Louisiana Wingnut Rep. Clay Higgins Bulldozes Protester. WHAR ASSAULT CHARGES?
In the first video, Burdett shouts questions while Gosar is speaking, asking about his appearance at a confab held by neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes, and about that embarrassing campaign ad made by Gosar's own siblings, urging people not to vote for him. As Freedom Cockups try to tell Burdett to leave, Higgins steps in to promise he'll answer all Burdett's questions later (about Gosar, sure!) if the young man will just stop recording and be quiet. Higgins does get right up in Burdett's face to deliver that offer of help.
In the first video, Higgins fairly calmly introduces himself and says, "All I’m asking you to do is just peacefully stand by with your camera and I promise you — look at me — I’ll come talk to you straight up and answer all your questions. Fair enough?"
And yes, Burdett wanted to know how on earth Higgins would be in a position to know anything about Gosar's very public embarrassment.
But Burdett hadda go and persist. While Boebert spoke, he asked her about her divorce, and asked her whether it was at all related to that time in 2017 when her restaurant customers got diarrhea from tainted pork sliders. Sure, it was a rude, nonsensical, pesky question. And goddamn it, it was also perfectly legal because this is America and we can ask rude stupid questions of our elected leaders in public, Crom bless our First Amendment!
And because we are indeed a nation of laws, our elected leaders are not allowed to assault us just for being annoying, although that's what Higgins did. Here's video from another angle, showing Higgins grabbing Burdett to eject him (nearly knocking over another person in the audience) and manhandling Burdett away from the speakers all the way to the sidewalk.
Burdett wasn't harmed or arrested; he told the Daily Beast that he was questioned for about a half hour by Capitol Police and told he could go. But he was certainly none too happy that the Capitol Cops didn't seem very interested in hearing him tell them he'd been assaulted by a member of Congress.
“It’s one thing for anybody to do that,” he said of Higgins’ behavior. “But for a sitting U.S. congressperson to think that that’s OK—it just shows an extra level of entitlement, that they feel they’re untouchable and the law doesn’t apply to them.”
For his part, Higgins, a former sheriff who loves to act the Tough Guy, later took to Twitter to lie about the encounter, claiming that Burdett was "a 103M" (police code for "disturbance by a mental person," never mind the bad English usage) and insisting in an attached video that Burdett (an "agitator activist") was "very disruptive and threatening, in violation of the law."
\u201cActivist was a 103M. Threatening. He was escorted out and turned over to Capitol Police. Textbook.\u201d— Rep. Clay Higgins (@Rep. Clay Higgins) 1684437436
Higgins gives himself credit in the video for having "successfully de-escalated the situation," a phrase with which we're certain the Inigo Montoya meme would take issue. He also claims that Burdett "aggressively disrupted" Boebert and "approached her in a threatening manner," which just isn't the case. He was rude and shouty, not threatening.
Say, is this a good place to mention that in 2007, Higgins, then in law enforcement, was accused of beating up an innocent bystander to an arrest, and then lying to Internal affairs to cover it up? The former cop also busted for helping with that alleged cover-up is now a congressional aide to Higgins. Higgins resigned before he could be punished for that incident.
Burdett told the Daily Beast that he's now "evaluating my options" and that "if it looks like there is a strong case for assault and [there is] an attorney willing to take on the case, I am absolutely prepared to press charges." On Twitter, when Burdett asked for any attorneys to tell him if they thought he had a case, civil rights attorney Andrew C. Laufer replied, "Yes, assault, battery, and a potential civil rights violation."
Former US Attorney and current MSNBC legal commentator Joyce Vance was succinct: "Looks like an assault to me?"
[Daily Beast / Lafayette Daily Advertiser / Salon / Nola.com]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations! If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly so we can keep bringing you the hard-hitting news of tough guy members of Congress taking fascism into their own hands.
Parents, Authors, Publisher Make Florida Book Censorship A Federal Case
Misty Book-Burning Memories
Why Is A Florida High School English Teacher Trying To Ban Books? Could It Be ... She's Racist?
Florida Censor Lady Should Know Better Than To Come At Betty White
Doodoo Process
Escambia County's actions are especially rotten, the suit alleges, because in many cases where Baggett challenged materials like the gay penguin book And Tango Makes Three, an official "materials review committee" — including a librarian, an elementary school teacher, a parent, a school administrator, and a community member — reviewed the materials and found they didn't violate the "Don't Say Gay" law because there's nothing remotely sexual in them.
But then Baggett would appeal to the school board, which routinely overrode the committee's decision and agreed that children needed to be "protected" from content she considered unfit for children. So far, the board has reversed the materials review committee's decisions and removed at least 10 books targeted by Baggett, with many more books still restricted while they're pending review. That includes the gay penguin book, which we should probably note is not a gay Penguin Random House book, although that would be funnier.
