Obviously a Black Tie only event (or "Don't use Threads Titles for digs")

[tecoyah]

This sort of thing really irritates me.....and scares me at the same time. Is this guy really afraid of three school teachers who care about Civil Liberties, I am sad it has come to this.

http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3...%5E3D18712.htm

Teachers' T-shirts bring Bush speech ouster



From Bend.com news sources
Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:24 PM
Reference Code: PR-18712

October 14 - MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president’s speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets – two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing.

"The U.S. Constitution was not available on site for comment, but expressed in a written statement support for “the freedom of speech” and “of the press” among other civil liberties," a Democratic news release said.

The Associated Press and local CBS affiliate KTVL captured Bush’s principled stand against civil liberties in news accounts published immediately after the event.

The AP reported:

Three Medford school teachers were threatened with arrest and escorted from the event after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan "Protect our civil liberties." All three said they applied for and received valid tickets from Republican headquarters in Medford.

The women said they did not intend to protest. "I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Janet Voorhies, 48, a teacher in training.

“We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

Thursday’s event in Oregon sets a new bar for a Bush/Cheney campaign that has taken extraordinary measures to screen the opinions of those who attend Bush and Cheney speeches. For months, the Bush/Cheney campaign has limited event access to those willing to volunteer in Bush/Cheney campaign offices. In recent weeks, the Bush/Cheney campaign has gone so far as to have those who voice dissenting viewpoints at their events arrested and charged as criminals.

Thursday’s actions in Oregon set a new standard even for Bush/Cheney – removing and threatening with arrest citizens who in no way disrupt an event and wear clothing that expresses non-disruptive party-neutral viewpoints such as “Protect Our Civil Liberties.”

When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Eugene, Oregon on Sept. 17, a 54-Year old woman named Perry Patterson was charged with criminal trespass for blurting the word "No" when Cheney said that George W. Bush has made the world safer.

One day before, Sue Niederer, 55, the mother of a slain American soldier in Iraq was cuffed and arrested for criminal trespass when she interrupted a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey. Both women had tickets to the event.

[daswig]

How is it an abridgement of their free speech? The event was paid for by the Republicans. The three teachers were obviously potential disruptors, and were asked to leave.

How many people got into the DNC wearing shirts that said "Kerry '04: Because Treason is Patriotic!"?

Heckling is civil disobedience. That means to heckle, you must break the law. Breaking the law has consequences, as demonstrated by that picture of Kerry with his hands behind his head being perp-walked in the 1970's.

[daswig]

btw, here's the pic:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...m/k_arrest.jpg

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by daswig

How is it an abridgement of their free speech? The event was paid for by the Republicans. The three teachers were obviously potential disruptors, and were asked to leave.

How many people got into the DNC wearing shirts that said "Kerry '04: Because Treason is Patriotic!"?

Heckling is civil disobedience. That means to heckle, you must break the law. Breaking the law has consequences, as demonstrated by that picture of Kerry with his hands behind his head being perp-walked in the 1970's.

Ah so if someone goes to a Kerry fundraiser and starts causing troubles because of their support for Bush, it's different? Those Kerry people deserve to be threatened? Those Kerry people asking the Bush supporter to please leave are assholes?

Amazing hypocrasy from thread to thread.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah so if someone goes to a Kerry fundraiser and starts causing troubles because of their support for Bush, it's different? Those Kerry people deserve to be threatened? Those Kerry people asking the Bush supporter to please leave are assholes?

Amazing hypocrasy from thread to thread.

Where have I said anything about my ever being at a Kerry fundraiser? Methinks you're making very broad assumptions...

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by daswig

How is it an abridgement of their free speech? The event was paid for by the Republicans. The three teachers were obviously potential disruptors, and were asked to leave.

How many people got into the DNC wearing shirts that said "Kerry '04: Because Treason is Patriotic!"?

