The state I'm in

If you've read any other part of this blog, odds are you've stumbled across posts detailing or at least referencing my feelings about this state. If not, allow me to summarize - I am not a fan of connecticut. What's currently fueling my extreme dislike of the state of connecticut? This time, it's the use of law enforcement to pre-emptively silence speech of the sort most integral to even a shred of democracy.

Kenneth Krayeske, a freelance journalist, political activist, and law student, was arrested for being at the inaugural parade of our new (old) governor Jodi Rell. Ok, it was for more than being there. It was for being himself and being there. From the news reports it doesn't look like the cop(s) who arrested Krayeske knew he was a journalist. If they had, they might not have gotten all jazzed up when they saw him ride up on a bike, jump off, and approach the parade line with camera in hand as the governor passed. Although I realize as I typed this, Krayeske was riding a bike. That right there could count as probable cause.

But I digress. See, in connecticut it's not ok to exercise your first amendment rights. It's not just illegal to talk about things like poop and boobies on the radio. At least as offensive is visibly and effectively exercising first amendment rights. The existence of these rights is something that never fails to get patiots all swelled up and patriotic. But here in CT, there is a disconnect between pride in the existence of the right and pride in the practice of the right. According to news accounts, Krayese was targeted because of his "past actions" and statements. So Krayeske's being an outspoken critic of the Rell administration (among other things) made his appearance at the parade a questionable act. Thus, in connecticut, having visibly and effectively exercised first amendment rights results in forfeiting those rights.

But Connecticut is the constitution state! How could that happen here? Well, just because it's the constitution state doesn't mean it's the bill of rights state, does it? It turns out the constitution state has a recent history of high profile free speech fuckery. In October of 2001, demonstrators in Hartford were assaulted and arrested by police, held with ridiculously high bails, and charged with crimes such as inciting riot [1, 2].

The 2001 arrests were a frightening over reaction on the part of the police. At the time though it was easy to think it was part of a larger and temporary national trend towards over reaction. Tempers were running high and people were very freaked out in October of 2001. We were still dealing with the immediate wave of aftermath of the plane hijackings, the horror of realizing the full scale of what had happened. And on top of it, there was that whole fucked up anthrax in the mail thing going on, keeping many people on edge. But here we are, years later in a totally different situation. And still it is illegal to be a visibly dissenting member of the public, at least in Hartford, CT. Governmental reaction to September 11 can be seen as the grandfather of a bevy of (now) official restrictive policies and govenmental agencies. This trend is responsible for institutionalizing the kind of reasoning the police used in October 2001 and more recently to target and arrest Krayeske at the governor's parade.

See here's how it goes (excerpted from the Hartford Courant, January 9, 2007)

[State commissioner of public safety] Boyle said that when state police are providing security for any dignitary, its intelligence unit does research to identify "persons who through their prior actions or statements show an intention or propensity to disrupt that event."

"The officers are not told to arrest the person on site, nor to detain, question them or otherwise approach them," Boyle said. "That information is provided to officers working at the event so that they might simply give closer scrutiny to that person."

The whole story is pretty well covered here at this blog through the posts and links. The short version is that we can thank the convergence of the free speech hating policies of CT-local law enforcement with information provided by a relatively new governmental thing (let's refer to it as an "agency") called the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. DEMHS houses the Connecticut Intelligence Center. This agency has been referenced in several news stories on Krayeske's arrest. What is it? From the DEMHS website, the CTIC is a... multi-agency center...located at the FBI’s Connecticut office. The center includes Federal, State and Local law enforcement personnel working side by side to develop leads and solve cases. The center is connected to every local law enforcement agency by specially trained Intelligence Liaison Officers who report to Regional Intelligence officers to report to and work at the Connecticut Intelligence Center (CTIC). The CTIC produces weekly Intelligence bulletins which are distributed electronically to law enforcement and others...who work in the field and may come upon important information.

While emergency management services are certainly necessary, while it seems a reasonable goal to find ways to improve communication between federal and state agencies in order to expedite appropriate and useful responses to prevent (preventable) tragedies like the Hurricane response disasters, why put these jobs under "homeland security"? Even typing those words makes me want to cringe. For some reason, the phrase calls to mind notions of governments spying on their own citizens. News of the president's push for a monarchy and events like the arrest at Rell's parade solidify and validate that association.

So here's this creepy (as fuck) organization which exists with the blessings of our state legislature. It's run by what looks like at least one hack from the (former) super corrupt executive administration. Further, it sort of looks like The Department doesn't do such a stellar job at the whole protecting the citizens thing.

You have to wonder then what possible excuse we could have for entrusting oodles of money and power to an agency which has demonstrated a lack of ability to do exactly the one thing it was created to do, especially if it or its officers are implicated in this most recent application of what is apparently becoming a connecticut tradition of obstructing free speech.

The state legislators are in a tizz now, asking to see "the list", that is in reference to whatever information landed Krayeske on the radar of the free speech hungry cops in Hartford. There is talk among the state legislators of holding hearings. They know this is a king sized screw up and they want to get on the right side of it. But they're neglecting the fact that the assembly already had a chance to weigh in on this when the agency was first created. Today I read an article where a prominent state representative, a member of the party leadership in the house, said she hadn't heard of this agency (the CTIC). That's sort of odd considering she was on the legislature when the DEMHS was created through statute.

The state legislators should be held responsible for allowing such an agency to exist and for not mandating appropriate oversight of this agency (at least). That any member of party leadership could dare to claim ignorance of the existence of this agency speaks to that lack of oversight. Allowing the creation of such a thing without insisting on the proper safeguards against its use to curtail the rights and freedoms of the people it's meant to serve is the same as if the state legislators themselves acted to destroy civil liberties in the state. Yes, there should be hearings. But we should consider putting a few questions to the legislators too, starting with "Just what the fuck were you thinking anyhow?"


From the dissenting opinion in Abrams V the United States, US Supreme Court Justice Holmes (1919):
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.