Secret Service sued for segregating Bush protesters

[Davros]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I can see the protestors point. What good is holding up sighns and running your mouth if you have to do it from 2 miles away.On the otherhand, who is more likely to shoot at the president, someone who supports him or someone holding a sighn calling for his removal.

no, the guy not holding a sign at all and blending into the crowd. [/QUOTE]Or the guy who is carrying the sign supporting Bush in order to fool those secret service types! [/QUOTE]Ooooh Donut, I never thought of it like that. So any sneaksy tricksy people that wanted to take a potshot at the shrub might be waving a false support placard. Maybe they should remove all the crowds thus treating everyone equally - that sounds like the safest and fairest option .

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Davros: Ooooh Donut, I never thought of it like that. So any sneaksy tricksy people that wanted to take a potshot at the shrub might be waving a false support placard. Maybe they should remove all the crowds thus treating everyone equally - that sounds like the safest and fairest option .

He couldn't kiss babies if that were the case.

[Chewbacca]

I saw a retired judge news analyst on the "fear and balanced" network who was of the opinion that there is indeed a constitutional issue here because of a pattern of people being segregated because of their political views, not because they necessarily posed a security threat.

The right to protest/cheer is the right to protest/cheer equally.

[Azred]

I must still respectfully disagree. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] This is not a Constitutional issue because no one was forced to stop protesting. Bush detractors were allowed to protest...they are simply upset that they couldn't protest closer to him.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Azred: I must still respectfully disagree. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] This is not a Constitutional issue because no one was forced to stop protesting. Bush detractors were allowed to protest...they are simply upset that they couldn't protest closer to him.

But isn't this about equality of free-speech?

Isn't this the same as making one group of people sit at the back of the bus - while another group is allowed to sit at the front? Afterall, both groups are allowed on the bus and both can enjoy the benefits of public transportation? So should the seating arrangements matter?

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Azred: I must still respectfully disagree. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] This is not a Constitutional issue because no one was forced to stop protesting. Bush detractors were allowed to protest...they are simply upset that they couldn't protest closer to him.

So you wouldn't mind being prevented from giving your opinion alongside everyone else? You better not complain when it's your turn to protest and you are getting prevented...

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: But isn't this about equality of free-speech? Isn't this the same as making one group of people sit at the back of the bus - while another group is allowed to sit at the front? Afterall, both groups are allowed on the bus and both can enjoy the benefits of public transportation? So should the seating arrangements matter?

Great point, you said it better than me.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Skunk: But isn't this about equality of free-speech? Isn't this the same as making one group of people sit at the back of the bus - while another group is allowed to sit at the front? Afterall, both groups are allowed on the bus and both can enjoy the benefits of public transportation? So should the seating arrangements matter?

Yes, it is like that. People are allowed to protest, but there is no law or right that guarantees that one may protest wherever one pleases. I think the political figure around whom the event is happening should have the right to arrange where particular groups may be allowed to gather. If protesters are placed in the nosebleed section then that is simply unfortunate, but at least they still get to protest freely. Besides, 10 loud protesters usually get more media attention than 1000 loyal fans.

Originally posted by Luvian: So you wouldn't mind being prevented from giving your opinion alongside everyone else? You better not complain when it's your turn to protest and you are getting prevented...

No one has prevented anyone from voicing an opinion; the protesters are simply upset that they couldn't protest right under Bush's nose. Like I said above, were I to really want my protest message to be broadcast loudly, then I will generate some media attention for myself and my cause. Simple. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Burner]

I can understand the argument that you don't have a right to protest anywhere up to a point, but this kind of action makes me very nervous. I wonder if it wouldn't be a violation of the "right to petition the government for redress of grievances"? That might be a stretch, but arranging things so the right to protest is diluted this way is at least questionable. It's not like they're charging the White House or busting into a fundraiser, they're going to public events. I think there was a stink about this at one of the conventions a few years ago, people who wanted to protest were confined to an area a couple of blocks away from the venue. Since a lot of people feel that government is out of touch and doesn't listen to them, I can't see this as being positive in any way, except that it makes Bush feel better.

What I'd do if I was one of the Democratic candidates is to start going after Bush over it. "Why is the president afraid to face the American people?" There may even be a TV commercial in it. I can remember a story about Clinton being accosted by a woman while he was jogging one day, and once he met with the Father of a soldier who was killed who tore into him and said he wasn't fit to be president. I also remember how Nixon once left the White House and went to the Washington Monument to talk to a group of anti-war protesters. He mostly talked to them about football IIRC, but at least he went! Whatever you can say about those guys and their character flaws, at least they could accept criticism from the opposition. Bush doesn't even want to look at anybody who disagrees with him. It's not good for democracy, but it could be good for the Democrats!

Burner

[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.