Heckling is civil disobedience. That means to heckle, you must break the law. Breaking the law has consequences, as demonstrated by that picture of Kerry with his hands behind his head being perp-walked in the 1970's.

You are serious aren't you......WOW.

Civil Disobedience....is not heckling.
Heckling is Heckling, and that is also not illegal.

In the brief time I have read your posts, I have managed to see more than enough....Bye

[Willravel]

It was totally wrong for those women to be removed. It was blatently unconstitutional. Their shirts could be interpreted as being anti-bush, but only by those willing to admit that he is against civial liberties (the constitutional ones, mind you). Therefore, between a rock and a hard place you find yourself. As you are clearly a follower of the Bush, I can understand you trying to come to his aid, but this is inexcusable.

Was this Bushes pre emptive war on heckling? Will we find out later that they never meant to heckle, and the source of information on their heckling was wrong or non-existant? Heh.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by willravel

It was totally wrong for those women to be removed. It was blatently unconstitutional.

What part of the Constitution did it violate? The event was a private event. The Republicans had secured the use of the hall for their purposes at that time frame.

Time, place, and manner restrictions have LONG been upheld as Constitutional. That's black letter law.

Let me ask you this: If somebody went to see F 9/11 in the theater, and then stood up in the middle of it and started screaming about how it was all lies, would it be a violation of the person's First Amendment rights for the theater to kick them out? Of course not. So why is this any different?

[daswig]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Heckling is Heckling, and that is also not illegal.

Read your local statutes on "inciting to riot" or "speech likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace", and you'll find that heckling can indeed be criminal.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by daswig

Let me ask you this: If somebody went to see F 9/11 in the theater, and then stood up in the middle of it and started screaming about how it was all lies, would it be a violation of the person's First Amendment rights for the theater to kick them out? Of course not. So why is this any different?

Oh, I'm sorry. Clearly they knew that these teachers were going to stand up and cause problems in the middle of the preserntation because their shirts made it evident. Those shirts were a clear indicator that thses women were a threat to Bush.

If someone came into a F 9/11 private screening with Micheal Moore, wearing a pro Bush shirt, can you tell me with 100% certianty that they would have been removed?

Also, they couldn't have been arrested for inciting a riot because of what their shirts said.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by daswig

Read your local statutes on "inciting to riot" or "speech likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace", and you'll find that heckling can indeed be criminal.

Since when does wearing a shirt about protecting civil liberties amount to "inciting to riot" or "speech likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace"? Are you serious? And you think john kerry's attitude is a threat to our country?


Aren't you the least bit ashamed that your candidate is so afraid of actually being confronted with someone who doesn't share his vision?

[daswig]

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh, I'm sorry. Clearly they knew that these teachers were going to stand up and cause problems in the middle of the preserntation (sic) because their shirts made it evident. Those shirts were a clear indicator that thses women were a threat to Bush.

If someone came into a F 9/11 private screening with Micheal Moore, wearing a pro Bush shirt, can you tell me with 100% certianty (sic) that they would have been removed?

Also, they couldn't have been arrested for inciting a riot because of what their shirts said.

Their t-shirts made it very likely that they were there to disrupt the event. As such, the people running the event had a right to keep them out. It's like the old "no shoes, no shirt, no service" bit. In a private venue, or in a public venue that has been rented for a private use, traditional "free speech" rights don't apply. There's TONS of caselaw on this.

In a private screening? Depends on who was doing the screening, wouldn't it? But do you have ANY doubt that a pro-bush person standing up and screaming at the crowd/screen in a regular commercial theater would be asked to leave?

And YES, you CAN be arrested for inciting to riot for wearing something so provocative that it would most likely cause an immediate breach of the peace. Examples of this is wearing a WWII German military uniform to a Holocaust survivor reunion, or a Klan uniform to a NAACP meeting. You'd get the shit beat out of you, and you'd DESERVE it.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by daswig

And YES, you CAN be arrested for inciting to riot for wearing something so provocative that it would most likely cause an immediate breach of the peace. Examples of this is wearing a WWII German military uniform to a Holocaust survivor reunion, or a Klan uniform to a NAACP meeting. You'd get the shit beat out of you, and you'd DESERVE it.

