"Free Speech Zones.."
 

http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704...echZones.shtml

Does anyone else see the potential for abuse here? I think is incredibly disturbing, but people have argued with me that protestors should be caged off to prevent violence. Should discrimination of this type, based merely on percieved political opinion, be allowed?

Not in the United States of America......or at least....not in my opinion.

I'm going to chicken out of the bigger issue here (for now) and focus on a small technical detail:

I wonder if those carrying pro-Bush signs would have been cordonned off as well? If we know the answer to that, then we can find out if this was a free speech issue or a security issue.

And speaking as a Canadian, I believe freedom of speech should not be suppressed. Of course I can't claim to know what you people want for yourselves. :crazy:

This gave me a good chuckle :p

It was in Louisiana? :confused: :confused:

According to the article, they had the appropriate permits and there was no overwhelming public interest in cordoning them off. There was no reason to attempt to cordon these people off.

Blaming Bush for this is non-sensical. It's asinine to think this was because of any decision he made or orders on his part. It looks like the cops doing crowd control overstepped their bounds.

I'm at work right now so no time to go get articles, but didn't this happen at several other locations around the country?

Yes, this isn't an isolated case. It happens pretty much anywhere Bush goes, so it isn't a local problem. And wouldn't you think that if the president wasn't responsible for ordering something like this, and heard about it, that he would tell his security to cut it out? I know if i were president and heard about this going on w/o my order (one which i wouldn't give) i would see to it that a few people lost their jobs.

Yes, it did....like in Boston for people protesting the Democratic National Convention last year. Dissent was stifled for anyone who didn't march in lockstep with the Brownshirts of the nefarious Kerry campaign!! Censorship Censorship!



http://news.bostonherald.com/images/...sz07232004.jpg

If there's a good reason to cordon these folks off, let's hear it.

Now, I do have a certain amount of expertise in sewing destruction, and if I wanted to do it, I might infiltrate the protesters (because that's where trouble is expected) and stage some sort of incident to distract the various law enforcement types hanging about, so that they'd be drawn off, and I could then use that opportunity to go after my real target.

So, from a standpoint of security, keeping these people in one very controlled place does mimimize the effectiveness of that kind of distraction.

However, Ben Franklin once said that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. I agree with old Ben.

I am sorry.

I had to take this opportunity to misquote Lance to further my political agenda on the TFP.

IF LANCE AGREES WITH ME, YOU SHOULD ALL BOW DOWN TO MY WILL.

What I am trying to say, albeit in a very roundabout way, is to always consider the source and their reason for writing in the first place.

I don't think that Dubya had anything to do with this. I don't think the SS had anything to do with this. It looks to me like some wooden bullets got full of themselves and exercised totalitarianism that day. The writer of the article wants to pin this on Bush, but I am not buying it.

I wouldn't pin this on Bush but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Rove or some other person in the administration made these arrangements in advance.

Bush and company have been very astute in their PR. I am sure that if this was challenged in the a court of law they would be allowed to protest where they want... of course Bush would be long gone by the time the courts were done with this...

Well, bow on down, folks, 'Cause I think Ben's analysis is "spot on", as some old buddies might have said.

Oh, by the way, I now reserve the right to misquote Ben to further any agenda I see fit...

the bush squad has been fmaous for this kind of handling of cowboy george's appearances pretty much from jump street. it is obviously a scenario according to which the handlers think that the illusion of unanimous support on camera lends some credibility to what is being said there. kind of like riefenstahl's trick in "triumph of the will"..usually the bush squad has some actual defense of these kind of tactics--above you get the bottom-feeding variant ("they" do it too...)
of course this amounts to an abrogation of free speech.
of course the right does not care so long as their boy is doing the abrogating.
so it goes.

This is not hte one and only time it was done. If it was the only time, or was only int hat one place, i would maybe agree that it was the local enforcement going overboard. But that just is not the case. This has happened in may cities, to many MANY people. In NY they would not only shut you off in a "free speech zone" but they would arrest you if you say anything and literally bus you down to an old abandoned (and condemned from operation) building on the docks.

What's the problem, right? You can just take your case to court right? WRONG! They do not arrest you, they just hold you... for days. They don't arrest you because then they would have to try you. They hold you for the maximum time they are allowed to hold you.. then.. they hold you longer.. Multiple law suits were filed, but as far as i know nothnig has been done. Apparently it's ok to lock up people w/o charges or trial now.. I wonder how THAT snuck through....

