Dousing rights an ignorant action

Resslin' Around, by Casey Ressler

When, exactly, does the rights of one person become the liberty to take by another man? That's at the core of a case that's going on in a Peninsula courtroom this week.

Jeff Webster, a Kenai man, is standing trial for two count of harassment, one count of fourth-degree assault and two counts of interfering with the constitutional rights of demonstrators. Webster's son, Shane, is a Marine who was stationed in Iraq during the war.

In March, at the "Y" intersection, one of the busiest on the Peninsula, Webster drove a pickup truck by protesting citizens of the war and doused them with buckets of water, on more than one occasion. He even filmed it and distributed it on the Internet.

Now, being a moron isn't a crime, but if it were, Webster should have been charged with it. His attorney, Wayne Anthony Ross, would beat him to the punch, however.

Ross told a Kenai courtroom this week that "the question is whether these people were justified in protesting," and "for every action there is a proper reaction. For every right, there is a corresponding responsibility."

He's exactly right. There is a corresponding responsibility. And for an attorney, that responsibility is upholding the constitution, which clearly gives the protestors the right to be there.

Ross is the reason attorneys get a bad rap in the first place. Arguing that the protestors had a right to be there, but "probably shouldn't have been" is simply ludicrous. If he doesn't know the Constitution and what is protected by that document -- such as the right to protest -- he should not be practicing law.

The beauty of America is that you have the right to protest something you don't agree with. But you certainly don't have the right to pick and choose what other people can protest, and that's exactly what Webster and Ross are trying to do.

Webster allegedly confronted the protestors, but they didn't stop. That's when Webster decided to take matters into his own hands.

"You tease a dog long enough and eventually the dog is going to snap at you," Ross told the jury. Somebody should point out to Ross that a dog that snaps at other people often gets put to sleep as a result of those actions. I doubt that's what he wants in this case..

The irony, of course, is that Webster's son was fighting a war to further freedom -- freedom to speak your mind when you disagree with something. When you start picking and choosing which freedoms are OK and which aren't, as Webster and Ross are trying to do, you'll end up with a state much like Saddam Hussein had, in which the government tells you what you can do and what you can't do.

Would I have been protesting? Probably not. Would you have been protesting? Probably not. But having the right to protest is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. For trying to literally water down the Constitution, Webster should pay the price through another right -- that of a trial in front of his peers.

Casey Ressler (valleylife@frontiersman.com) is the Valley Life editor.