Freedom? Not at a Bush speech...
 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...tacodalogin=no

(Obviously, the emphasis was added by me.)

Were they being disruptive? No, that's a crime, and it's called "disorderly conduct." Were they violent? Nope, that's also a crime, could be assault, battery, or terroristic threatening.

But wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt? Doesn't the constitution prevent cops from pushing me around because of the non-offensive, completely legal message on my shirt?

So I'm asking myself the question, what's the point I'm trying to make here? I think there are a few. One, the press is terrible. The reporter either leaves out some other reason why they were removed, or simply seems to think ithat what happened was ok, or that "objective standards" prevent him (or her) from pointing out the illegality of the police actions. (If you attend a speech, it must be because you agree with the speaker!)

Second, I'm curious to see if this sort of thing has happened at Kerry rallies (I'm not so blindly partisan to think that it hasn't, though I do doubt it). Is it par for the course, or is there a candidate in this race that doesn't understand what this country is all about?

(Edit: tags got messed up)

sounds to me kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for those two yahoos...did the police arrest anyone else for "disruptiveness?" methinks they doth protesteth too much...

This is quite typical of Bush rallies, and I suspect that it could happen with a Democrat, too. This brings back memories of Bush's commencement speech at Ohio State University (I think) where students were threatened with removal from the graduation ceremony if they did not stand and applaud after the speech, and expulsion if they demonstrated against the President (I'm pretty sure it was after the election.)

The Bush campaign has a habit of squelching dissent at the first sign of a sign, button or tshirt that says anything anti-Bush. During the last election, a friend of mine was pulled out of the crowd by police at a Bush rally in the same manner for wearing Nader buttons and carrying Nader stickers. She hadn't done any demonstrating or pamphleteering....she was arrested for having a different political affiliation at a Bush rally. The charges (I can't remember what they charged her with, someithng like disorderly conduct) were later dropped by the police. Obviously, they just wanted to get her out of the way. I suspect the same for the two men referenced in this article.

If this had been in a hotel reception room I wouldn't have had a problem with it. The fact that they were arrested on public land for what they were wearing is frightening.

America is slowly going down the drain until November; then we might have a chance.

Or you could look at it through the eyes of the police instead of claiming you did nothing wrong.

It's all about time and place. They went there KNOWING that their cloths would cause a ruckus. They can claim they did not plan to, but going into a convention set on by a group of people who you know all hold opposite views politically then you, something is going to happen.

Just like these Arabs/Jews that go to each others meetings at my University, they go there trying to disrupt each others meetings, and confrontation always starts.

Or maybe Pro/Anti Choice rallies..you get my point.

The police do not act differently from one political party to another, they avoid the confrontation you know will occur. They will be more stringent for KKK rallies, they will be more stringent when our Commander in Chief is there.

I'm just waiting for the day when I find myself saying "I love George Bush (Big Brother)" then I know this country has gone down the drain.

Gotcha. So any time my opinion might upset someone, keep it to myself. Noted, Comerade ;)

Yeah, this is no way in isolated incident...

Bush Makes Protesters 'Disappear'

When King George Travels, Liberties Suffer

Quarantining Dissent: How the Secret Service Protects Bush from Free Speech

Keeping the Protesters Out of Sight and Out of Hearing

Free Speech Kept Off US Streets

Yes, let's take the word of two people who were ARRESTED for something without hearing what they did. THAT's a great way to get a quality discussion going.

I'd find a way to sue for wrongful arrest. Even if the charges were dropped. This is an infringement on freedom and civil rights.

Assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent? Snide sarcasm is not considered a good start to quality discussion either.

My point is, we don't know what they were doing. THEY say they were just standing there with their anti-Bush shirts on. The police might say something else, like they were disturbing the peace or something to that effect.

No, it's presenting your opinion in a manner and time that will not cause problems.

The people at the convention believe whole heartedly in their views. They go to their own convention to rally support within their cause. These kids too immature to understand how to present their opinions effectively and in a manner that will not be taken in the wrong way, then cry havok when they get what any person could tell them what was going to happen.

