'Free Speech Zone' idea catching on

[evildave]

Looks like the Dems are warming up to Dubya's example of what 'free speech' should be...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040721/480/bx11407212244

Having cages and boxes set aside for protestors set aside as a 'free speech zone' seems to be catching on. This is apparently what passes for 'freedom of speech' in our new Amerika: "You don't like this politician? We've got a cage set up for you! Stay put in there, and if you get too loud, we'll turn the hoses on you!"

Why stop at constitutional ammendments for specific acts?

Here's a nice conservative perspective on it, too.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

[shanek]

A friend of mine was actually escorted away from a Kerry appearance. Apparently, they didn't like the fact that she was dressed as the Statue of Liberty. One of the Kerry rent-a-cops asked her for her ticket. When she produced it, he took her ticket and then claimed she didn't have one (there were several witnesses to this). This was necessary, because they were only allowed to eject people for not having a ticket or for being violent.

Here's her being escored away:

http://nanders.is-a-geek.net/gallery/show.php?size=640x640&album_name=wakelp__you-dont-have-a-ticket%2F&obj_name=Img1451.JPG

The big one in the dark uniform actually shoved her physically.

Still think Kerry is big on freedom?

[CapelDodger]

from shanek:Here's her being escor[t]ed away
This looks more like a conversation than an escortment. No shoving (physical or psychic) is in evidence, and fat people tend to do that unintentionally. The photo does great service in confirming US TV stereotypes : the guys are multi-ethnic, and the gal is black and damn' striking.

[Cain]

The Daily Show's Ed Helms has covered the so-called "Free Speech Zone". See the segment in the lower right called "Freedom of Oppression".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek

The big one in the dark uniform actually shoved her physically.

Still think Kerry is big on freedom?

Do you think Kerry instructed the rent-a-cops to do this to her?

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx
Do you think Kerry instructed the rent-a-cops to do this to her?

Does it matter whether or not Kerry specifically gave the order? He, or more appropriately the Democratic Party, should still be held accountable for the actions of its goons. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was policy. Now, if the security guards did on their own iniative, against orders, -- which I should think is unlikely -- then that's another matter.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by evildave
Looks like the Dems are warming up to Dubya's example of what 'free speech' should be...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040721/480/bx11407212244



What does that tell you?

1) It is a reasonable restriction given the nature of the event?

Or

2) The evil and very dumb dubya somehow corrupted the saintly and very smart kerry?

Your choice. You seem to be wearing your pull-ups today so I figure you can handle this one.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain
Does it matter whether or not Kerry specifically gave the order? He, or more appropriately the Democratic Party, should still be held accountable for the actions of its goons. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was policy. Now, if the security guards did on their own iniative, against orders, -- which I should think is unlikely -- then that's another matter.

Yeah, those big fat gravy eating meathead functionally illiterate rent-a-cops would never push someone around for the hell of it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from shanek:
Here's her being escor[t]ed away

Just curious, what's with the little bracket thingies aroung the "t"?

This looks more like a conversation than an escortment.

She was shoved. She was escorted away. There were tons of witnesses. I don't know what you think your outright denial proves.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
What does that tell you?

1) It is a reasonable restriction given the nature of the event?

Or

2) The evil and very dumb dubya somehow corrupted the saintly and very smart kerry?

Or

3) Neither one of them gives two short smegs about freedom, only about doing what's best for their own political careers.

BTW, there are no "free speech zones" at Libertarian events, not even the ones where Badnarik speaks. He has happily engaged in conversation with anyone willing to talk to him.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by evildave
Looks like the Dems are warming up to Dubya's example of what 'free speech' should be...


This will be at least the fourth Democratic National Convention in a row. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004.

Please spare us the talk of following Bush's example.

MattJ

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek
BTW, there are no "free speech zones" at Libertarian events, not even the ones where Badnarik speaks. He has happily engaged in conversation with anyone willing to talk to him.

Shane, its easy to do this when your appearances are at Denny's tables and nobody cares enough to show up and kill him since he doesn't stand a chance at winning.....

[Nasarius]

My view of "free speech zones" and protest permits is this: if you comply with the restrictions, why the hell are you protesting? Have we grown so soft in 40 years? If you really care about your cause, grab a gas mask and some friends and engage in some good ol-fashioned nonviolent civil disobedience.

