[Cerek the Barbaric]

I have to agree with Azred. IMHO, a LOT of the "First Right Violations" we hear about today spring from the fact that those claiming to have thier rights violated are forgetting one thing....the First Amendment may grant you the right to speak your mind freely, but it does not create an obligation for anybody to listen to you. You can say what you want, but I have an equal right to completely ignore you if I choose.

As Azred pointed out, these groups were not prevented from protesting, they simply weren't allowed to do it near the President. From what I understand, this has been standard policy for several years and through many administrations (admittedly, most of them being Republican).

The fact is that these groups DID get to protest AND - by being placed farther away - they were actually able to generate MORE media coverage by claiming their civil rights were being violated. I honostly doubt they would have gotten anywhere near that much exposure if they HAD been allowed closer to the President....unless they got into a fracas with the supporters.

As for President Bush "controlling the camera angles", that may be true. And Burner does have a valid point that Boy George doesn't seem to be willing to hear ANY opinion that disagrees with his. All of this will end up playing against him in the next election. And it isn't like he is realing fooling anybody into thinking he is universally loved.

As for keeping protesters farther away, it IS a valid security concern. You can't do much about the guy who is going to "blend into the crowd" or carry a sign saying "I Love Bush" in one hand and a pistol in the other. Still, it is just common sense to keep those who openly disagree with the President and his policies a safer distance away from the man they dislike....and I would support the right of the Secret Service to do that for ANY President - regardless of their party affiliation.