News Free Speech Zone" - James Bovard, The American Conservative

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky

You can't come in my house to protest, you can't come on the stage Bush would be speaking on...and in this case, you can't be in certain areas that are designated to be off limits.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between havng a special area sectioned off, and putting that section so far away as to render the free speech of the protesters almost meaningless. Bush is pushing the limits of the law(can't say for sure he is breaking the law) for political, not safety reasons.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Nevertheless, there is a difference between havng a special area sectioned off, and putting that section so far away as to render the free speech of the protesters almost meaningless. Bush is pushing the limits of the law(can't say for sure he is breaking the law) for political, not safety reasons.

Pushing the limits, I agree. Should this have been handled differently? Absolutely! Is this a gross violation of human rights that we better call the ACLU to get on? Not in the least - it simply is highly irritating to hear people immediately go for the knee jerk reaction of "they're stealing our rights", without thinking it through.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Pushing the limits, I agree. Should this have been handled differently? Absolutely! Is this a gross violation of human rights that we better call the ACLU to get on? Not in the least - it simply is highly irritating to hear people immediately go for the knee jerk reaction of "they're stealing our rights", without thinking it through.

Well, maybe you should have a 'knee jerk' reaction against other people, either...especially since THIS post of your, after you calmed down a bit, seems a lot more reasonable than where you started, huh?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, maybe you should have a 'knee jerk' reaction against other people, either...especially since THIS post of your, after you calmed down a bit, seems a lot more reasonable than where you started, huh?

Actually, I have been calm since the beginning, and you are assuming a knee jerk reaction. My actions thus far on this board have been fully thought through :) If you feel I need pruning, banning, or anything else, you are more than welcome to do so. I enjoy ruffling your's and Adam's feathers, but you pointed yourselves out for the doing

 

[Njorl]

"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."

The relevant part,

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Does not prevent local governments from taking measures to limit speech. The supreme court has decided that such limitations can not be so severe as to eliminate speech. Also, later amendments preclude such limitations from being biased. For example, a public library can prohibit loud speech, but can not prohibit speech based on political content.

However, none of these caveats justify what the secret service did. There was a public gathering at which political speech was allowed. It is unconscienable that only viewpoints of one side were allowed.

Njorl