A jury of eight citizens deliberated "for a few hours" on the Wednesday at the end of a two-and-one-half-week trial and decided that "Tacoma police did not violate the constitutional rights of protesters when they implemented a 'no backpack' rule during 2007 anti-war demonstrations at the Port of Tacoma," the News Tribune reported Thursday.[1]  --  Plaintiffs do not know yet whether they will appeal.  --  COMMENT:  One can only speculate about the various reasons why jurors reached the decision they did.  --  From our point of view, the police made arbitrary arrests and endangered, rather than protected, public safety, and jurors lost an opportunity to send a useful message.  --  The verdict makes us think of what Sheldon Wolin said in 2008 in Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism:  "The implicit message is that the citizen can do nothing except follow the instruction of 'authorities' . . . [C]onservatives have succeeded in persuading the public that the military is distinct from the government." (pp. 198-99)....

1.

JURY IN PORT OF TACOMA PROTEST CASE SAYS 'NO BACKPACK' RULE O.K.
By Adam Lynn

News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
January 24, 2013

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/24/2447380/jury-says-no-backpack-rule-ok.html

Tacoma police did not violate the constitutional rights of protesters when they implemented a “no backpack” rule during 2007 anti-war demonstrations at the Port of Tacoma, a federal jury decided Wednesday.

The jury of six women and two men got the case just before close of business Tuesday and deliberated for a few hours Wednesday morning before unanimously siding with the City of Tacoma.

The ACLU of Washington filed the civil rights lawsuit against the city on behalf of six people who contended the backpack ban violated their rights under the First and Fourth amendments.

Thomas McCarthy, Phan Nguyen, Elizabeth Rivera Goldstein, Patrick Edelbacher, Leah Coakley, and Charles Bevis sought monetary damages for being arrested after defying the backpack ban.  They were not convicted.

The plaintiffs contended in the lawsuit that the no-backpack policy “chilled” their ability to freely express themselves during the demonstrations by denying them ready access to food, water, and other supplies.

The demonstrations ran for 12 days in March 2007.  Protesters were upset the port was being used to ship military equipment to Iraq.

Police designated “protest zones” where people could gather during the demonstrations.  They banned backpacks in those zones after finding a bag filled with chains and locks in one of the designated areas.

The city argued the ban was a reasonable restriction given public safety considerations and did not meaningfully affect the protesters’ right to express themselves.

“They could be present.  They could chant.  They could sing,” attorney Jean Homan, who represented the city, said during her closing argument Tuesday.  “You don’t need a backpack to protest.”

ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said no decision had been made regarding a possible appeal.

“The ACLU brought this lawsuit because the right to peaceful protest is so fundamental in our society,” Honig said.  “We believe it is important to challenge restrictions on free speech that we find unreasonable.”

--Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644 adam.lynn@ thenewstribune.com blog.thenewstribune.com/crime @TNTadam