Response from National Archives over the “T-Shirt Incident”

On January 12, 2008, visitors of the National Archives who were wearing "Impeach Bush" tee-shirts were ordered to leave the building, as dairied by Ralph Lopez in Admirers of Constitution Booted for Wearing Impeach T-shirts in DC.
I was so pissed off by the trampling of free speech in the presence of the original First Amendment that I jotted of an email of outrage to the National Archives:

Given what the National Archives stands for, I should hope that persons not be barred from the building just for wearing an Impeach Bush tee-shirt.  This incident has prompted much concern within the blogging community.  IF this is official NARA policy, please clarify on your website that visitors are not allowed to wear political messages.  Thank you.

My message to the National Archives was not eloquent in any way.  I really did not expect an answer.

However, enough phone calls and messages must have reached the National Archives that they were compelled to respond.

Dear Ms. [Bushondrugs],
We received your email re: the January 12 incident at the National Archives.  Archivist Allen Weinstein's statement follows.  I hope this helps to allay your concerns.

National Archives and Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Washington, DC 20408-0001

Here is their statement (italics are mine):

January 15, 2008

STATEMENT FROM THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES ALLEN WEINSTEIN

Washington, D.C. . . The National Archives has conducted a review of an incident that occurred on Saturday, January 12, at the National Archives Headquarters Building.   According to a report filed by the National Archives security staff, protesters tried to gain entrance to the Constitution Avenue side of the National Archives Building.  They were asked to leave their placards and signs outside.  A security guard also requested that they cover up t-shirts that announced their protest.

In the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom, several of the protesters then engaged in loud comments attempting to attract attention and encourage other visitors to the Rotunda to join them.  Their disruptive behavior in the Rotunda was disturbing some of the visitors.  National Archives security guards asked the protesters to leave the building.  

National Archives regulations (CFR36:1280) state that visitors may not distribute leaflets, fliers, handbills and other materials.  Visitors are also prohibited from "acting in a disorderly fashion*in a manner that creates a loud or unusual noise or nuisance."

The National Archives investigation found that the security force acted properly in requesting that the placards and signs be left outside and in asking the protesters to leave the building after they had violated the conduct regulations by talking loudly, thereby disturbing other visitors.  However, the report found also that there was no reason to ask the individuals involved to cover up t-shirts that expressed their protest, and a review of National Archives regulations will be conducted for the security force to ensure that all regulations are properly carried out in future.

So, next time you wear your Impeach Bush or Impeach Cheney tee-shirt in Washington, D.C., remember to WHISPER!!

•  When wearing your protest tee-shirt,

  Don’t forget to WHISPER!!!  (all caps)

  by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:18:03 AM PDT

  •  My protest t shirt

    has written in seven languages:

    "I'm sorry my president is an idiot, I didn't vote for him."

    I love to wear it when traveling, people pat me on the back, give me thumbs up, and generally want to talk to me.

    I think it's because like minded people have felt the intentions of this administration to squelch dissent and feel relieved that they do not have to suffer in silence.

    1984=2001

    by Patriot4peace on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:52 AM PDT

    •  That is such a cool slogan!!

      Your shirt must also overcome the perception that the U.S. doesn't care about any other nations than ourselves, since it has the other languages on it.

      by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:36:10 AM PDT

      •  Get one here

        (Not my webpage, promise)

        by Patriot4peace on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:38:27 AM PDT

•  asdf

  I was wondering if the protestors were as disorderly as the response indicates.

  by BDA in VA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:22:57 AM PDT

  •  It's a reasonable question n/t

    by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:24:35 AM PDT

    •  I thought the "loudness" part was overblown.

      I hear "loud" people everywhere I go, and they aren't told to leave the premises.  If loud voices were the problem, why didn't the security guard simply ask them to speak more softly?

      (My husband is Italian.  He has a "loud" voice.)

      At least this letter admits that the NA security staff were in the wrong.

      by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:03 AM PDT

  •  Not according to the linked diary:

    In a telephone interview, one of the participants, Susan Serpa, age 56, told me she was looking at the displays when a female security guard approached her and said "You need to go speak to that man over there" indicating a burly security guard.  When Serpa asked why, the woman said: "Your shirt."  Serpa's shirt reads on the front: "Impeach Bush and Cheney, Change History."  On the reverse it says: "MaineImpeach.org."

    by PatsBard on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:28:36 AM PDT

    •  Exactly.

      The NA's response reflects the security guard's version of the story.

      If a security guard harassed me about my tee-shirt, I would have started talking in a loud voice, too!!

      by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

      •  HELP!!

        STOP IT - DON'T TOUCH ME

        That makes burly security guards back up in a hurry.

        by Patriot4peace on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:47 AM PDT

•  Seems like a reasonable reply to me

  and it does prove your point and steps will be taken to see it doesn't happen again.  People don't visit the National Archives or the Smithsonian to take part in partisan politics unless a protest is advertised in advance.  

  by JFinNe on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:23:35 AM PDT

•  I can understand the archives

  saying no to loud protestors.  People went in there to see the documents.  They don't need to be disturbed by signs or protestors - leave that for the outside.  But a tee-shirt?  Throwing someone out for that was wrong wrong wrong.

