the city can deny the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. 

The City Council passed these laws. The City Council can repeal them. Start putting pressure on the 41 votes which passed these repressive laws.  

Side Note

As a “point of order” for the Chicago Police Department: the Terry decision[7] which give you the “right” to stop, and to frisk suspects, does not include any mention of cameras or recording equipment.[8] Read it for yourself.

---

[1] Truth Was the First Causality. (2012, January 29). In #Occupy: The Chicago Free Web Zone. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://occupythewhole.blogspot.com/2012/01/truth.html

[2] The United States Constitution. (n.d.). In U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[3] Kunichoff, Y. (2012, January 18). Emanuel's Protest-Squashing "Sit Down and Shut Up" Ordinance Passes in Chicago. In Truthout . Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.truth-out.org/emanuels-sit-down-and-shut-ordinance-aims-chill-protest-chicago/1326902816

[4] Spielman, F. (2012, January 17). Rahm Emanuel backs off stiff fines for G-8, NATO protesters . In Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/10061186-418/rahm-emanuel-backs-off-stiff-fines-for-g-8-nato-protesters.html

[5] Cynic, A. (2012, January 31). Occupy Chicago Alleges Police Deleted Video Footage Of Sunday March. In chicagoist. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://chicagoist.com/2012/01/31/eavesdropping.php

[6] Cynic, A. (2012, January 31). Occupy Chicago Alleges Police Deleted Video Footage Of Sunday March. In chicagoist. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://chicagoist.com/2012/01/31/eavesdropping.php

[7] Terry v. Ohio. (2012, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:12, February 5, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_v._Ohio&oldid=474538734

[8] Terry v. Ohio (No. 67) . (1968, June 10). In Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html