Over the past few
years, marriage equality activists have conjured a new form of protest known as
“glitter-bombing.” To protest the lack
of equal rights for LGBT individuals, some activists employed the novel tactic
of showering homophobic politicians with pink or rainbow-colored
glitter. Recent victims of
glitter-bombing have included Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich,
Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. Prominent supporters of gay rights, including
Senator Joe Lieberman and writer Dan Savage, have also been glitter-bombed
because some LGBT activists felt that their support for the cause does not go
far enough.
Though
glitter-bombers are using this tactic as a form of political expression, it is
clearly not protected by the First Amendment because it is not pure speech—it is
conduct involving a physical activity with an object in relation to another
person. One person throwing an object
towards another person might implicate the civil and criminal charges of
assault and battery. Though social conservatives often accuse the marriage
equality movement of forcing judges to “redefine marriage," thanks to
“glitter-bombing”, the marriage equality movement might force criminal law
practitioners to redefine the charge of “assault.”
The common law
charge of assault consists of 1) an act with intent to cause a harmful or
offensive contact with a person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact;
and 2) the other person is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.
Former Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee has suggested that glitter-bombers should be arrested, “[t]hat’s
an assault. It’s one thing to yell at a
candidate, you never put your hands on him, you don’t touch him.”
“Glitter
bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such,” recent victim
Newt Gingrich explained, “[w]hen someone reaches into a bag and throws
something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains
permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but
no right to assault others.”
In February 2012,
college student, Peter Smith, threw glitter at Mitt Romney while at a campaign
rally in Denver. Romney’s Secret Service detail pulled
him away from the stream of glitter just in time to avoid contact, and within a
moment the candidate resumed shaking hands with supporters. Denver police pulled Smith away and held him
in handcuffs for five hours. Smith now
faces misdemeanor charges of throwing a missile, creating a disturbance, and an
unlawful act on school property. If
convicted, Smith might face up to a year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines. To date, he remains the sole glitter-bomber to
be charged with any crime – though assault was not among them.
Nick Espinosa, the Minnesota protester who conducted the first
glitter-bombing of Tim Pawlenty, and later glitter-bombed Mitt Romney and Newt
Gingrich in that state, has also expressed his ire by throwing more solid,
potentially-injurious objects. At a
campaign event in 2010 Republican gubernatorial Tom Emmer proposed new minimum
wage laws to make servers’ tips count against their minimum wage, and Espinosa
threw a bag of pennies at the candidate. Emmer appeared to be visibly fearful of the
objects hurtling towards him. After all,
if thrown with sufficient velocity at someone’s face, pennies can cause
serious injury.
Though it might
seem harmless, a person could possibly suffer significant bodily injury from a
glitter bomb. According to optometrist
Stephen Glasser, “If it gets into the eyes, the best scenario is it can irritate,
it can scratch. Worst scenario is it can
actually create a cut. As the person
blinks, it moves the glitter across the eye and can actually scratch the
cornea.”
Likewise, it makes
sense for the law to prohibit persons from throwing objects at others,
especially public figures and candidates for elected office. In a nation with a long history of
assassinations and assassination attempts, it is clearly in the public interest
to discourage people from throwing objects at political figures. In the split seconds between a protestor
flinging glitter and confetti at a presidential candidate and it making contact
with the candidate’s suit, it is difficult for the recipient to discern whether
it is a serious attempt on their life or just a prank.
Conversely, glitter
is not a deadly weapon—it is many little pieces of lightweight plastic. When all is said and done, the worst that a
glitter-bombing victim has suffered is the annoyance of having to brush pieces
of glitter from their hair and suit jacket. In a time of cash-strapped state budgets and
overcrowded prisons, prosecuting a glitter-bomber with criminal charges might
be an abject waste of prosecutorial resources. Moreover, no aspiring Commanders in Chief who
might one day have to deal with ballistic missiles from North Korea would not
want to appear petty or emasculated by testifying at the criminal trial of a
glitter-bomber.
Zachary Mason,
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
I think this is fascinating! While glitter bombing seems like a creative and (relatively) safe way to outwardly express distaste towards the anti-gay marriage stance taken by the republican presidential candidates, it should probably constitute some type of assault. However, as you note at the end of your piece, it should absolutely be given lower priority than more pressing criminal cases. For instance, many people are commenting on how the person who "flour bombed" Kim Kardashian was taken into custody, but the gunman responsible for Trayvon Martin's death still walks free. The extensive coverage and commentary on these events shows our priorities and interests as a media-centric culture. Unfortunately, multiple reports on glitter-bombing do not adequately reflect the sorry state of our current criminal justice system.
ReplyDeleteGlitter bombing people you don't like is great, and won't cause a disturbance if thrown at their chest or legs if people are worried about "getting it in people's eyes. What people forget is that there are different types of glitter. It is extremely unlikely that a small piece of glitter, not the chunky kind, will get in someone's eyes, and much less likely to scratch their cornea or leave a cut. Glitter is not an offensive thing and it's amusing that people are so uptight that they don't laugh off the joke. Another thing; the only people that have been reported for having glitter thrown on them in response to anti-gay protesting are men, like, what is it about men that makes them so uptight?
DeleteDon't press charges of assault on someone who is throwing glitter, instead try to crack down on the drug addicts. Priorities, man, priorities.
If you use cosmetic grade glitter - the kind without sharp edges designed to be worn in eyeshadow - i think it would be hard to prove intent to harm.
ReplyDeleteI want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help.
ReplyDeleteGreat readinng your blog
ReplyDelete