Look if someone went to a Palestinian support convention and yelled out how Israel should simply invade the whole place... bad things will occur.
If someone went to a welfare rally and yelled out that they all need to stop being lazy and get a job... bad things would occur.

The police were avoiding confrontation that would occur because two immature kids dont know how to present their views in a reasonable manner.

As I noted in my post, it's possible that my post speaks not to a civil rights violation, but to a journalistic failure. Simply, the article is either true or not true. I would hope that had they committed a crime (I noted disorderly conduct, or something of the like), that the reporter would have noted that as well. All we have to go on is the report.

So we only have freedom of speech at certain times, namely when other people are willing to listen? I know what you're trying to say, but it is in no way a justification for the police action that took place.

If I were at a Kerry rally, and saw two guys wearing anti-Kerry shirts, I might assume they were there to start some kind of trouble, but until they did, they have a right to be there, wearing whatever kind of shirt they want.

As kind of a side note, there's a difference between speech on a shirt, and actually yelling something, or heckling, or using speech in a way that is actively disruptive. If they had damaged the group's right to have a peaceful gathering, then they should have been removed; I assume that wasn't the case.

Thank you for clearifying Scipio. The way it sounded (to me) was that Bush is to blame for it all and attacking the first amendment.

This is definately on the press that the correct/full story was not told. Though I guess a story about two kids yelling immature stuff at a convention wouldnt have people paying attention... or discussing like we are.

They weren't causing a problem. They were just there. If they felt like shouting out to address to the President their grievances on public land, that is their perogative.

I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of crap slaps the nation and all that she stands on in the face. I know for a fact that the Democratic party has plans to do this same thing at their own convention. It's sickening all across the board.

The problem is, we DON'T KNOW what they were doing. All we know is they were there, wore anti-Bush shirts, and were arrested. I think that it's silly to insinuate anything unless someone finds a follow-up explaining what happened.

My opinion is, the police don't arrest you for just standing there wearing a shirt, so they had to be doing something. But I'll wait for more info to get a better opinion.

The problem is, this is EXACTLY what has been happening. This one post here is NOT the first time it has happened. I bet you can go through the politics forum and dig up ATLEAST 5 other posts that give the exact same story. People who held an anti-bush sign being forced by police to move 1/2 a mile away to an area that the president wouldn't come anywhere near, otherwise they get arrested. (i.e. ok you can wave this sign, but you gotta do it on the other side of town, or in jail.)
It's like either the president doesnt want to see it, or his inner circle doesn't want him to see it. Doesn't want him to see that people actually disagree with his policies. Doesn't want him to see the hate that he is producing within his own countrymen. So anyone who doesnt agree and cheer "yay Bush!" is being either arrested (to have the chages dropped later, because, afterall, they wouldnt hold up.) or moved to a special "bush wont see you here" area.

what did you expect from a president who doesn't read newspapers? He isn't interesed in other opinions

With that same mindset, consider that there is a Nazi Party rally scheduled to be held on the steps of the capital building in Lincoln, Nebraska. As you can imagine, there will be numerous groups there to protest the rally. Should these protesting groups (assuming that they are peacefully protesting), be hauled off, as well?

generating an appearance of political unanimity for the camera is an old tactic--it worked pretty well in "triumph of the will" for example.

these events are for tv viewers. it is understood as important that the Leader utter his Propositions before a unified and adoring public. the insistence on the appearance of unanimity seems to follow from the logic of hyper-nationalist politics---so it is also important that the unified and adoring public be the mirror of the symbols of national idenitity (flags) and of presidential power (the seal).

i am inclined to think that the nonsense cited at the beginning of the thread---its persistence in contemporary american pseudo-politics- (this is not a matter of absolute origin, btw)-- is yet another thing that we can thank ronald reagan for--it seems to me linked to the practices of press pooling, choking off access to unofficial information about conflict where-ever possible. it seems that his administration believed that controlling information was necessary to control opinion, and that they blamed the absence of such control for their fiction of the "vietnam syndrome".....in this, as in so many things, the reaganites followed margaret thatcher's lead.

quite a democratic way to think, isnt it?

