Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
I'm not clear how this differs from the practice of approving a route for protests that is done throughout the country in cities and towns alike. When you apply for a permit to hold a rally, you basically say where you want to do it and often the city/town then tells you where you can do it.
While I don't understand the reasons behind Bush's policy on this, I don't see it as hurting free speech. The protestors are allowed to say whatever they want they just aren't allowed to do it whereever they want.
Not that I support the abortion protesters, but are they not also made to stay a certain distance away from the clinics they are protesting?
|
That is a completely different situation. I have been a part in the decision making process in approving routes for protests. We do not plan the routes as a way of keeping protests away from the activity or person. We approve the routes to keep from disrupting traffic and to keep the protesters and motorists from the imminenty physical harm of the interaction of high speed cars and masses of people.
As was said by the Secret Service people, he could have stayed if he dropped his sign. There is no more proof needed that his freedom of expression was stifled.