  Nice email you wrote. :)

  by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, the idea of it.

    American citizens using a public place for peaceful assembly and redress of grievances.  You'd think there'd be a law against it.

    by converse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:18 AM PDT

    •  Or at least

      a real effort to take that stuff out of the constitution.

      by converse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

•  Good job;

  well-written email, and it elicited just the response desired: "we fucked up."

  by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:23:52 AM PDT

•  Reasons and Excuses

  When the kids did something, and I ask them why, they give me one of two things:

  A Reason
  An Excuse

  For everything that happens there is a reason. There are hundreds of excuses, but only one reason.

  For instance, we don't know the reason for invading Iraq, all we have is a bunch of excuses. (WMDs, liberation, removing Saddam, War on Terra, etc...)

  The reason these people were removed is unknown, but the "official" excuse is what you reported here.

  by Patriot4peace on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:24:10 AM PDT

•  And when some self-important security guard

  tells you to cover up your t-shirt, don't point out that you don't have to or out the door you go for being unruly anyway.

  I love this part

  According to a report filed by the National Archives security staff, protesters tried to gain entrance to the Constitution Avenue side of the National Archives Building.

  Makes it sound as if they were breaking in.

  by Lovo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:27:39 AM PDT

  •  As if

    the Constitution Avenue entrance was a brick wall with an unlocked window.

    by Patriot4peace on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:33:08 AM PDT

    •  And they were there with burglary tools

      and some plastique.

      by Lovo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:44 AM PDT

  •  So true...

    Bzzzt.  Security... We have visitors on the premises.  Bzzzt.

    by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:33:35 AM PDT

•  Geez, that's how serious this shit is folks...

  that we think we've won when we get to keep our "protest t-shirts" on.

  by converse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:05 AM PDT

•  The next time you go to the National Archives...

  ....try wearing an "Impeach Clinton" t-shirt.  Or maybe an "Impeach Andrew Johnson" shirt.  Or maybe a shirt that says "Free America from King George" with a picture of a minuteman and a redcoat.  Or maybe a Magna Carta t-shirt.  And wear duct tape over your mouths, so they can't accuse you of shouting.

  by WarrenS on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:45 AM PDT

  •  Folks are allowed to wear the tee-shirts, now.

    They just can't use "loud" voices while wearing them.

    Although the duct tape sounds like a good idea, it would be visually inflamataory, and would cause a disturbance and be a cause for your removal.

    by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:53:25 AM PDT

•  We decided this in Omaha, in 1981 or so.

  My GF was an attorney for the local peace group and Catholic Workers.  I just happened to be in the screen-printing business at the time, and wad a suitcase full of sheets of iron-on letters.

  My idea was, that clothing in and of itself did not constitute demonstrating and was covered as free speech.  Carrying a sign was demonstrating.

  I asked everyone to give me a blank shirt and spend most of the night ironing on the peace slogans in block letters.  Nothing fancy at all.

  They placed their signs in a pile and entered to military museum as patrons, wearing the shirts.  They were promptly arrested.  The court agreed with the tee shirts as a personal style and acquitted them.

  I'll do an expanded diary on this later.  Really busy today.  If anyone can find the case faster than me, please do.

  by MadCityRag on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the relevant story.

    I think it would be helpful to have an explanation of the differences in the rights associated with protest vs. free speech.

    by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to read your diary later

    The problem with being arrested and aquitted is that it still has a prohibitive effect on protest. People will ask themselves if they have the time, energy, and money to fight the fight. There needs to be serious punitive measures taken against any authority that tries these arrests.

    by Lovo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

•  whisper?

  "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."

  Where does it say anything about whispering?

  by az gila monster on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:05:41 AM PDT

  •  True, but museums have a right to keep decorum.

    If full-blown protests were allowed inside the National Archives, that would interfere with the rights of other visitors to view the documents.

    by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:08:17 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, well, our rights come from the

      1st Amendment.

      Where's the "right to keep decorum" in the constitution, eh?

      by converse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

      •  The ACLU explains it well...

        The courts have consistently ruled that while the government may not restrict the actual content of speech, it may restrict the time, place, and manner of speech.

        The courts have generally found time, place and manner restrictions to be permissible because such regulations serve to ensure the safety and order of the community at large. However, it is important to note that in order to be constitutional, time, place and manner restrictions must be content-neutral, meaning they must apply to everyone regardless of the opinion being expressed.

        by bushondrugs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:20:57 AM PDT

        •  My cheek was sticking out just a little bit,

          but I did ask about the Constitution, not the courts. Often there's a significant disparity.

          by converse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:45:42 AM PDT

•  Good work, and good diary. Thanks! nt

  by ExStr8 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM PDT