And yes, I have done this myself, more or less.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Nasarius
My view of "free speech zones" and protest permits is this: if you comply with the restrictions, why the hell are you protesting? Have we grown so soft in 40 years? If you really care about your cause, grab a gas mask and some friends and engage in some good ol-fashioned nonviolent civil disobedience.

And yes, I have done this myself, more or less.

Thats right, the protesters have to be fenced off like wild animals because over the years that is how some of them have been behaving. It sort of ruins it for the passive protesters but I do not think there is a better solution.

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yeah, those big fat gravy eating meathead functionally illiterate rent-a-cops would never push someone around for the hell of it.

LAPD? In my experience security-guards tend to fall under the hall monitor personality type (complete deference to one's superiors, and the highest regard for enforcing the tiniest rules). I've seen more than a few on the wispy side as well. Recall it was Gary Coleman's chosen position for awhile.

[evildave]

However much you'd like to demonize Kerry and the Dems for this behavior, (and they deserve every bit of it) there's still the small matter of starting wars, abusing prisoners, etc. AND engaging in the same practices that the Bush administration has set a track record for.

As usual, we get the choice of which of the evils to run with in our lovely "two party" system.

If the choice was "Maggot Infested Dead Squirrel With Plague Fleas" or "Dubya", the squirrel would still be more appealing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by evildave
However much you'd like to demonize Kerry and the Dems for this behavior, (and they deserve every bit of it) there's still the small matter of starting wars, abusing prisoners, etc. AND engaging in the same practices that the Bush administration has set a track record for.

Kerry and Edwards both voted for said war, and for the USA PATRIOT Act which allowed for a lot of this abuse.

If the choice was "Maggot Infested Dead Squirrel With Plague Fleas" or "Dubya", the squirrel would still be more appealing.

And I'd vote for the maggot infested dead squirrel with plague fleas before I'd vote for Kerry, too. I think that squirrel would do a MUCH better job of running the country.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
[B]Or

3) Neither one of them gives two short smegs about freedom, only about doing what's best for their own political careers.

I doubt that is completely true, but there's a grain of truth in it. I don't think it has anything to do with this event. This convention, like the republican one, may be a political event but the protesters, or any other uninvited person, doesn't have the right, in my opinion, to interrupt it in any manner whatsoever.

BTW, there are no "free speech zones" at Libertarian events, not even the ones where Badnarik speaks. He has happily engaged in conversation with anyone willing to talk to him.

I suspect he was glad to get the company. Most folk just ignore him, and the LP in general so I guess even a protester being present is better than an empty hall.

That's their fault. They can't sell their ideas.

[espritch]

I suspect the rent-a-cops orders were to make sure there wasn't any trouble. They probably saw her as a potential trouble maker and acted preemptively to remove her. They were doing what they saw as their job (whether it was what the Democrats intended or not). It doesn't surprise me at all if they shoved her; give a man a gun and a semblance of authority and a lot of people will behave like asses.

Free speech, like all other rights, carries with it some implied responsibility. The WTO protests in Seattle turned into riots. The protesters cannot abuse free speech and then act surprised when the politicians start abusing it as well. Unfortunately, the standards of civil discourse in this country have been in serious decline lately. Abominations like "free speech zones" are just another symptom of this decline.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
One of the Kerry rent-a-cops asked her for her ticket. When she produced it, he took her ticket and then claimed she didn't have one (there were several witnesses to this). This was necessary, because they were only allowed to eject people for not having a ticket or for being violent.

Sounds like a clever cop.

They can't escort the loonies from a Bednarik rally, because, well, there would be no one left! They would have to kick out all 7 people!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
only about doing what's best for their own political careers.


Like ALL politicians do. Even libertarians.

Originally posted by shanek
He has happily engaged in conversation with anyone willing to talk to him.

Yes, loonies are like that. Just like the loonie I ran into on the corner of 5th & Mill this morning. He was happy to engage in conversation with anyone who would stop.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
Free speech, like all other rights, carries with it some implied responsibility. The WTO protests in Seattle turned into riots. The protesters cannot abuse free speech and then act surprised when the politicians start abusing it as well.

And how did she abuse free speech?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Like ALL politicians do. Even libertarians.

Support this.

The best thing for my political career, and pretty much the political career of any Libertarian candidate, is to run as a Democrat or a Republican. So why do so many of us run as Libertarian?

[more pathetic ad hominems deleted]

[Ladewig]

Free speech, like all other rights, carries with it some implied responsibility. The WTO protests in Seattle turned into riots. The protesters cannot abuse free speech and then act surprised when the politicians start abusing it as well.