So, we're at the point where a shirt that says, "Protect Civil Liberties" is so provocative that wearing it would cause an immediate breach of the peace?

C'mon. You're really reaching here and it is obvious.

Aren't you the least bit ashamed that your candidate is so afraid of actually being confronted with someone who doesn't share his vision?

[tecoyah]

While I can understand the need to keep the peace in a public arena.....What I fail to understand is how this phrase " Protect our Civil Liberties", can be interpreted as something that might insight violence.....perhaps I am naive in this. In order for such a benign statement to be offensive, someone would most likely need to disagree with it. If someone does indeed disagree with it, then THEY are, in my opinion, not acting in the best interest of the American People.

Would you agree?

[daswig]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

What I fail to understand is how this phrase " Protect our Civil Liberties", can be interpreted as something that might insight violence.....perhaps I am naive in this.

The far left tinfoil hat brigade (which, oddly enough, is led by long-time KKK recruiter and homophobe Senator Robt. Byrd of West Virginia) have been screaming about Patriot being a serious, unconstitutional restriction upon civil liberties. People showing up wearing a catchphrase of the far left on their clothing would, by a reasonable person, be seen to NOT belong at a private right-wing function. This wasn't a public function, and CERTAINLY wasn't a public forum within the meaning of First Amendment jurisprudence. As such, the Republicans were within their rights to kick them out, just as the Democrats would be within their rights to kick out somebody wearing a "Rush is Right!" t-shirt. Now the person wearing the "Rush is Right!" t-shirt may claim that they meant the DRUG "rush" or the BAND "Rush" but it doesn't matter. The people running a private event have a damned near ABSOLUTE right to refuse admission to any person for any reason.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by daswig

Their t-shirts made it very likely that they were there to disrupt the event.

Prior restraint. Not black letter law. Amazing what a thing called bias can do. Also...what does it say about the crowds there if they will riot at the simple utterance of the word "no"? If the charges of incitement are to beleived...then we must hold that the bush supporters cannot even hear a single word of disagreement before the resort to violence. Now...do you really want us to beleive that? I will...but you'll have to tell me it's true.

[docbungle]

"Protect our civil liberties" is not a negative statement. It is not saying "To hell with anyone who doesn't protect our civil liberties," or anything even remotely sensational. How it could be construed as riot-inducing is beyond me. How it can be compared to standing up in a theater and screaming is also beyond me.

Booting these people out is extremist at least. Explaining the reasoning for booting them out as being anything other than extremist is simple denial.

"The far-left tinfoil hat brigade?" Jesus.

[Boo]

I bet President Bush put the cuffs on them himself! Talk about a journalist with an agenda. I hope that people can read and comprehend PAST this piss poor reporting.

President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Prior restraint. Not black letter law. Amazing what a thing called bias can do. Also...what does it say about the crowds there if they will riot at the simple utterance of the word "no"? If the charges of incitement are to beleived...then we must hold that the bush supporters cannot even hear a single word of disagreement before the resort to violence. Now...do you really want us to beleive that? I will...but you'll have to tell me it's true.

Not prior restraint. Black Letter Law. The Bush event, being private and not a public accomodation, can keep people from attending their function for ANY reason. (that's why the BSA can keep homosexuals out. It's a right to associate thing, you prolly wouldn't understand.) There are documented cases where a "Bush/Cheney" sign was enough of an incitement to cause a breach of the peace at various events. One, which took place in a public airport, involved a big burly union guy terrorizing a 3 year old girl after ripping the sign from her hands and shredding it in front of her, as she sat on her father's shoulders. That WAS at a public forum kind of situation. So, yeah, people do crazy shit when it comes to politics, and keeping the two sides separated is a very good idea.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by docbungle

"Protect our civil liberties" is not a negative statement. It is not saying "To hell with anyone who doesn't protect our civil liberties," or anything even remotely sensational. How it could be construed as riot-inducing is beyond me. How it can be compared to standing up in a theater and screaming is also beyond me.