As long as it is kept peaceful and laws are not broken demonstrations are a huge part of this country's foundations.

Surprised where that rally is, when I think of Nebraska the farthest thing from my mind is the Nazi party. First thing that comes to my mind are the old Aerosmith vids with Alicia Silverstone, always think of Nebraska when I see those...... Midwest farmer's daughter's don't ya know.

You've never seen those rallies I take it.

Yes they have every right to do it, and so do the anti-people to protest. Though the government require you to notify them ahead of time, give them time to keep the protestors appart.

These people didnt do that, they just ignored the rules.

Were you there? I doubt it. I'm sorry I like to ask both sides what happened instead of simplytaking the words of immature people who yes... got arrested.

Yes, and these kids have all the right to wear anti-bush stuff, but what we're saying is we dont believe that they were just standing there and got arrested. The paper didnt bother to ask the police now did they?

If someone was planning to go to a rally to cause as much trouble as possible, to cause a riot or break the law in any way, why would they deliberately mark themselves as such?

If I was going to a Bush rally to be rowdy I would go in a Bush/Cheney '04 shirt.

Any Bush rallies coming to Colorado? I'd adorn an anti-Bush shirt, and calmly join the crowd to see how long it takes for me to be invited out/forced out. Just so I can get the whole story for myself and anyone who'd be interested.

Bush is going to be a 5 minute drive from me on Friday. In the York Expo Center. (Oldest fairgrounds in America) Let's see what happens to me. :)
I can't get into the walled off fairgrounds unfortunately. You need tickets, which I haven't qualified for. But I will meet his bus at the entrance for sure.

No, i wasn't. But i can draw on multiple sources to support my reasoning.

Was i there to see slavery over a hundred years ago? No, but i can draw on multiple, credible, sources to support my reasoning that it existed.

Kick ass. :)

Honestly though, you have to take all media with a grain of salt because none of it is unbiased. I doubt seriously that the writer is okay with the two people taken away, that's why they left out why they were arrested. A right-leaning paper would say something to the effect of "Two crazed lunatic Bush bashers were yelling, screaming and otherwise being just plain unruly at the President's speech in West Virginia." Take the two accounts and merge them, cut the fat out of both and you more than likely have the truth. They probably were starting a little bit of a ruckus, I mean, politically active people are always up for a good debate, as evidenced by this fine board. The argument between them and a few Bush supporters probably got quite heated, and the police fearing a knock down dragout, arrested the two, perhaps they even told the Bush supporters to chill out or they would promptly be arrested as well. I don't say this is exactly what happened, but knowing how a right-leaning paper would spin it, I took the middle road and deduced it that way. Of course, I'm just speculating, but I'm willing to bet money that's what happened.

Like I said before, I've known one person who was arrested by the New Orleans police at a Bush rally for sporting Nader paraphaneila and that's it. Charges were later dropped, which is a favorite tactic of the police when dealing with protestors. Just grab the guy off of the street, detain him as long as legally possible and than drop all charges.

There has to be something illegal about doing that. If you could establish a pattern of that happening at the same event it could be quite a story.

It's hard to prove and the police are usually given the benefit of the doubt. Not to mention that these tactics are targeted to demonstrators and tend to be employed sporadically by disconnected units of police.

So. . . .what are you saying here? Bush can't control himself, and if he saw these kids wearing the shirt he'd leap over the dais and bitch slap 'em? This was in a public place. The kids were expressing their opinion (first amendment right) and were not breaking any laws, yet were arrested.

If I wear an anti-bush shirt while walking down the streat, a bush supporter MIGHT get upset and hit me. Should I be taken away and jailed because that MIGHT happen?

This is America, not a Soviet gulag.

Where exactly did it say they were arrested? Because I clearly don't see that in the article. Being arrested and being restrained are two different things. Funny how this is resembling a game of Telephone.

They were put in restraints. That's either zip cords or handcuffs. That's arrest.

