Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

They do in so much as the protest area is X amount of distance away from the clinic, workers, and clients, not blocking the entryways, sidewalks, and streets.

Are they fenced in and kept out of sight?

And that is what people keep telling you they find objectionable about the current implementation of free speech zones.
Too far removed.
That there are areas away from the speaker or entrance don't bother us in the least and in fact protect everyones rights.

Well said

Protests occur in disparate areas, involving disparate subjects and a limitless variety of government authorities with varying political views.  Yeah, I think security becomes a very real concern at these high-profile events that involve high-profile guests.  Local governments get nervous and police overreach (who are likely already operating with a distrust of large groups of youths).  I don't see out-of-state and local party leaders getting together with state and local authorities, including those controlling the police, and hatching a plan to suppress certain speech.  In my experience, the government aint that organized.

Now, having the Secret Service come in and taking control of areas the president is visiting to keep protesters out-of-sight?  Yeah, I think security definitely becomes a pretext there.  Either way, not every precaution taken out of a legitimate concern for security is going to be constitutional.

I should point out a some government entities are more reasonable than others and some government entities are less reasonable with certain positions even when they are not supposed to be. I kind of vary from area to area in the US.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Are they fenced in and kept out of sight?

There have been times where this has happened but you're not describing the usual use of such areas..."out of sight."  They often just involve a barrier.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I do think it does require a specific designated area just as a practical matter.

Defined by a safe distance.

And yet you still think the penned-in areas that have become commonplace at the conventions are related to security?

How adorable.

No I think they are getting carried away.

Good lad! You've come around to my way of thinking. I knew you could do it!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Defined by a safe distance.

And yet you still think the penned-in areas that have become commonplace at the conventions are related to security?

How adorable.

No I think they are getting carried away.

Good lad! You've come around to my way of thinking. I knew you could do it!

I'm fine with designated areas behind a "snow fence" a block away from the speakers platform.
I think you have the right to say whatever you want.
You don't have the right to force people to listen or disrupt others lives or say it where ever you want.

ScifiterX wrote:

In some areas the protestor are "penned-in" using the same barriers one uses to separate a crowd from a parade.

In this case they got carried away, hence the protestation in the press.

They seem to get "carried away" quite a bit, don't you think?

Once might almost think it'd be worth it to set some legal limits or something, no?

Part of the issue is the abuses get a lot of (deserved) press while the situations where abuses don't occur don't get any press (which would be an issue if there weren't abuses).

Another issue is there are legal limits but the ones in charge of setting & enforcing them are the ones violating them requiring intervention by a system of check and balances which less efficient and less immediate in correcting the issue.

P.S. Please note I say less efficient and immediate but I do not say ineffective.

ScifiterX wrote:

Part of the issue is the abuses get a lot of (deserved) press while the situations where abuses don't occur don't get any press (which would be an issue if there weren't abuses).

Another issue is there are legal limits but the ones in charge of setting & enforcing them are the ones violating them requiring intervention by a system of check and balances which less efficient and less immediate in correcting the issue.

P.S. Please note I say less efficient and immediate but I do not say ineffective.

How much of those abuses is motivated by a desire to quash dissent, do you think?

I'd say more often such restrictions (such as the requirement of a permit) are intended to quash mischief, not any particular viewpoint.

...and yet sci's last post seemed to open up the conversation to restrictions generally (and my comment encompasses protest areas, anyway) .

This thread's 'about' a raid purportedly based on a fire code violation, if we're going to get technical about it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What's this thread about?

A Repubican friendly city going out of it way (possibly a the GOP's behest) to reduce protesting during the RNC, finding an excuse under fire codes, and it ending up making themselves look like jack-booted facists in the process.

Based on that reading of the Constitution, should any and all speech be completely immune from government interference?