As the Washington Post's Ben Sargent points out (gift link), the lawsuit cleverly doesn't target DeSantis's pet censorship laws and policies directly.
Instead, it argues that the removals themselves are unconstitutional. If the courts agree, this could create clearer prohibitions on school boards banning books for ideological reasons, regardless of what fig leaf rationale they cite.
The First Amendment: It's For Kids Too!
Multiple Supreme Court rulings, most notably 1983's Board of Education v. Picodecision, have held that school boards and administrators aren't allowed to remove books they don't like, especially not for "narrowly partisan or political" reasons. Students have a right to read, and just winning an election doesn't give anyone the right to impose ideological limits on what library books are available, as Legum 'splains:
Specifically, the court in Pico explained, "students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding." The court emphasized that the "school library is the principal locus of such freedom." The school library is the place where "a student can literally explore the unknown, and discover areas of interest and thought not covered by the prescribed curriculum."
The lawsuit contends Escambia County School Board members really stepped knee-deep in unconstitutional doody by ignoring "the expert judgment" of the school's own review committee, which found the books were educationally appropriate. The board rolled over that process and agreed with Baggett in every case, "despite the transparently ideological nature of her challenges." And that ain't allowed.
The lawsuit also argues that, by disproportionately removing books by people of color, by LGBTQ+ authors, or books on race or LGBTQ+ topics, the board was violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The complaint argues that the
"clear agenda behind the campaign to remove the books is to categorically remove all discussion of racial discrimination or LGBTQ issues from public school libraries." [...]
Further, the school board is "currently restricting access to virtually any book that … references the existence of same-sex relationships or transgender persons—without regard to anything else about the book’s contents."
Well sure, because just seeing the words "my dads" will turn kids gay, that's just science.
Pornographic My Ass
Beyond the 10 books banned at Baggett's behest, another 154 books in Escambia County schools are on "restricted" status while they move through the review process. The complaint — it's a pretty good read, because literate and literary lawyers — notes that the school board claimed it had no choice but to restrict books alleged to be "pornographic" or "harmful to minors" as defined by Florida law. But wait, is the school board claiming its own libraries contained more than 150 pornographic books?
Well yes, says the complaint, because they're ignoring the actual statute, which — unlike Baggett and the school board — pays attention to the damn First Amendment. The very narrow statutory language says a book is harmful only if it
“[p]redominately appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest,” and “[t]aken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” Fla. Stat., § 847.001(7)(a)-(c) (emphases added). None of the books at issue here qualify as harmful material under this standard.
In practice, the suit says, the district has been restricting any book that was "challenged on the ground that it contains 'sexual' content, regardless of the nature of that content or anything else about the book."
Using that excessively broad standard, the district restricted access to Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (published by plaintiff Penguin Random House), because it allegedly contains "bestiality, nudity, [and] crude language." Yes, bestiality, since Billy Pilgrim's psychotic fellow soldier Roland Weary carries around a "print of the first dirty photograph in history," showing a woman attempting intercourse with a Shetland pony. The torture-obsessed Weary is clearly depicted as a creep, not a role model. Nonetheless, Vonnegut's masterpiece is restricted. So it goes.
Similarly, Eric Carle's Draw Me a Star is restricted from elementary library shelves while it's being reviewed to determine if the author of The Very Hungry Caterpillar committed hardcore pornography. You tell us:
Maybe another seven months to determine whether it's porn.
The lawsuit adds that many books containing even the slightest reference to LGBTQ identity, like mention of a character's two dads, were challenged and remain on the restricted list for allegedly violating the "Don't Say Gay" law, even though it applies solely to "classroom materials" not library books.
Just having a restricted list at all is also a First Amendment violation, the complaint argues:
The barriers for students to access restricted books are significant. To access them, a student—who could be as young as 5 years old—must find a librarian, ask the librarian for permission to access a book that has been designated as “pornographic” or otherwise unsuitable for school-aged children, and then wait while that librarian verifies that the student, in fact, has parental permission to access it. Forcing students to undertake these steps, and endure the stigma that goes along with undertaking them, is having a profound chilling effect on students seeking access to the restricted books
And since the "review" period can take up an entire school year, the suit argues, the board is essentially allowing any private citizen with an agenda to indefinitely restrict books for all families in the district, and there you go again, violating the First Amendment.
At some point, as we see similar lawsuits and resistance by parents who don't want to live under the thumb of self-appointed moral guardians, this nonsense is going down to defeat. The sooner the better.
[Popular Information / WaPo (gift link) / Photoshoop image by Wonkette, Background image by Eli Duke, Creative Commons License 2.0. Note: And Tango Makes Three is published by Little Simon, not by Penguin Random House.]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep you on top of the news, which turns out not to be pornographic after all — although censorship is obscene.
