Do you have a license for that protest?

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman's chiiling rendition of her arrest at the Republican National Convention was published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It offers valuable insight into just how people exercising their First Amendment rights are treated when they dare to do so in proximity to the politically powerful.

Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, "Get down on your face." You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing "Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?" She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole's screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

It wasn't long ago that people who went into politics were expected to suffer taunts, mild abuse and gauntlets of the disaffected as part of the price of wielding the coercive force of the state. You want to tell people how to live their lives? Then get ready to hear what they think of what you're doing.

That's not to say that respect for free speech was ever perfect; more than a few politicians have penalized speech they really didn't want to hear in the past -- especially during wartime. But the corralling of demonstrators into "free speech zones" at the two major-party conventions, the preemptive raids to seize people who might be "troublemakers" and the mass arrests make it clear that vigorous political expression -- however annoying -- is now seen as a privilege to be exercised only in the manner and at the location permitted by the powers-that-be.

The overall impression is that the authorities would really like to dispense with all of this messy protest business, but they don't think they're yet at the point where they can push it that far.

I'm not sure where we go from here. The courts have given their approval to draconian restrictions on speech at political conventions and in proximity to high officials, like the president, the police don't appear shy about using harsh tactics in front of cameras, and the public doesn't seem especially upset.

In years to come, we might look back fondly on those days when any dissenting voices at all were permitted in the streets when the powerful come to town.