Booting these people out is extremist at least. Explaining the reasoning for booting them out as being anything other than extremist is simple denial.

"The far-left tinfoil hat brigade?" Jesus.

When one side takes something as their organizational mantra, it can indeed represent something far different from what the words alone would convey. "Protect our civil liberties" sounds like a Libertarian mantra, right? But the far left fruitcakes have adopted it for themselves, when not foaming at the mouth about "MIHOP", which is leftie-loonie for "Made it happen on purpose", which is their way of saying that Dubya PERSONALLY not only knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, but ARRANGED it for political gain. Yeah, there are some real nutjobs out there on the Left, just like there are some real nutjobs on the right.

[cthulu23]

While the Bush campaign may be within their legal rights when denying entrance to anyone that may possibly oppose their policies they are definitely displaying their lack of tolerance for the American tradition of dissent. Doesn't requiring loyalty oaths from rally attendees strike some conservatives as overzealous protection of a candidate?

[daswig]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

While the Bush campaign may be within their legal rights when denying entrance to anyone that may possibly oppose their policies they are definitely displaying their lack of tolerance for the American tradition of dissent. Doesn't requiring loyalty oaths from rally attendees strike some conservatives as overzealous protection of a candidate?

<img src="http://www.newrepublicanarchive.com/images/535_KerryWall.jpg" />

This look familiar? It's the inside of the "First Amendment Zone" at the Democratic National Convention in Boston just a few short months ago.

Democrats, Republicans, they both treat dissent identically.

[wnker85]

And these teachers' rights were not taking away. They did not have to buy tickets to go to the event (and doing so means that you will follow the rules set forth by the event holder) and they did not have to go in, (they could have stayed outside the event).

They were most likly removed so a fight would not break out. Better safe than sorry.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by daswig

This look familiar? It's the inside of the "First Amendment Zone" at the Democratic National Convention in Boston just a few short months ago.

Democrats, Republicans, they both treat dissent identically.

Except that Kerry hasn't required loyalty oaths or ejected all dissenters from his rallies. Yes, the "free speech zones" are serious perversions of democracy. However, there is still a difference between how the two campaings have handled dissenters at their media events.

edit: removed link to redundant pic

[daswig]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Except that Kerry hasn't required loyalty oaths or ejected all dissenters from his rallies. Yes, the "free speech zones" are serious perversions of democracy. However, there is still a difference between how the two campaings have handled dissenters at their media events.

Kerry hasn't ejected dissenters? Says WHO? There have been some hecklers at Kerry events, but they've been quickly removed as soon as they were identified, if they weren't beaten senseless first and then dragged out. I'll welcome all sources you have that claim otherwise.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by daswig

Kerry hasn't ejected dissenters? Says WHO? There have been some hecklers at Kerry events, but they've been quickly removed as soon as they were identified, if they weren't beaten senseless first and then dragged out. I'll welcome all sources you have that claim otherwise.

Actually, I think that the burden of proof is on you and your fantastical "beating" claims. I've seen footage of hecklers at Kerry rallies and they were allowed to disrupt the events.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Actually, I think that the burden of proof is on you and your fantastical "beating" claims. I've seen footage of hecklers at Kerry rallies and they were allowed to disrupt the events.

Really?

Here are two articles on the same incident:

http://www.enquirer.com/midday/09/09...protest09.html
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.as...4&nav=0RZFQhUk

Reporters who followed Russell outside to try to talk with him were ordered by Kerry campaign staffers to return inside immediately or risk not being allowed back in to hear the speech.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0155-8041r.htm

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by daswig

Really?

