EDITORIAL – Be-thonged protesters tasteless, legal

For better or for worse, the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit bad fashion choices.

During… For better or for worse, the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit bad fashion choices.

During President George W. Bush’s July visit to central Pennsylvania, six men were charged with disorderly conduct, after they — clad in thongs — formed a human pyramid in sight of the Bush motorcade. The men claim their protest was a criticism of prisoner abuse in Iraq.

They’re being hauled before a district justice on Monday, and, if convicted, face a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and $300 fine, according to the Associated Press.

Acts in poor taste aren’t against the law. In fact, the First Amendment exists so that we can be rude, mean and silly; it’s part and parcel of protecting freedom of expression.

Protesting is a part of the American way of life; it’s as integral to our political system as elections, attack ads and campaign contributions from special interests. Though the founding fathers never chose to don thongs — shudder — they did provide generous space for freedom of expression, even if that expression were to involve bad fashion sense.

And these men are charged with disorderly conduct, not indecent exposure, wardrobe malfunction or anything appropriate to their action. Being practically naked in the middle of Lancaster County — in the heart of Amish country — might be against community standards, but it’s certainly not disorderly. In fact, it probably takes quite a bit of order and cooperation to get six men in thongs, in the same place, in a pyramid and in sight of a motorcade.

What these men seem to be charged with, then, is being anti-Bush near a Bush rally. There have been several other instances of this “crime:” In 2002, retired steelworker Bill Neel was charged with disorderly conduct for holding up a sign that said, “The Bush family must surely love the poor. They’ve made so many of us,” during a Bush rally on Neville Island. The charges were thrown out of court.

Similarly, these charges are about as flimsy as what the men were wearing. This is just another instance of post-Sept. 11, 2001, paranoia that impinges on freedom — that thing we’re over in Iraq fighting for — and law enforcement being too eager to slap cuffs on citizens challenging the status quo. What these men did was certainly not subtle or even tasteful, but the Constitution exists to protect everyone’s free speech, including that of people dressed in thongs.