I'm not convinced that the vandalism committed in Seattle was the work of actual political protesters. I suspect that it was more likely the work of punk teenagers who saw the crowds as good cover for hooliganism. One might also consider that among the 133 countries that attended some have governments that would not be above putting agent provocateurs in crowds to divert attention from the actual meeting.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Support this.

The best thing for my political career, and pretty much the political career of any Libertarian candidate, is to run as a Democrat or a Republican. So why do so many of us run as Libertarian?

[more pathetic ad hominems deleted]

Easy. 99% of politicians are phonies. Bednarik & other libertarians are politicians. Do the math.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Easy. 99% of politicians are phonies. Bednarik & other libertarians are politicians. Do the math.

Assuming the conclusion fallacy.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


BTW, there are no "free speech zones" at Libertarian events, not even the ones where Badnarik speaks. He has happily engaged in conversation with anyone willing to talk to him.

Just like the ugly fat girl at the end of the bar or the guy at the party who shows up in his vulcan ears and starfleet uniform.

Just sayin'.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Assuming the conclusion fallacy.

I call it hitting too close to home for your comfort.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I call it hitting too close to home for your comfort.

You can call a pig a rose if you want; it still squeals.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jocko
Just like the ugly fat girl at the end of the bar or the guy at the party who shows up in his vulcan ears and starfleet uniform.

Just sayin'.

LOL. Good analogy. :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
You can call a pig a rose if you want; it still squeals.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek


Just curious, what's with the little bracket thingies aroung the "t"?


A correction to your typo.


She was shoved. She was escorted away. There were tons of witnesses. I don't know what you think your outright denial proves.

About as much as your photogrpah does - which is what you gave as evidence of manhandling. I agree, having a group of uniforms around you can be menacing, but there's no sign of aggression beyond your "outright assertion."

But can we get real for a minute? If there was an altercation, your friend seems to have gotten exactly what she came for. Maybe she's Patrick Henry reborn, then again maybe she's just some angst-ridden twentysomething looking to embarrass daddy.

Can't really tell either from your picture, now can you?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek
Kerry and Edwards both voted for said war, and for the USA PATRIOT Act which allowed for a lot of this abuse.

Now this is just plain silly. Are you saying that protestors have only been hassled - and again we have no evidence to that theory apart from your say-so - since the Patriot Act? Can you point to some provision which gives PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS the power to do what you allege happened?

After you show me something that indiates it happened at all, that is?



And I'd vote for the maggot infested dead squirrel with plague fleas before I'd vote for Kerry, too. I think that squirrel would do a MUCH better job of running the country.

Well, you've got the next best thing in Badnarik.

[espritch]

And how did she abuse free speech?
I never said that she did. She may have simply been a victim of the reaction to those who have.

Just out of curiosity, is she a Democrat? Was her purpose in showing up there dressed as Liberty to cheer Mr. Kerry on?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by espritch
I never said that she did. She may have simply been a victim of the reaction to those who have.

Just out of curiosity, is she a Democrat? Was her purpose there dressed as Liberty to cheer Mr. Kerry on?

I'm sure she's just carrying a torch for Kerry. But this is why it's a mistake to put women on a pedestal.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

City of Boston is safer than ever (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/25/dems.security/index.html)




Boston will be under an unprecedented $60 million security curtain


Federal agents have inspected manholes, welding them shut for safety.

good, no one will fall through them in a cartoon like way

Mailboxes and most trash cans have been removed

hmmm, where to put the garbage.....

Interstate 93, the main highway on which traffic flows in and out of the city, will be closed

The Coast Guard is watching the waterways to hunt for out-of-place boaters.


Sounds like martial law to me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
City of Boston is safer than ever (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/25/dems.security/index.html)







Federal agents have inspected manholes, welding them shut for safety.

good, no one will fall through them in a cartoon like way

Mailboxes and most trash cans have been removed

hmmm, where to put the garbage.....

Interstate 93, the main highway on which traffic flows in and out of the city, will be closed

The Coast Guard is watching the waterways to hunt for out-of-place boaters.


Sounds like martial law to me.

And who is paying for that $60? I'm guessing it's not the democrats or republicans. If they want to have a meaningless convention (we already know who the winners are), then they should pay for it.

This just in - security at the libertarian party convention cost taxpayers $378, to pay 4 security guards to protect the 17 people who showed up. And yes, that does include the caterers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
A correction to your typo.

