2012 Election | Activism | Crime | Glitterati | Mitt Romney | News

Student Faces Six Months in Jail, $1,000 Fine for Glittering Romney


Peter Smith, a University of Colorado Boulder student, has been charged over an attempted glittermbombing of Mitt Romney on Wednesday which was thwarted by the Secret Service.

Reuters reports:

Denver authorities detained Smith for questioning on Tuesday night, and he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said.

Smith, who faces up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted, said he has no regrets about his protest.

Smith said he was protesting not only Romney's stance on same-sex marriage but his "general political philosophy" and added that agents questioned him about the act of glittering: "They just mentioned this act was an issue that they've been trying to deal with more and more."

Meanwhile, a D.C. optometrist is warning of the dangers posed by glitterbombing: “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.”

I've reposted the attempted glitterbombing, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. No harm done, Romney can't see anyway. More glitter!

    Posted by: Mike F | Feb 9, 2012 6:39:59 PM

  2. Good! Mabye this will send a message to other gay stereotypes that throwing "fairy dust" and politicians you disagree with is beyond silly and it is an assault.

    Posted by: jack | Feb 9, 2012 9:15:36 PM

  3. @Jack I don't condone throwing politicians you disagree with. However, you also imply that being similar to a stereotype is something bad. What stereotype? And yes it is silly. Would you prefer an act of rage? As far as assaults go, it is, I think, the least amount of force you could ever use on a person. Any amount of force used is tantamount to an assault. The next time a fly buzzes around your head you can indignantly say you've been assaulted - fine. These are people who support stripping people of their civil legal rights. Using the least amount of force possible is a blessing. And civil disobedience requires breaking the law. MLK Jr. wrote from Birmingham that sometimes the right thing to do is break the law. This is one of those times. If you can't see that, you don't know who your friends and enemies are.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 9, 2012 9:42:50 PM

  4. "if i've learned anything in the last year it's that all you need to do to not be held accountable for your actions and inactions is to coach football"

    Yeah, except for the one coach who is under house arrest and will be found guilty of child rape (Sandusky), the head coach of the university it took place at who died in disgrace and it can be argued was driven to an early grave by the scandal (Paterno), the coach who saw it happen and didn't report it right away who will never get near a coaching job again (McQueary), the two administration people who got fired and face criminal charges (Spanier and Schultz) etc. etc. etc.

    God, you just lie, make stuff up and think no one will notice.

    "Fabricating quotes and implying I've stated something I clearly have not isn't going to lend your views much credence"

    Welcome to Little Kiwi's world!

    "nobody is afraid of insulting the LGBT Community. at all"

    Again with the lying. Tell that to Tracy Morgan, Roland Martin, Jalen Rose and on and on.

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Feb 9, 2012 9:51:54 PM

  5. Jon you don't know much about MLK if you think he would advocate assault. His whole philosophy was non-violence. He did advocate breaking "unjust" laws but never raising your hand full of glitter to interfere with someones right to free speech.

    Posted by: jack | Feb 10, 2012 1:21:31 AM

  6. Glitterbombing should stop, but this fine and-or sentence is stupid.

    Posted by: db | Feb 10, 2012 11:39:42 AM

  7. @Jack: So I guess Stonewall should have never happened, then? Because to assault someone is always, without exception, morally reprehensible in your view? MLK would not advocate assault, I agree. I argued that sometimes you have to break the law - that was my point. My second point was that this is the least amount of assault (legally defined as force used against a person) conceivable. If this bothers you so terribly, and you want to quibble semantics, then you do not know who your friends are. We need the gay equivalent for an "Uncle Tom".

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 10, 2012 1:33:46 PM

  8. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «CPAC Panelist Jeffrey Bell Tells Conference That The Left Seeks to Destroy Religion and Families: VIDEO« «