Forums | MacLife

Daniel wrote:

And for once, I'm with Shnicky here. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say "right of the people peacably to assemble where convenient," it says "right of the people peasably to assemble."  It does not say "petition the Government for a redress of greivances upon approval," it says "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  It does not say "no law … abridging the freedom of speech except for security purposes," it says "no law … abridging the freedom of speech."

"Free speech zones" are fascist and wrong, and anyone who would support such an idea is a traitor.

'Petition for' seems a pretty operant term there. With assembly the government has two things it has to ensure: that people can peaceably assemble and that people assemble peaceably. As far as permits, one does not need permission to assemble or protest but on may need permission to do so in certain places. If own the property I can do so when ever I damn well please but If I don't the owner may have some opinions on when it's appropriate.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-08-31 1:08 am)

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.

What's ironic though - getting arrested for non violence brings sympathetic attention to your cause, so when they tell you will be arrested for blocking the door, you block the door.

bratboy wrote:

Why is it ironic (were that to be true)?

because it's like rain on your wedding night.

Seriously - the irony is putting in boundries that can be broken without violence gives those of us opposed to violence a means by which to be arrested without breaking our ethical standard.

dvpierce wrote:

Hi.

The original subject of this thread had absolutely nothing to do with protests. The protests haven't happened yet.

This has everything to do with warrants being issued for suspect reasons.

For the purpose of stifling dissent/speech.

Oh joy, more protesters have been preemptively arrested.

I do think....We're not in this country yet where we're having mass detentions of people like this, so it really is about sending a message.  I think what it really is designed to do is to send a message to people who agree with some of the viewpoints of people organizing activity and to say - you know what?  You can write an email, it's okay to write a letter, to vote, but don't go out in the street, don't organize public activity, because do you want us bursting into your house?  Do you want to be associated with people who are getting arrested?  It's designed to somehow say these aren't citizens engaged in the exercise of political freedom, but that  they're kooks, they're freaks, they're dangerous, stay away from them, don't get involved.

The free-speech zones are specifically used to keep all these protesters out of the press.

It works like this:
Journalist:  Well here's some crowds cheering for the speaker, then over in this zone is a mass of people protesting....

Editor:  OK, cut those clips out.

Journalist:  But isn't that dishonest?

Editor: You want to keep your job?

Metacell wrote:

The free-speech zones are specifically used to keep all these protesters out of the press.

It works like this:
Journalist:  Well here's some crowds cheering for the speaker, then over in this zone is a mass of people protesting....

Editor:  OK, cut those clips out.

Journalist:  But isn't that dishonest?

Editor: You want to keep your job?

Nah.

More like ....

Editor: Any footage of protests outside the convention?

Journalist: Nope, the protesters were kept in pens.

Editor: You sure? Bush, Cheney and McCain walking a gauntlet of shouting protesters would be great vid.

Journalist: Nah, nothing like that. Supporters only. Like the Oscars.

Editor: [yawns]

Journalist: I know. So anyway, we've got Wolf Blitzer booked to interview Cindy McCain ...

Editor: Any chance of a tough question or two?

Journalist: Nah, you know how it is ... softball only or we lose access.

Editor: Righty-ho.

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Metacell wrote:

The free-speech zones are specifically used to keep all these protesters out of the press.

It works like this:
Journalist:  Well here's some crowds cheering for the speaker, then over in this zone is a mass of people protesting....

Editor:  OK, cut those clips out.

Journalist:  But isn't that dishonest?

Editor: You want to keep your job?

Nah.

More like ....

Editor: Any footage of protests outside the convention?

Journalist: Nope, the protesters were kept in pens.

Editor: You sure? Bush, Cheney and McCain walking a gauntlet of shouting protesters would be great vid.

Journalist: Nah, nothing like that. Supporters only. Like the Oscars.

Editor: [yawns]

Journalist: I know. So anyway, we've got Wolf Blitzer booked to interview Cindy McCain ...

Editor: Any chance of a tough question or two?

Journalist: Nah, you know how it is ... softball only or we lose access.

Editor: Righty-ho.

is there a reason why the media can't have someone stationed inside the "pen" so as to give them coverage? JUst because they are kept outside of the convention doesn't mean that thyey still couldn't be covered.

I know, eh? Especially sine the press is so liberal!

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I know, eh? Especially sine the press is so liberal!

There is a nice video of the press trying to talk to protesters.

"Trying?"

Was there a problem?

Fox News? Not surprising then.

I didn't know that denying Fox News the opportunity to perform its standard slice-and-dice to someone's comments was justification for mass arrests.

Learn something new every day, I guess.

So correct me. What were you suggesting when you said "oh and then bitch about how protesters are locked away." after talking about their behavior towards Fox? If you weren't implying a connection, I would like to hear your explanation.

See, isn't that better than saying I'm trying to smear you and that I'm a hypocrite?