Oop, didn't even realize that. Ah, well.

About as much as your photogrpah does - which is what you gave as evidence of manhandling.

I just said it was a picture of her being escorted away. Do I have to mention all the witnesses again?

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
Just out of curiosity, is she a Democrat? Was her purpose in showing up there dressed as Liberty to cheer Mr. Kerry on?

She's a Libertarian. Her purpose in going there was to see what their reaction to Lady Liberty would be. She got her answer.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek
A friend of mine was actually escorted away from a Kerry appearance. Apparently, they didn't like the fact that she was dressed as the Statue of Liberty. One of the Kerry rent-a-cops asked her for her ticket. When she produced it, he took her ticket and then claimed she didn't have one (there were several witnesses to this). This was necessary, because they were only allowed to eject people for not having a ticket or for being violent.

Here's her being escored away:

http://nanders.is-a-geek.net/gallery/show.php?size=640x640&album_name=wakelp__you-dont-have-a-ticket%2F&obj_name=Img1451.JPG

The big one in the dark uniform actually shoved her physically.

Still think Kerry is big on freedom?


from the photo I could get the perception that it took no less than 5 peace officers to deal with this one disruptive person.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek

I just said it was a picture of her being escorted away. Do I have to mention all the witnesses again?

It doesn't show her being escorted. It shows her talking to some cops, and it certainly doesn't show anything unsavory (except her taste in clothes).

You can mention the "witnesses" all you like, but without something more (and the photo doesn't back up your allegation of gestapo tactics) it's nothing more than an anecdote on the internet... which carries as much weight as a fart in the wind.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, only that your assertion doesn't prove jack squat. And since you're the one making the accusation, I expect more by way of proof, that's all. A newspaper article, a published account... anything! Besides, if someone took a picture of her being confronted, why didn't he/she take a picture of the REAL crime? Is this some kind of theatre of the mind thing or something?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
from the photo I could get the perception that it took no less than 5 peace officers to deal with this one disruptive person.

Maybe they just wanted to know where she shopped. Green's a big color for summer fashion, you know.

Point is, the picture says nothing. One's prejudices give it a voice, but you are guaranteed to read what you want to read into it.

One person sees intimidation and likely manhandling, another sees a cop talking to a protester from a polite distance. The truth is likely in between, but the fact is we don't know because all one can see is one's own preconceptions reflected back at him.

That said, I would not be surprised if she did get some undue grief. But i'm not going to accuse anyone without evidence, as any skeptic should demand.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
It doesn't show her being escorted. It shows her talking to some cops, and it certainly doesn't show anything unsavory (except her taste in clothes).

Well, I'm glad to know you think of the Statue of Liberty as "unsavory"...

A newspaper article, a published account... anything!

http://www.wral.com/politics/3515133/detail.html

About 15 supporters of President George W. Bush carried placards outside the campus entrance adjoining the rally, while a woman in a Statue of Liberty costume inside the rally was led away by police.

(The only problem with this is the implication that she's a Bush supporter—I assure you, this is FAR from true!

And here's an eyewitness account from Tom Bailey (who, by the way, was forbidden from carrying his North Carolina flag into the event), which he posted to the LPNC discussion list:

Yes for a moment there I thought she was going to get me in a fight with the cops. They came by me with the attitude that they were not stopping for small talk. They passedby headed for the clocktower. they got to the middle of the street when I saw one push her and I began heading that way when one of the other cops by the road called him off. I can see she had tried their patience. But there were three escorting her out in a pretty close order drill.

But go ahead, write it off as an "anecdote."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
One person sees intimidation and likely manhandling, another sees a cop talking to a protester from a polite distance. The truth is likely in between, but the fact is we don't know because all one can see is one's own preconceptions reflected back at him.

She was ESCORTED AWAY FROM THE EVENT. She was REMOVED BY FORCE! Geez, I hope you never serve on a jury...

"Oh, sure, we've got the picture, but that just shows him coming after her with the knife! It doesn't prove he stabbed her! He may have just wanted to serve her some cake..."

[Jocko]

Save your feigned exasperation, Shanek. It's a poor act at best. Until a few minutes ago, all I had was your second-hand account and a photo that showed nothing you described.

Had you provided the articles when I first asked - YESTERDAY - we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But then, what would you use to feed your paranoid big brother fantasies?