They would arrest you if you say anything? Really? With all due respect, I am guessing that you were not in Manhattan during the RNC last year. All of friggin Manhattan was a "free speech zone", not that there's anything wrong with that. I witnessed the NYPD exercise extreme restraint and professionalism in the face of very antagonistic behaviour by the protesters. Here are some pics for your enjoyment of said protesters!


http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/protesting1.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/protesting2.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/protesting6.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/protesting4.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/protesting5.jpg

No cages!!! Damn evil Republicans!

Everytime you try to make a point you immediately lose credibility when you resort to childish insults like this. Grow up. You hate Bush....we get it.

FAMOUS? OBVIOUS? I want some of what you're smokin RB.


If by "bottom feeding," you mean, "pointing out holes and hipocrosies in your arguments," then yes, I'm guilty as charged.

Was it "our boy?" Or are you assuming? From what I've read, this decision hasn't been placed at the Fed's feet....yet. Are you jumping the gun in your assumptions, or do facts even matter? Or is everything indirectly attributable to Rove?

rangerdick, nobody loves a spelling whore. Don't be *that* guy.

beyond that, i think it's a major problem that time, place and manner restrictions are getting used to really side-track protest and dissent.

the sad reason i think it gets bipartisan consent is that the left has had some serious problems giving the far left enough reasons to be patient with them.

I don't want to... errrr... I don't need to be loved. You can take that to the bank , I don't much care whether or not you or your ilk have any love for me. But I'll call you out every day for your silly claims... try again.

i've said it before and i'll say it again...Bush is the anti-christ.

I assume you were trying to draw out some kind of response by what those signs said, and they don't look like anything all that terrible. It's all protected speech, and the cops shouldn't have any opinion one way or another.

Edit: slight edit, proved point in next post.

Here's your cages:

(this just happens to be the top of the google list. Feel free to search for more.

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_70/pier57pens.html

And here's some contamination info:

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_...scityknew.html

And yea, that was the 2004 RNC.

Oh, hey. Lookit what i found in the next couple listings.. yea those republicans are saints... really.. you can believe me... why are you looking at me like that..?

http://www.amipatriotic.com/story/2004/9/13/145552/792

http://www.punksinscience.org/jeffre...ier+57---4.jpg
http://www.thememoryhole.org/polices.../pier57_04.jpg
http://www.thememoryhole.org/polices.../pier57_05.jpg
http://www.gothamist.com/images/1_inside.jpg

Edit: Hmm.. 4th pic not showing anymore for some reason.. whatever.
Re-Edit: Pic fixed

it is interesting, even here, to note the extent to which those few people who still stand behind george w. bush refuse to address information that they do not like about this administration. this is a good microcosm, one that shows a lingering problem for politics following from the type of committment that right ideology has fostered amongst its flock.

that bush's handlers have set about organizing photo-ops for bush that are about the illusion of unanimity for the camera is and has been obvious.

that the illusion of unanimity is a feature of conservative ideology is and has been obvious as well--consider how limbaugh for example never takes calls from anyone who really disagress with his positions--the loop this works to reinforce is--also--obvious: support in the audience, support at the level of feedback, yes yes "we" speak for all "americans"--this has not changed across the transition from opposition into power.

that this unanimity is fictive, has been fictive, will be fictive--also obvious: it is about giving individual conservatives the illusion that they are many, part of a movement (which of course is hostile to all social movements except itself--another defining feature)--following from this curious mixture (a social movement a defining feature of which is hostility to social movements other than itself--think trade unions), duplicating its logic even, you have the karlrove photo-op, its structure, its exclusions, its rationale.

i see the conservative above incapable of addressing problems that might be raised by the photo-op procedure (which does, like it or not, harken back to "triumph of the will")---the predictable round of subject-switches followed the initial post--well, the democrats did it--well, these protestors should be kept in cages look at their signs--all sorry demonstrations of the proposition that conservatives are not bothered by the supression of political speech so long as that suppression comes from the right--when they are out of power, after the next elections, you will see conservatives turn into primary victims of the suppression of speech--they will whine long and loud about how their bankrupt political propositions are being censored by the evil liberal press (for example)--and this which will be the way that the rank and file will come to process their defeat.
nothing wrong with the ideology--every distortion comes from outside agitators.
if you cage enough of them, nothing bad will ever happen to conservative ideology.

great logic.....glad none of you who posted above from the right have any power.

Gitmo on the Hudson!?! Are you for real? That's just......well....funny. Civil disobedience sometomes comes with a price. I'll bet they didn't tell you that at your Civil Disobedience-Anarchist Teen Club meetings.

Roachboy... what are you babbling about? All I see is, "Conservative idelogy.......isms.....evil neocons.....democratics good.....[insert big word to make me look smart]....Rovian mind control......, etc etc."
Your posts always make me smile.