Here is what someone needs to do. First you need 2 people and 2 camcorders. Person A wears an Anti-Bush shirt (but make sure it isn't vulgar). Person B wears a pro-Bush shirt. Both people are equiped with camcorders. Person A tends to always be 10-15 feet in front of person B filming from his own point of view what happens. Person B acts like he doesn't know person A and secretly films him in the corner of his camcorder. If person A gets arrested there are 2 films to show what happend. If they confiscate person A's film and camcorder you have person B's film to show it exists in court. A judge would easily have a hayday ripping apart the police on this one and so would the media.

As Superbelt said, as soon as you're in restraints, you're legally under arrest.

Rekna, I doubt they would let you bring a camcorder into the rally. I'm sure security at an event with the President is going to be above average -- I hear those Secret Service guys are kind of sticklers for not having the President die. A good idea, though Bush would be untouched -- the agents would take the fall for him, just as they'd take a bullet.

there is a second level to this--apart from the civil rights violation matter that has occupied folk so far:

i think it is instructive to consider for a while the difference between political events that is not going to be televised--which can accomidate dissent and often does--and which retain something of the idea of politics as public debate, and thereby something of the messiness of democracy (well, american pseudo-democracy)----as over against one that is designed to be televised.

maybe use this situation--which demonstrates the right's affection for generating an illusion of unanimous support---as an example. think about the function of the police action--to work as janitors for the sanitized tv image, to help organize it--maybe this will start people thinking (if they do not already) about the problematic nature of film/video/tv images as sources of anything like reflection of the world----this problem goes well beyond the faux news matter, the obvious right biais of the talking heads that verbally frame image sequences fro example---and to the medium itself.

what makes people imagine that footage has in itself a documentary value? that there are not always problems of framing (what is included, what excluded), of editing....why are people still fooled by the apparent referential nature of a video or digital image into thinking that the image itself can be understood as somehow "truth"?

this illusion seems fundamental to the current system of population management.
this despite the fact that for years there have been filmmakers whose work has tried to undermine this faith and explore other ways of thinking about what film is/does/can do--i was reading stan brakhage writings last night, so he is the example that floats to mind.
it is good to see some of this stuff--it is kind of lilke trying to watch a slasher film after you see "henry portrait of a serial killer" which exposes all the conventions of the form by simply not using them....
any thoughts on this?

Not technically, technically you can be considered "in custody, pursuant to investigation" which is police talk for taking you away to cool off.

Technically speaking you can be held in ANY jail cell in the USA, without the phone call or any outside contact for a period of, I believe, 48 hours (might only be 24) at which time the police have to formally bring about charges (place you under arrest, at which time you may call an attorney) or release you.

Believe it or not this is a more common practice than many believe it to be.

It's a way for the police to "scare" people without giving them a record of any kind. Or a way to cool down people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.

I wouldn't know anything about this personally, as I am a very mild mannered, well adjusted, never let emotions get in my way kinda person..... yeah right.

roachboy we do not have your learning :( plus the "what is documentary" question could easily morph into a MM thread, and we don't want that do we? personally I'm with Bergsson on this, or whoever he was ... but I'd have to re-read it to explain whatever he thought ... sigh

no, an arrest is depriving a person of his/her freedom. If I put you in handcuffs and haul you away, I have arrested you.

The next step would be taking them into custody, which is closer to what pan is describing.

"arrest" surely comes from the French "to stop" ? that's what it's all about, restraint

ok so i just happened to have been reading a book by brakhage last night...hey....

the question is quite different from any possible mm thread because in his films you know its documentary--meaning an argument--but when you see footage on the news, for example, you might think this is real life and not an argument about real life--so what i was wondering is--based on this thread, thinking about the bushrally and the cops and their control over a rally for the benefit of the tv cameras--what enables you to imagine that you are seeing "reality" when you see tv news footage?
because there is cropping
there is editing
there is commentary
nothing is raw
so why do you believe that the images on the news are not a problem?
or do you not?

Although I do think that there is some lingering vestige of "I see it so it must be real" style credulity out there, it is fairly apparent that there is also a rising level of public cynicism about the "proof" that video constitutes. This probably has more to do with the perception of the power of technology rather than any sort of political skepticism.