So she was escorted. I never said she wasn't. I only said - clearly on multiple occassions - that you and your "witnesses" mean exactly jack-squat on the evidence scale. You know better, Shanek, act like it willya?


BTW, on a side issue: would a person dressed as the statue of liberty be stopped by police if he/she were walking down an ordinary street on an ordinary day? Think about it.

[evildave]

Don't forget:

"The ten eyewitnesses who testified don't matter. That's just their opinion of what happened. They can't know what really happened like I can. The defendant is obviously a good right-wing Christian boy, so he couldn't have done anything wrong. Obviously she committed suicide by stabbing herself in the head 14 times, and the guy, well, he was just trying to get the knife away from her, and that's why he had slashes on his hands, and her blood all over him, and his blood all over her."

[Larspeart]

Multiple things bother me about the 'Free Speech Zones'. Here are a few of them.


1. http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/cons.bill.html find in there where it says they have to have a permit, or a designated area.

2. FREE SPEECH IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT NO MATTER WHERE YOU DO IT.

3. That the protesters are actually bothering to follow these zones, and stick to them. God, protesters have gotten weak since the 60's.

4. That BOTH candidates, BOTH major parties, BOTH cities, and worst of all, MOST of American's are putting up with this aggregious abuse of power and soiling of our rights.


Make's me ill. Honestly, physically ill.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Larspeart
<SNIP>...
4. That BOTH candidates, BOTH major parties, BOTH cities, and worst of all, MOST of American's are putting up with this aggregious abuse of power and soiling of our rights.
Make's me ill. Honestly, physically ill.


Our 'rights' include the right to free speech, and the right to not have to listen to the speech of others.
I can't find a right to force other people to pay for a political event, and then force them to listen to the opposing view...

...so what exactly would we propose to fix this 'problem'?

[Larspeart]

1. I loath the fact that he DNC and RNC are TAX-PAYER FUNDED. That, to me, is a crime.

Beyond that, I in no way endorsed forcing anyone to listen to anything said, or to have to attend.

Unless you were agreeing with me. I couldn't tell. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Our 'rights' include the right to free speech, and the right to not have to listen to the speech of others.
I can't find a right to force other people to pay for a political event, and then force them to listen to the opposing view...

?

How do you "force" someone to listen?

[Number Six]

"Free speech zone" sounds bad but of course it's simply a way of stating a reality, namely that while we have free speech, it doesn't mean we can say anything anyplace anytime.

But that said, I was wondering about this general topic just the other day when I saw some protesters on TV protesting that they weren't going to be able to protest where they wanted to. And it made me wonder...who decides and how do they decide? On one hand people should be free to speak as they wish. On the other, suppose I want to drive down a street and I can't becuase it's blocked off. Then their speech is affecting me.

But of course, the only way to eliminate that entirely is to have no protests, which doesn't seem good. But if any protests occur then somebody has to draw a line and it seems arbitrary where it's drawn. No matter where it's drawn people will say it should have been drawn elsewhere. Unless there is actually some rule or standard that's followed that I'm not aware of.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Number Six
"Free speech zone" sounds bad but of course it's simply a way of stating a reality, namely that while we have free speech, it doesn't mean we can say anything anyplace anytime.

Right...it just means that the GOVERNMENT CAN'T STOP US from saying anything anyplace anytime. And it can't restrict it, either, by setting up things like "free speech zones."

The only person who can legitimately stop you from speaking is the private property owner. THAT'S where the line is drawn.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
How do you "force" someone to listen?

With a 55 watt bullhorn?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Larspeart
1. I loath the fact that he DNC and RNC are TAX-PAYER FUNDED. That, to me, is a crime.



They get treated like visiting royalty too. That burns me up. They're supposedto be representing the people. I think most "people" woudl be digusted by the Convention excesses and palm greasing sponcerships.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
But that said, I was wondering about this general topic just the other day when I saw some protesters on TV protesting that they weren't going to be able to protest where they wanted to. And it made me wonder...who decides and how do they decide? On one hand people should be free to speak as they wish. On the other, suppose I want to drive down a street and I can't becuase it's blocked off. Then their speech is affecting me.

But of course, the only way to eliminate that entirely is to have no protests, which doesn't seem good. But if any protests occur then somebody has to draw a line and it seems arbitrary where it's drawn.

There is nothing wrong with passing a law saying that pedestrians are not allowed to disrupt traffic on highways. Problem solved.

The issue here is speech. If I am allowed to walk down the street singing folk tunes from Kingston Trio (or even being silent, unless there is a noise ordinance), then the government has to let me walk down the street singing anti-government slogans.

