[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6057]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about a 
misunderstanding about our Constitution. It has been reported that some 
antiwar protesters destroyed a 9-11 memorial in La Habra, California, 
last Saturday. The memorial was on private property and was set up 
after 9-11 to honor those murdered by the terrorist attackers. The 
antiwar protesters burned and ripped flags while the local police 
watched and did nothing.
  It is unconscionable there would be Americans who would show no 
respect for those victims of 9-11. Even more outrageous is that the 
police department excused this vandalism by citing the first 
amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a 
God-given right of every American; destroying private property is not.
  What would the police officers do if a citizen wanted to exercise his 
freedom of speech by setting fire to city hall? Can a person express 
their freedom of speech by punching a speaker they disagree with? 
Obviously not.
  I encourage the La Habra Police Department and all police departments 
across this country to protect freedom of speech while at the same time 
not allowing vandals to destroy private property.

                          ____________________