Little Saigon’s Next Step

The bizarre series of events surrounding a store that rented videotapes in the Little Saigon section of Westminster sometimes has obscured the heart of the matter: rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The shop proprietor, Truong Van Tran, had the right to hang inside his shop a picture of the late Vietnamese leader, Ho Chi Minh, and the flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Those who hate the Communist nation and Ho had the right to protest Tran’s actions.

Last week the protests ended. Tran shut his store after the landlord evicted him. Protesters declared victory. Unfortunately, for weeks demonstrators stopped Tran from getting into his shop, leaving the victory he won in court--a reaffirmation of the 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech--hollow.

Shortly before the eviction came disclosures that several weeks ago, when police did manage to escort Tran into his store, they found machinery they believe can be used to illegally duplicate videos. Tran is being investigated to see if he copied videos.

Police long have faced the difficult task of helping people exercise their 1st Amendment rights. Protesters walk picket lines outside businesses of which they disapprove. If violence is in the offing, police must intervene. Sometimes, as with abortion clinics, courts require protesters to keep a certain distance away. Sometimes it’s up to law enforcement officials to decide what the appropriate separation is.

Tran’s supporters have complained that police did not help him exercise his free speech right by escorting him into his shop. But Tran bears some blame for not giving police more notice when he planned to show up. That would have given police time to bring in reinforcements and perhaps to work out a compromise with protesters that would have let them picket while giving Tran space to enter his shop.

Orange County has the largest number of Vietnamese outside Vietnam. For the refugees who fled at war’s end or soon thereafter, who lost their homeland or were imprisoned, the memories of the Communist foes are bitter. Their antipathy for Ho and Hanoi are understandable.

Tran was entitled to get into his store and hold his views, but his behavior these past weeks gave the impression that he regarded free speech not just as a right but as an instrument for inciting predictable passions. Before posting his picture, Tran taunted anti-communist Vietnamese with his intentions. But the applicability of the Constitution is not determined by one’s standing in the community.

A Times Orange County Poll earlier this month found that most county residents thought Tran’s display offensive but believed he had the right to put up the display. The conclusions of poll respondents are sound.

Some protest leaders have vowed to use opposition to Tran as a rallying point for a wider protest against Vietnam’s human rights record. That would be a welcome and sophisticated recognition of how to work within the system to put pressure on American policymakers. Nearly a quarter century after winning the war, Vietnam still withholds freedoms from its own people. The United States rightly extended diplomatic recognition to the authoritarian regime in Hanoi several years ago. But Washington also needs to remind Vietnam that it is overdue in moving toward democracy.

The Vietnamese in America and their native-born sons and daughters are not a monolithic community. Before the protests, there had been divisions over how to handle relations with Vietnam, how to celebrate the Tet festival and other topics. One of the ironies of the Little Saigon protests has been that Tran unwittingly became a unifying force for those who previously quarreled. With the matter resolved for now, another point of unity should be respect for rights of protest and of free speech, a major difference between this country and Vietnam.