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?
|
You nailed it: noone's free speech is being curtailed by this.
I was actually in SF over the summer and walked through one of the protests. . . only to see organizers of the anti-war protest attempting to rope off and intimidate a group of Zionist counter-protesters to the point where one guy was getting physical and a SF cop told him he was going to get arrested if he laid a hand on the counter-protesters. So, in my opinion, this is a bogus complaint that cuts both ways.
The Patriot Act, on the other hand, is a scary thing. I don't know of anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation of all of its implications. One things for sure: I'm not getting a tan or growning a long beard any time soon.