Now, there is also an issue of loitering, and there could be regs against congregating in a specific area for more than a certain amount of time. However, that must apply to everyone, which means spectators as well as protestors. Basically, the goverment cannot treat people differently because of what they are saying. If it applies to those making political speech, it applies to everyone.

That's the standard, and it is not arbitrary.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by shanek
Right...it just means that the GOVERNMENT CAN'T STOP US from saying anything anyplace anytime. And it can't restrict it, either, by setting up things like "free speech zones."

The only person who can legitimately stop you from speaking is the private property owner. THAT'S where the line is drawn.

Wouldn't it lead to chaos if that standard were strictly applied? How about the old "You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater" bit? And if private property is the key, then make it a publicly owned theater.

And as far as publicly owned property, how about the White House, for instance? Why can't I protest on the lawn right in front of the White House, or actually inside the White House for that matter. It's not private property.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Larspeart
1. I loath the fact that he DNC and RNC are TAX-PAYER FUNDED. That, to me, is a crime.

Beyond that, I in no way endorsed forcing anyone to listen to anything said, or to have to attend.

Unless you were agreeing with me. I couldn't tell. :)

Uhhhhhmmm...no they aren't. (I do agree that partisan politics *shouldn't* get a tax paid dime, but they do, so we have to deal with it).
Participating in a process in which the end result includes receiving *some* tax money doesn't mean the same thing as tax payer funded in the sense of say, the Department of Motor Vehicles being tax payer funded.
And campaigns raise their money independently of the government's contributions.

That is why I have a court upheld right to go down to the DMV office every morning and set up my little card table full of pamphletry out front ( NOTE: by 'me', I am clearly referring to the Libertarians, not the actual 'me' :D ), but don't have a right to take my bullhorn into the convention and blast an opposing viewpoint.


And I do agree with the idea that the government shouldn't be in the business of suppressing free speech.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
There is nothing wrong with passing a law saying that pedestrians are not allowed to disrupt traffic on highways. Problem solved.

The issue here is speech. If I am allowed to walk down the street singing folk tunes from Kingston Trio (or even being silent, unless there is a noise ordinance), then the government has to let me walk down the street singing anti-government slogans.

Now, there is also an issue of loitering, and there could be regs against congregating in a specific area for more than a certain amount of time. However, that must apply to everyone, which means spectators as well as protestors. Basically, the goverment cannot treat people differently because of what they are saying. If it applies to those making political speech, it applies to everyone.

That's the standard, and it is not arbitrary.

Wouldn't strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits protests from disrupting traffic on highways make for a much for a much, much more anti-protestor atmosphere than we have now? I thought streets were blocked off all the time for protests, presumably after a permit is applied for and then given. And of course, this isn't done just for protests but also for foot races or parades or other stuff.

[Tmy]

Free Speech depends on Time, Place, and Manner.

You can have a protest, just not at 3 in the moring. Its fine for cities to have permits n stuff so long as everyone is treated the same.

And you can yell fire in a crowded theater.............If its on fire!

[Larspeart]

"Now, there is also an issue of loitering, and there could be regs against congregating in a specific area for more than a certain amount of time. However, that must apply to everyone, which means spectators as well as protestors. Basically, the goverment cannot treat people differently because of what they are saying. If it applies to those making political speech, it applies to everyone."


No, any law concerning loitering on PUBLIC property is, in my mind, illegal.

See the first amendment. . .

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Uhhhhhmmm...no they aren't. (I do agree that partisan politics *shouldn't* get a tax paid dime, but they do, so we have to deal with it).
Participating in a process in which the end result includes receiving *some* tax money doesn't mean the same thing as tax payer funded in the sense of say, the Department of Motor Vehicles being tax payer funded.
And campaigns raise their money independently of the government's contributions.




Ummm, YES, they are.

For every dime a GOP or DEM candidate raises, we match that dime, 100%. Been that way for decades.

In addition, the DNC and RNC, which are about the parties and not the candidates (supposedly) use PUBLIC tax dolars to throw them, in addition to privately raised money.

These acts are crimes. I support NEITHER party or candidates. I never have. Yet every 4 years, I personally pay for them to throw a party and tell me how wonderful they are, and howmuch better I am with them in charge.

Hogwash!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
Wouldn't strictly enforcing a rule that prohibits protests from disrupting traffic on highways make for a much for a much, much more anti-protestor atmosphere than we have now?

