"Free Speech Zones.." - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

matthew330 · 09-29-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

MM, you do realize that they intended to get arrested for civil disobedience? There is a long tradition of CD to garner media coverage for any protest movement. Rosa Parks was the first in my memory, but CD goes back to the Boston Tea Party in this relatively young republic.

Hold it!....

As stated above, "they intended to get arrested for civil disobedience," I agree, how about the libs screaming that the sky is falling and that the evil neocons are just trying to suppress dissent?

Cliff's Notes for all us dumb Neocons..... Cindy Sheehan = Rosa Parks = Boston Tea Party.

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 09:19 PM

Yawn Nice try, kiddo. I'm not rising to your bait.

MichaelFarker · 09-29-2005, 10:56 PM

I may be stupid here - it wouldn't be the first time. But I just don't understand what is wrong with restricting where protesters go to protest.

JinnKai, if the "25 'pro-Bush' citizens stood along the curb" got close enough to Bush to hurt him without first being vetted, then that would be bad.

Regardless of Bush's many flaws, I like the idea of telling people "protest far enough away from him so that it would be hard for you to kill him."

Of course, the fact that Bush and other national monuments were not actually in the area when the protestor was restricted would be bad if it were policy. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Marvelous Marv · 10-01-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

MM, you do realize that they intended to get arrested for civil disobedience? There is a long tradition of CD to garner media coverage for any protest movement. Rosa Parks was the first in my memory, but CD goes back to the Boston Tea Party in this relatively young republic.

Not sure why you asked that, but yeah, I was aware of it.

My position is that the right to protest does not trump the right to be present to SUPPORT a position you agree with. That's why the dichotomy--a supporter isn't going to go into a meeting and try to shout down the speaker.

Detractors, on the other hand, have as their entire purpose to fuck up the meeting. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the rights of others to "peacefully assemble."

Doesn't seem like such a hard concept to me.

P.S. Notice that I could have been talking about a Bush rally, or a Queer Nation meeting.

dagamore · 10-02-2005, 08:17 AM

Personlay i think that the 'free speach zones' are a good thing, simply because look at what can happen with out them, the massive destructions of Seatlle when the WTO was there, and near the same time the massive destrucitn of downtown Portlan Or (dont recall what was being protested at the time). and even some deaths have happened because of the lack of seperation of two political points of views (ref 1972 Democrat national convetion in chicigo).

some times the saftey of the people/city requires that some people/groups be kept apart from others.

09-29-2005, 09:19 PM	#42 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Yawn Nice try, kiddo. I'm not rising to your bait.

09-29-2005, 10:56 PM	#43 (permalink)
MichaelFarker 2+2=5? Not again! Location: Dallas, Texas	I may be stupid here - it wouldn't be the first time. But I just don't understand what is wrong with restricting where protesters go to protest. JinnKai, if the "25 'pro-Bush' citizens stood along the curb" got close enough to Bush to hurt him without first being vetted, then that would be bad. Regardless of Bush's many flaws, I like the idea of telling people "protest far enough away from him so that it would be hard for you to kill him." Of course, the fact that Bush and other national monuments were not actually in the area when the protestor was restricted would be bad if it were policy. That doesn't seem to be the case.

10-02-2005, 08:17 AM	#45 (permalink)
dagamore Upright	Personlay i think that the 'free speach zones' are a good thing, simply because look at what can happen with out them, the massive destructions of Seatlle when the WTO was there, and near the same time the massive destrucitn of downtown Portlan Or (dont recall what was being protested at the time). and even some deaths have happened because of the lack of seperation of two political points of views (ref 1972 Democrat national convetion in chicigo). some times the saftey of the people/city requires that some people/groups be kept apart from others.