Is Criticism of the Bush Administration Leading to Censorship of Celebrities?

[the number 42]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

 

[NateTG]

Freedom of expression yes. Freedom of publication maybe?

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

The belief of 'freedom of expression' because the US spouts massive propaganda about it, and produced most of the mass media content in the world. In many ways, I see the mainstream US culture as puritanical and repressive, which is quite ironic considering how focused we are on physical beauty.

From my experience, monied interests control almost all media dissemination methods. So, while you may be able to personally express any opinion you like, you need to get advertisers in order to publish, or broadcast it. Since there are something like 5 companies that control all of the broadcasr TV channels, something that is contrary to their interest isn't particularly likely to make it to broadcast TV. It's a bit easier to get on the radio, but even that is steadily being monopolized.

 

[BobG]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

There should be some limits. Examples:

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

 

[NateTG]

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.

During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?

Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

 

[BobG]

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.



Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.



Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?



My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

The professionalism of police departments varies from locale to locale, so I'm sure you could find some instances of which you speak. I'm not sure it would be as easy to support the idea that police in general are out to provoke a riot.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occurring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

 

[the number 42]

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all.

Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word

Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

 

[kat]

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occurring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

What did I miss? I thought you had posted about the "Free speach zone" outside of the Democratic convention? Employed by the DNC?

 

[JohnDubYa]

... which as caused you to change your vote to Ralph Nader. :)

 

[NateTG]

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic.

Isn't it a bit strange to suggest that blocking a public thoroughfare is a violation of rights when there are regular planned and sactioned events - motorcates, parades, and road construction - that block them? The arguments made to justify removing protesters from streets are typically couched in notions of safety and the greater common good rather than some nebulous right to use public thuroughfares and, in general, these arguments make sense.

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Heh. The Establishment. Right on!

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.

Well, some entity has to have control unless you favor anarchy.

Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call? I hope it isn't THE ESTABLISHMENT.

 

[NateTG]

Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call?

I would probably go around. Of course, your question is mostly rhetoric, since I did conceede that removing blockages is usually appropriate. Moreover, there is obviously a difference between people who are deliberately blocking traffic, and people who are trying to produce political discourse.

The problem is that giving a single license to disperse spillover, and control over protest locations (e.g. 'free speech zones') is tantamount giving that organization from preventing protest outright.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word

Many groups, such as the ACLU, have spoken out. I have read a few online articles regarding it, some from regular newspapers, but by and large the media hasn't done its job. Why? Because the corporate media does not see profits in that.

Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

Well, do it, then. What I meant by my statement is that for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

---------------------------------

BTW, I am not voting for Nader.

 

[the number 42]

Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

...for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

Fair enough. I usually think of 'empirical' as meaning 'research based', usually quantitative, but that's just me. In any case I accept your point - what can be better evidence than repeated experience? It just make the current 'free speech zone' seem all the more unnecessary.

 

[Njorl]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention.

Have you ever been to Boston (nice town, my sister lives there). There are always protesters at Harvard Square and they are very entertaining, but also usually polite.