Who said anything about prohibiting protestors from disrupting traffic? I said prohibit _all pedestrians_ from disrupting traffic. The instant you make a distinction between "protestors" and "pedestrians singing Kingston Trio folk songs" you are too far.



I thought streets were blocked off all the time for protests, presumably after a permit is applied for and then given. And of course, this isn't done just for protests but also for foot races or parades or other stuff.

And that is the key. If it will be done for others, you must be willing to do it for protestors.

EDITED: As I think about it, the real distinction here is that it is the _government_ changing the traffic to allow citizens to congregrate. That's what the permit is doing, asking the government to close streets. As you say, that is no different from closing the streets to run the Boston Marathon.

When I am talking about disrupting traffic, I am talking about traffic that the government is allowing. When the police block off I95 to let a presidential motorcade, it is one thing. But blocking the traffic on I95 by forming a line of people in the way is not something we allow anyone to do, including protestors.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Ummm, YES, they are.

For every dime a GOP or DEM candidate raises, we match that dime, 100%. Been that way for decades.

In addition, the DNC and RNC, which are about the parties and not the candidates (supposedly) use PUBLIC tax dolars to throw them, in addition to privately raised money.

These acts are crimes. I support NEITHER party or candidates. I never have. Yet every 4 years, I personally pay for them to throw a party and tell me how wonderful they are, and howmuch better I am with them in charge.

Hogwash!

Dont forget how the dems/repubs have set up the rules to make it virtually impossable for 3rd parties to get a piece of the action!

I love it when they freeze 3rd party candidates out of the debates. So much for democracy.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Who said anything about prohibiting protestors from disrupting traffic? I said prohibit _all pedestrians_ from disrupting traffic. The instant you make a distinction between "protestors" and "pedestrians singing Kingston Trio folk songs" you are too far.


And that is the key. If it will be done for others, you must be willing to do it for protestors. [/B]

But somebody decides that...I mean, I doubt 100% of all requests for parades or protests or whatever are granted. Otherwise a group could protest literally every day and virtually permanently shut downs parts of a city.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
But somebody decides that...I mean, I doubt 100% of all requests for parades or protests or whatever are granted. Otherwise a group could protest literally every day and virtually permanently shut downs parts of a city.

Not if you require a certain size of people. Say, there must be at least 500 people to accomodate. If there are 500 people protesting a cause, then sure, accomodate them. However, if someone has a petition to protest with 3 people, you can say "You don't have enough people to justify closing the street." Lying on an application to get the street blocked off is grounds for legal action.

Again, the key is that the message is irrelevent. Yes, they have to make a decision on who does and does not get a permit. But it must be based on things not related to the message or POV. Number of protestors is certainly a valid criterion.

It happens all the time in my town. When Privet Drive wants to have a block party, they will apply for a permit to block the street, because they need the room to accomodate all the people that attend. However, if me and my neighbor applied for a permit to block the street to have a picnic, it would be denied.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Ummm, YES, they are.

For every dime a GOP or DEM candidate raises, we match that dime, 100%. Been that way for decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that's what I said...they get matching funds.
And getting matching funds is not typically how the government runs it agencies.

I also said that they shouldn't get a penny IMHO, but they do.

So treating the DNC/RNC refusal to hear opposing viewpoints as government controlled/supported suppression of free speech conflates two very different issues, and it promotes the problem, because it trivalizes the real thing.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shanek
Right...it just means that the GOVERNMENT CAN'T STOP US from saying anything anyplace anytime. And it can't restrict it, either, by setting up things like "free speech zones."

The only person who can legitimately stop you from speaking is the private property owner. THAT'S where the line is drawn.

No argument here. I think the practice is abhorrent, no matter who does it.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Jocko
No argument here. I think the practice is abhorrent, no matter who does it.
I feel likewise.

So, are you going to do anything about this obvious infringement?

[gnome]

Originally posted by shanek
Right...it just means that the GOVERNMENT CAN'T STOP US from saying anything anyplace anytime. And it can't restrict it, either, by setting up things like "free speech zones."

The only person who can legitimately stop you from speaking is the private property owner. THAT'S where the line is drawn.

I have a question for you, as long as we're on this topic... we went around about it a while ago but this refreshes my mind on the issue...

