Opinion and other coverage of Constitution Day Free Speech fracas

Thursday update/summary:

• Free speech of parade group curtailed by announcer at Constitution Day parade
  (announcer wouldn't announce group name; eventually announced name but still wouldn't announce full statement)
  
• Announcer and parade president subsequently apologize to group for curtailing free speech
  
• Local newspaper's unsigned editorial defends the curtailment, on dubious grounds:
  
  • To call for "impeachment for high crimes..." is to slander our leaders
    
  • Unpopular politics do not belong in a small town [Constitution Day] parade
  
  
• NCFocus offers charity donation if unsigned editorial's author will come forward and discuss its logic
  
• Author _does_ come forward, but refuses to discuss, and refuses to grant permission to reprint the email exchange.

(I'd told someone yesterday, "if he _did_ agree to discuss it, I swear I'd have a heart attack" - so while Hospice loses a donation(bad), cardiac health hazard is averted(good). Overall influence on local community health: a wash. )


(For more background see yesterday's introductory post, and the chronology posted earlier this evening.)
(And if story links require registration, try the passwords at BugMeNot.)

a 'rowback' variant:
From The Union's Mon. Sept 11 "Constitution Day parade president issues apology to group" breaking news article:

Co-announcer Greg Cook said the announcers edit statements on the spot and will sometimes omit segments for brevity.

"There was no agenda," Cook said Monday. ...

This assertion doesn't appear in the next day's Apology given in Sunday parade incident, wherein partial-statement-announcer Paul Matson explains:

"The words 'high crimes' stuck in my throat ... I felt uncomfortable with the accusations they were making. They were not words I would use at a celebration."

(Kudos to Paul for his honesty, apart from whether his reticence was justified.)


Constitution Day Parade Commission President Dennis Cassella's "nothing foul or inappropriate [in A.C.I.'s statement]" evaluation (in the Apology) of A.C.I.'s announcement was not shared by the anonymous architect of today's Union editorial, Parade announcer had a right to pause ["pause"... - ed.], which asserts that Paul was justified in omitting the second part of A.C.I.'s statement because uttering the phrase "dedicated to impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney for high crimes..." would constitute slander against our nation's leaders.
[NCFocus note: This is an interesting legal argument; we'll run it by counsel tomorrow morning]
[Wed. am update: we're told it's not slander, because a) the statement doesn't assert guilt (it's of the form "they should be arrested", not "they did it") and besides b) the standards for slandering/libeling a public figure are extremely high; witness the recent ABC 9/11 drama.]

The Union's editorial anonymouse also regrets the incivility:

"It's also unfortunate that our small-town parade, intended mostly for the entertainment of citizens of all political and social persuasions, was marred by more of the same shouting and screaming that has polarized our nation."

"mostly for the entertainment"...
Nice to know the U.S. Constitution is still considered to have some value in Nevada County.

BTW, the tone of the many of The Union's reader comments can be explained: Nevada Union High School's Class List includes no civics class, although there does appear to be a U.S. Government/Economics class (no further information available) and one on American Government, with these details:

State requirement for graduation.
Course will cover:
1. Foundations of Government
2. Political Behavior.
3. The Legislative Branch.
4. The Executive Branch.
5. The Judicial Branch.
6. Comparative Political and Economic Systems.
7. State and Local Government.

I would feel a whole lot better about the future of our country if I saw the Bill of Rights featured prominently on the syllabus.

-----

Disclosures, confessions, and views:
* Disclosure: I know several of the members of the A.C.I. group.
* View: I don't like the way the Constitution's been degraded into entertainment (it reminds me too much of what's happened to the press; and what comes next, banishing the injured in favor of blonde bombshells for Veterans' Day?).
* Confession: I haven't always appreciated previous years' Constitution Day "floats" that seemed political in nature, particularly when I didn't share the politics displayed.
* View: But allowing free expression of other viewpoints is a core requirement on Constitution Day.


(and it's all too easy to forget the meaning of impeachment, which is not "conviction", nor "eviction".)

BTW, it is widely speculated that above-referenced editorial anonymouse is in fact The Union's Publisher. Regardless of who the small furry individual quivering behind the wallboard may be, we do hope that he or she can look within, take a deep breath, and summon up the courage to emerge into the light for an open, intellectually honest discussion on the merits and logical underpinnings of this editorial.
I've made* the following offer (which, as of 9am Wed, has not yet shown up on this page) as an inducement:

I'll give $100 to Hospice if the director* of this editorial will take public credit for it and agree to answer several questions about it. (I realize the actual author may have written it under duress; I wish to speak to the person whose reasoning it reflects, not the one who was told to write and/or defend it.)

Thurs update - as mentioned above, he did subsequently self-identify, but refused to discuss it or to grant permission to reprint our email exchange.