Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

Secret Service, probably.

Aren't they getting a little big for their britches?

Farmerkev wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

resedit wrote:

I bet you guys wouldn't care were it not for the free speech zone used by the administration, which y'all wailed about. So you have to complain now, or your bias shows.

Free speech zones make sense. They make a lot of sense, they avoid anarchy and still allow the voice of dissent to be heard.

The guarantee the right to free speech of those whom the dissenters often want to silence with their yelling.

Gah, no. Free Speech Zones are a terrible idea, they go against everything a democracy is supposed to be about. Oh, sure you have free speech, but only behind the fences surrounded by riot police. Its disgusting that they're used at all, by either party.

You do realize that we can say anything about the people and parties we want to, just not always shouted at their face.

Three city blocks away, over the hill, and behind the Denny's is more than a bit overprotective.

Last edited by user (2008-07-03 3:01 pm)

what if the Denny's has some sort of a bacon special?

bratboy wrote:

Secret Service, probably.

Federal, then.

I wonder if it will arise that legitimate intra-party dissent can be forced away from party venues with the assistance of the secret service. Groups within the party might be shut out if it's claimed they may become inordinately loud.

The fact that they are allowing people to line the road based on their message gives the lie to it being a mode of crowd control. ALL sign-carriers should go to the FSZ.

If Bush believes that, he's stupider than I thought.

Anyway...

CNN.com Political Ticker wrote:

It's The Fourth of July, but not everyone was in a festive mood when President Bush delivered a speech Thursday at Thomas Jefferson's famous home, Monticello.

The President, who was talking part in Monticello's annual naturalization ceremony, was interrupted several times by protesters.

"War criminal!" one protester repeatedly yelled as she was escorted out by Secret Service members.

"He has brought fascism to this shore," another man yelled.

The president did not appear to acknowledge the protesters.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

And your endless threads about Gitmo et. al? Should we interpret your outrage on torture as a partisan argument?

What on earth does "Gitmo" or "torture" have to do with this? 

It's true, I tend to get more excited about unlawful detentions and torture than I do about where the barricade is placed at the DNC convention.  That has nothing to do with 'partisanship.'

I just don't understand why so many people in this thread view free speech zones as a mockery of the right to freedom of speech, as indeed antithetical to the nation's ideals, but you keep minimizing the issue.

I mean, maintaining it's just a question of where the barricades are placed ... come now, that's just embarrassing.

It's about stifling dissent.

In a smurfing 3 block radius.
Hardly the end of the world.
You in the media can show them all day long so their message is heard.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I just don't understand why so many people in this thread view free speech zones as a mockery of the right to freedom of speech, as indeed antithetical to the nation's ideals, but you keep minimizing the issue.

I'm not "minimizing" anything, I'm simply pointing out that the term "free speech zone" is meaningless in the sense that such zones exist and have existed everywhere since "free speech" was first given protection.

The government will always need to exert some control over the time/place/manner of how the rights of speech and assembly are exercised.  Do they get it wrong?  Of course they do, all the time.  Are ostensibly content-neutral restrictions sometimes intended to confront a particular viewpoint?  Definitely.  I've already noted that I do not agree with many of the past iterations of these "zones," just as I disagree with those same "zones" when they're used on college campuses.  I support the ACLU's view on this issue. 

I mean, maintaining it's just a question of where the barricades are placed ... come now, that's just embarrassing.

It's about stifling dissent.

In some situations, yes.  In others, it's about allowing a woman the space to walk into a clinic without someone blocking her path or screaming directly into her face. 

I still fail to see what my views on torture or wrongful imprisonment has to do with it.

I know you do.

It's quite sad, really.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I know you do.

It's quite sad, really.

I can't help but notice you haven't found a way to explain it yet.

I tried, you didn't get it.

I'm not running an e-learning program here. I'm only prepared to expend so much effort participating in the Education of Bratty.

From our friends at the ACLU:

WASHINGTON — A federal court ruled yesterday that the District of Columbia had unlawfully arrested about 70 people during an anti-war and anti-Bush protest march on Inauguration Day 2005. The arrestees are now entitled to a trial to determine the amount of the District's monetary liability to them.

Yep, looks like the right decision.

Link.

This also sounds positive, and I support the ACLU's efforts here:

Attorneys representing the City and County of Denver and the Secret Service, and ACLU of Colorado attorneys representing twelve advocacy organizations, filed documents late Thursday evening in federal district court indicating that they had reached agreement on some of the issues raised in an ACLU lawsuit filed May 1 that seeks to protect the right of free expression during the time of the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August, 2008.

The parties filed a document titled Stipulation Regarding Partial Resolution of Plaintiffs' First Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Stipulation").  They also submitted a Proposed Order and jointly asked that the Court sign it and formally enter it as an order of the Court.

The Stipulation reflects the parties' agreement on some issues, thereby relieving the Court of the need to decide those issues in the lawsuit.  It also reflects the parties' "agreement to disagree" on additional issues that remain to be resolved by the Court.

Link.

bratboy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I tried, you didn't get it.

I'm not running an e-learning program here. I'm only prepared to expend so much effort participating in the Education of Bratty.

I find it hilarious that you think this sort of deflection--claiming you 'already explained it' or that I'm 'too dumb to get it'--will work on me.  You should know better.

You tried?  Go ahead and quote the exact text that demonstrates what my views on torture have to do with this subject.  Perhaps you could follow up with an explanation as to how you believe my view on this subject differs from your own.

Deflection? Barbara please.

It's a moral issue. There's a pattern of the federal government out of control, not respecting the rights of the individual. Your pet cause is the issue of unlawful detentions. I suspect you've also weighed in on wiretaps.

Yet when it comes to placing restrictions on political protests, you're perfectly fine with it. Somehow you regard it as a crowd control issue, not a speech issue.

Restricting protesters to a fenced-in enclosure, watched by police officers, far from the venue they're protesting. Not a free speech issue.

You mentioned anti-abortion protests. What's the buffer zone on that ... it varies form state to state, presumably, but it's maybe what, 50 feet? A hundred? And that's just keeping their distance. It's not fencing them in, closing them off, shutting them down.

I mentioned another thing before, to which you failed to respond (omgdeflection): would "free speech zones" be required if the protests could be guaranteed to be supportive instead of critical?

Even if you really do somehow believe this practice is not about content (and frankly I don't see how you can), you have to admit the possibility that this might have the effect of discouraging dissent.

Oh look another content-neutral policy!

On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena.  Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a ""protest zone"" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building.  When the protesters refused, they were arrested.  Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan.  Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President's foreign policy were sent to a ""protest zone"" located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking.  Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone.  One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone.  Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, ""We Love You President Bush.""  She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested.  Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

Nope, no content restrictions here, move along!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Still think it has nothing to do with content, chum?

From above:

bratboy wrote:

Are ostensibly content-neutral restrictions sometimes intended to confront a particular viewpoint?  Definitely.  I've already noted that I do not agree with many of the past iterations of these "zones," just as I disagree with those same "zones" when they're used on college campuses.  I support the ACLU's view on this issue.

I await your next misrepresentation of my post.