A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (29 page)

During the summer of 2011, King County, Washington, mandated the use of life jackets for everybody "on or in a major river," regardless of the purpose for being there or the ability to swim. Violators faced an $86 fine.

Tennessee passed a law prohibiting schoolchildren from "exposing underwear or body parts in an 'indecent manner."' Derisively called a "Saggy Pants" law, violators face a $250 fine or up to 160 hours of community service.

Maryland law requires parents to give summer camps consent for their children to use sunscreen, with or without assistance from counselors.

Hilton Head, South Carolina, banned the storage of trash in cars. A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $500 or a jail sentence of up to thirty days. The reason: it attracts rats.

As part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and landfill use, San Francisco passed a law requiring residents and businesses to sort discarded materials into three different bins, depending on classification: recyclables, trash, and combustibles. Failure to properly sort results in a fine of $100-$500.

To protect hotel staff from injury, California introduced legislation that would ban the use of "flat sheets," in favor of fitted ones, as the bottom sheet on beds and require the use of "long-handled" tools to clean bathrooms.

Rockville, Maryland, made the use of foul language within earshot of others a crime punishable by a $100 fine and/or up to ninety days behind bars.
⁵⁴³

Those are some of the more ridiculous statutes. In other areas, the "nanny state" may act in a coordinated fashion. Writing for
Forbes
, Dr. Paul Hsieh expressed concern about ongoing efforts to control the way we eat. He focused particular derision on New York City's restrictions on serving size and nutritional content over the past few years as part of a fight against obesity.

The nutrition police, however, are virtually everywhere. For example, in North Carolina, an inspector confiscated a child's homemade lunch, consisting of a "turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice," on the grounds that it lacked nutrition.
⁵⁴⁴
Massachusetts went so far as to ban bake sales, which are a traditional means of fund-raising for school groups.
⁵⁴⁵
The ban was later overturned.

In July 2012, New York City's board of health continued further restrictions on fattening foods. Despite its already having limited the use of salt and trans-fat, America's largest city might continue to tighten the metaphorical belt until it "dictates the caloric content of just about every food item sold outside the vegetable aisle."
⁵⁴⁶

These policies are often described with positive intentions. One could even say they're meant to save the people from themselves. But what if the people don't want to be saved? Or they simply want the freedom to eat as they see fit?

There's always a proverbial "line" for when government goes too far. Sometimes we see it, more often we don't. We haven't reached that point yet, but I suspect it may come sooner than we think.

Criminalizing Free Speech

One of the key ingredients in a democracy is the right to freely speak our minds to those who represent us. In fact, it is one of the few effective tools we have left to combat government corruption and demand accountability. But now, even that right is being chipped away by statutes and court rulings which weaken our ability to speak freely. Activities which were once considered a major component of democratic life in America are now being criminalized.

For example, in a self-serving move aimed more at insulating government officials from discontent voters than protecting their hides, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation that will keep the public not just at arms' length distance but a football field away by making it a federal crime to protest or assemble in the vicinity of protected government officials. The Trespass Bill (the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) creates a roving "bubble" zone or perimeter around select government officials and dignitaries (anyone protected by the Secret Service), as well as any building or grounds "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
⁵⁴⁷

The bill's language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest, and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of only three members of the House of Representatives to vote against the legislation. As he explains:

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.

Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity–even if that activity is annoying to those government officials–violates our rights. I voted "no."
⁵⁴⁸

Specifically, the bill, which was passed by a vote of 388 to 3, was signed into law by President Obama. It levies a fine and up to a year in prison against anyone found in violation, and if the person violating the statute is carrying a "dangerous weapon," the prison sentence is bumped up to no more than ten years. Thus, a person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting "disorderly." And depending on who's making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as "dangerous"), he could face up to ten years in prison.

Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone whom the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits. The Secret Service is also in charge of securing National Special Security Events, which include events such as the G8 and NATO summits, the National Conventions of both major parties, and even the Super Bowl. Simply walking by one of these events places one in a zone of criminal trespass and thus makes him subject to arrest.