If all land were privately owned, do you predict that there would be lots of space allotted for demonstrators to gather at such an event, or not many? And why so?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
And here's an eyewitness account from Tom Bailey (who, by the way, was forbidden from carrying his North Carolina flag into the event), which he posted to the LPNC discussion list:


Of course, Tom just happens to support a loon for president, so his testimony is colored.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Larspeart
2. FREE SPEECH IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT NO MATTER WHERE YOU DO IT.


So you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? You may wish to reconsider your statement.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
So you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Yes. You're just responsible for any ramifications.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Of course, Tom just happens to support a loon for president, so his testimony is colored.

Is your testimony colored because you support a loon?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I feel likewise.

So, are you going to do anything about this obvious infringement?

The only thing I can do. Leave America in protest, migrate to Denmark and shack up with your sister.

Dumbass.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony
Is your testimony colored because you support a loon?

Who do I support?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Who do I support?

I don't know, who do you support?

Bush? Kerry? Either way, you too support a loon.

[jj]

Sounds bad to me. Was it the private security people for Kerry, or was it his Secret Service detail who dunnit?

I'm starting to wonder who's in charge here...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony
I don't know, who do you support?

Bush? Kerry? Either way, you too support a loon.

I support neither. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

[Globert]

We let free speech slide when spin and staying on message trumped political discourse. Sidelining all messages but the official party talking points is necessary to the modern media's 3 second sound bite. There is too much money at stake for the principles stand of not agreeing with what you have to say but defending to death ones right to say it. It's my dime it's my time, I need the 3 point "bump" in the polls....


If we did get a Patrick Henry reborn he'd be in the psych ward next to the last three Jesus's and attendant disciples.

Bah.....

-Globe


edit Sp and Grammar

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I support neither.

Then who do you support?

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

From the looks of your recent posts, you rarely know what you're talking about. That doesn't seem to stop you.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony
Then who do you support?


The most qualified candidate.

Originally posted by Tony
From the looks of your recent posts, you rarely know what you're talking about. That doesn't seem to stop you.

You're not terribly bright, are you? Hey, you qualify to be a libertarian!

[Dorian Gray]

Yes! Burned! Tony reaches back to elementary school to zing Central with a tu quoque. All that was missing was an 'I know you are, but what am I?"

There shouldn't be free speech zones. The whole country should have free speech, and using terrorism to justify infringing on free speech rights is just one of the many reasons why Bush and his cronies are teh suke.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Jocko
One person sees intimidation and likely manhandling, another sees a cop talking to a protester from a polite distance. The truth is likely in between, but the fact is we don't know because all one can see is one's own preconceptions reflected back at him.

You also never know what else happened. I recall a RealTV episode where a cop punched a protester. The cop said the protester punched first. The protester and all his buddies lied out their ass that the cop started it. Sadly for them, someone in the crowd videotaped it, and the protester did throw the first punch.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
There is nothing wrong with passing a law saying that pedestrians are not allowed to disrupt traffic on highways. Problem solved.

The issue here is speech. If I am allowed to walk down the street singing folk tunes from Kingston Trio (or even being silent, unless there is a noise ordinance), then the government has to let me walk down the street singing anti-government slogans.

Now, there is also an issue of loitering, and there could be regs against congregating in a specific area for more than a certain amount of time. However, that must apply to everyone, which means spectators as well as protestors. Basically, the goverment cannot treat people differently because of what they are saying. If it applies to those making political speech, it applies to everyone.

That's the standard, and it is not arbitrary.

Actually, they can loiter if they are peacably assembled for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. That's exactly what that's there for.


The government has stretched "peaceably assemble" to include that you must have porta-potties, and has stretched it even further to make it think it can set up "protest zones". See? Your right is still protected!

Of course, anyone truly wishing harm will pretend to be a supporter, so this current situation, which keeps away egg throwers or pie throwers or spitters is really stupid.

I say it every time this comes up -- those of you who like expansionist, dynamic interpretations of the constitution, this is your doing. Like an economically liberal government that relies heavily on Rube Goldbergian arguments to tie any law to interstate commerce? Here's something similar in action. Sucks, doesn't it? But you have no solid argument against it.

These politicians are the people who declare a tiny lake a "Great Lake" so it can get Great Lakes federal funding. These are the people who define a carrot as a fruit so someone can legally call carrot jelly "carrot jelly" (EU example, it's worldwide...)

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The most qualified candidate.

And who is that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Yes! Burned! Tony reaches back to elementary school to zing Central with a tu quoque.

Dorian's fetish rears it's ugly head once again.