I'm just showing you what really happened. If you want to use that as a reason to insult me with absurd assumptions feel free. You can choose not to belive, you have the right to remain ignorant.

ranger:
whether you find what i post and how i write to be engaging or not is really of no consequence to me. as for the ad hominem dimension of your post, i expect nothing different or better from conservatives such as yourself.
perhaps someday you'll surprise and post an actual argument that is not a simple recapitulation of the right line of the moment.
and perhaps, if that day comes, i might find you worth engaging.
but that is not how things stand.

Since this thread will most likely be closed soon due to our inability to refrain from insults, I thought I'd make my voice heard before it does.

RangerDick,

You make claims that you doubt anything like cages or arrests were made, then when shown the evidence, you resort to insulting the people providing the evidence. If this is what you consider constructive contributions to the politics forum, I'd highly suggest you review a few threads.


Might I direct you to this one here, though I'd recommend ignoring the first paragraph, seeing as it is a bit out of date, while the second paragraph is quite relevant at the moment.

And here.

Frankly, we grow a bit weary of internet bravado and the usual "I-Don't-Need-Your-Love" attitude whenever someone offers a bit of advice. However, "I Don't Need Your Love" was a fairly popular song in the 80s, if I recall, but let's try to leave it there, in the dusty record bins of antiquity and not here in the politics forum.

Now, to address the thread in question.

It is a sign of very weak character to wish to silence any dissent. Those in possession of strong character openly welcome dissent in order to strengthen their leadership and to ensure that all voices are heard. I am quite wary of any leader with such power who does not like hearing voices of dissent. To suggest that the president is likely unaware of such Free Speech Zones is naive at best.

You're absolutely right. Here's photographic evidence of Cindy Sheehan being censored/tortured in Crawford, Texas.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...er/sheehan.jpg

I dont think that free speech zones are a good idea, they are unconstiutional IMO.

HOWEVER, these have ALL been on the local level. I think yall are sorely mistaken when you think the President gets on the phone and says, "heh, why dont you round up those hippies so I can look good hehe". It is the LOCAL police who want to avoid riots.

Remember Seattle? Their free speech was in no way shape or form restricted... yet there was riots and millions of dollars in damages. THAT is what the LOCAL cops are trying to avoid. You can stop with all the BUSH=HITLEROMFG crap already. If he was Hitler these people would have simply been shot.

Since most of this thread turned into "It happened here" or "The GOP/Democrats did it here.." I'd like to take a chance to clarify my thread question:

Is there a time where preventing "protestors" from being allowed into the same area as other citizens would be justified? If so, where, when and why? This will likely resound along your beliefs on giving up freedoms for safety, so I'm curious to see your response to THIS question.

EDIT- My opinion: No. In cases where thousands of protestors could block trafic or otherwise impede a conclusion to the events, I think that ALL the people should be moved away so that the cars can go through, etc. Moving protestors alone sends a message that their political dissonance is the reason for being seperated, not a smooth operation of the event.

perhaps a bit off topic, but the following shows that the question of censorship is something that this administration raises across the board, and not only with reference to bush photo-ops:

source: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28327739.htm

bushworld really is a seperate place from what others of us know about.
this seperateness is preditcated on control of the presentation and content of information.
the impulse toward such information control points to the genuinely totalitarian underbelly of the actions of this administration.


of course, i fully expect the bushfaithful to rationalize this away, like they do everything else that might cast their boy in a bad light.

sooner or later, however, one would expect this seemingly bottomless desire to apologize for george w bush to begin to give way.

When have you seen me apologize for Bush?

I critisize him as much if not more than I praise him. However I dont see him as the boogey man, pulling the chains and being behind every bad thing that happens. Personally I think that if the President went and told the local cops to effectively jail every protestor, in a liberal city/state such as New York he'd be told to F-off and it'd be all over the papers.

And yes, imo that article is way off topic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9493139/
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...med_12p.h2.jpg

Just because people arent being gassed doesn't mean what is being done is correct. It's like saying, sure they're getting their fingers cut off, but atleast they dont get their whole hand removed like in xXXx country. "Sure, they're getting thrown in jail for days w/o charges and/or trial, but atleast they're not shot on the spot" doesn't sit right with me. So to answer Jinn NO i don't think any of this is right and it has to stop immediately.

Uhh, don't look now, but This isn't a case of a "free speech zone." She and her ilk were impeding access to public buildings.

Unless it's your position that anyone is entitled to demonstrate anywhere they like, any time they like, your reference is inappropriate.

I'm sure they were looking for whatever excuse they could get. I'm well aware of what the article says.

I'm for what's right. I don't have any hidden agenda.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.