Here are two articles on the same incident:

http://www.enquirer.com/midday/09/09...protest09.html
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.as...4&nav=0RZFQhUk



http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0155-8041r.htm

You have one guy escorted out and NOT arrested and two people who were harrassed by Kerry supporters and not by campaign officials. This seems a far cry from the official intolerance of the bush campaign. None of the articles support your allegation that Kerry is having dissenters beaten.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

You have one guy escorted out and NOT arrested and two people who were harrassed by Kerry supporters and not by campaign officials. This seems a far cry from the official intolerance of the bush campaign. None of the articles support your allegation that Kerry is having dissenters beaten.

I've noticed that you consider assault to be "harrasment". Very interesting. I wonder if you think the woman at the RNC who got kicked by the UPenn Student was simply "harassed" or not. If not, why not?

You do understand the legal requirements for a trespass charge, don't you? And why the women's conduct would qualify as trespass, while the guy who got beaten wouldn't qualify as trespass?

Have you seen Kerry disavow the actions of his supporters in assaulting people who disagree with them?

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by daswig

I've noticed that you consider assault to be "harrasment". Very interesting. I wonder if you think the woman at the RNC who got kicked by the UPenn Student was simply "harassed" or not. If not, why not?

You do understand the legal requirements for a trespass charge, don't you? And why the women's conduct would qualify as trespass, while the guy who got beaten wouldn't qualify as trespass?

Have you seen Kerry disavow the actions of his supporters in assaulting people who disagree with them?

There is a difference between official campaign conduct and the actions of overzealous, asshole supporters. The Bush campaign requires loyalty oaths at some of their rallies...there is no such Kerry policy.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

There is a difference between official campaign conduct and the actions of overzealous, asshole supporters. The Bush campaign requires loyalty oaths at some of their rallies...there is no such Kerry policy.

And Kerry, by winking at the actions of his "overzealous, asshole supporters" and by failing to do anything to correct their illegal conduct, assumes liability for their actions. That's a BASIC tenet of tort and agency law.

Bush doesn't want to be heckled. At least his campaign has the balls to make hecklers lie and violate the law in order to heckle him. Kerry, on the other hand, simply relies on his Brownshirt/Komsomol cadre to beat the opposition into submission.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by daswig

And Kerry, by winking at the actions of his "overzealous, asshole supporters" and by failing to do anything to correct their illegal conduct, assumes liability for their actions. That's a BASIC tenet of tort and agency law.

Bush doesn't want to be heckled. At least his campaign has the balls to make hecklers lie and violate the law in order to heckle him. Kerry, on the other hand, simply relies on his Brownshirt/Komsomol cadre to beat the opposition into submission.

You have no proof that Kerry endorsed their actions...you only have an apparently sincere belief in his diabolical nature. Smear, exaggerate, dissemble, drop a nazi comparison, fun, fun, fun....when is this election gonna be over?

[Unright]

Originally Posted by The article

The women said they did not intend to protest. "I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Janet Voorhies, 48, a teacher in training.

“We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

Fact is they're right. "Protect Our Civil Liberties" is just about as nonpartisan and inoffensive as can be. Even the GOP workers thought so. These 3 women got past 3 security checkpoints without a problem and were freely mingling inside the convention area. Just one measly campaign workers had a snit about the t-shirt and had security eject them.

Bottom Line: I think that it was the one campaign worker that caused this whole problem. If the worker really thought that the women could be potential troublemakers, he could have had them tailed so that they would be ejected if they did start trouble. This whole article and situation could have been avoided if the women were actually kicked out for heckling because nobody would care about what their t-shirts said. Instead, this whole situation reflects poorly on Bush.

Pre-emption (sp?) is always an iffy thing. It can work beautifully if it works, or it can blow up in your face. This is an example of the latter. It's not worth it.