Bush violates protestors' rights!

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I do think it is hilariously ironic that the DNC has taken this measure after seeing the Bush Administration repeatedly blasted on this forum for the same thing. I certainly hope those who were so upset before will express the same level of disdain towards the DNC now.

The DNC has nothing to do with the creation of the protest zone, just as the RNC has nothing to do with their zone in NY. The MASS State Police, the Boston PD and the secret service arranged security for the convention and created the protest zone.

The protest zone is directly ajacent to the Fleet center, not in an out of the way place at all like the Bush protest zones typically are. Oh and it doesnt matter if you are protesting abortion or the war, there is only one zone for all protesters.

Like I mentioned before it is a small gravel lot encased in barbed wire and chain fence under a rusty green steel elevated subway track. It is designed to hold 1/10th of pre-convention estimated protesters (1,000 out of 10,000) has only one entrance and no bathroom. Aside from the limit of freedom these types of zone represents arguments, it is simply a dangerous looking and unattractive place. It has a prison quality too it.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Actually the State Police, BPD and the Secret Service have everything to do with the "free speech zone" not the Democratic Party or Convention organizers. Of course seeing this zone up close and in person it is an ominous little place- a gravel lot surrounded by fence, barbed wire ,and underneath green metal train tracks. There is only one entrance and exit, room for only 1,000 people ( out of an estimated 10,000 potential protesters!) and no bathrooms inside the zone at all.

Tsk Tsk Chewbacca, I'm very disappointed with you. When the incidents involved protestors against Bush, it was all the fault of Bush and his Admin, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Dem's have nothing to do with it?!?! You never seemed very willing to accept the explanation before that the Secret Service was the one that set up the "Free Speech Zones". If I recall, you pointed out that the Secret Service works for Bush, so it was naive' (at best) to think thier actions were taken without his knowledge. Do you honostly think the DNC organizers had NO knowledge of this "Free Speech Zone"?? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Well, even if you still want to blame the Bush-Admin-run Secret Service, you now have to admit that at least Boy George is being fair and equal in his application of the policy. Or do you now agree that "Free Speech Zones" have been standard procedure established and enforced by the Secret Service for the last several Administrations? [/QUOTE]Tsk Tsk yourself Cerek. You seem to put words in my mouth that I dont recall saying and once again try to paint me like a partisan hypocrite. Since it is a fact that the free speech zones began in the Clinton era if I did not know this before I do know it now. But I challenge you to go actually find my posts on this topic and present them here and at least give me a chance to adjust old positions I had based on knowledge I may have gained between now and then before pointing the hypocrite finger and tsk tsking.

If you simply fault me for simply having an idealogical opinion about what these protest zones represnt with regards to free speech, then why tsk tsk me at all?

[Chewbacca]

By the way a Judge here ruled just last week that the protest zone was necessary for security despite the fact that it seemed contrary to the ideals of free assembly. I forget the exact wording but something like "deplorable but neseccary". His ruling applied to this one particular protest zone in Boston, not all of them in general. Regardless the Boston Common, govenrment Center and many other locales have had lage peaceful demonstrations all week. A minor tussle occured last Sunday between anti-abortionists and anti-War folk on Beacon st. but thats been the only drama so far.

Aside- I have never seen more cops in one city in my entire life. They are everywhere in mass quanities all over Boston! Security, so far, has been top notch and effective. Even traffick isnt that bad considering the busiest interstate in town is closed for something like six miles either way out of town.

[Ronn_Bman]

I also saw that a judge approved the random searchs on the subway system.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Tsk Tsk yourself Cerek. You seem to put words in my mouth that I dont recall saying and once again try to paint me like a partisan hypocrite. Since it is a fact that the free speech zones began in the Clinton era if I did not know this before I do know it now. But I challenge you to go actually find my posts on this topic and present them here and at least give me a chance to adjust old positions I had based on knowledge I may have gained between now and then before pointing the hypocrite finger and tsk tsking.

Very well. The original thread is here --> Secret Service sued for segregrating Bush protestors

This is the opening post in the thread:

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Hehehe, If the ACLU wins this case, President Bush may have to face a "fair and balanced" array of citizen's opinions. The Secret Service has helped keep Bush administration critics far from the center stage -- and television cameras -- at rallies and events where President Bush and high-ranking federal officials appeared, according to a federal lawsuit filed yesterday. In more than a dozen public events nationwide in the past two years, the Secret Service has instructed local police to herd anti-Bush protesters into far-removed "protest zones," four advocacy groups claim in the suit. They charge that the Secret Service has kept protesters at bay before, but that the practice has increased markedly since Bush took office. The groups, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, say this tactic discriminates against protesters critical of the government and violates their free-speech rights. They are asking a judge in federal court in Philadelphia to stop the practice. "Allowing a guy with a sign that says 'I Love Bush' to stand up close, while forcing the guy with a sign that says 'Bush, Go Home' to stand around the corner, is obviously unconstitutional and is becoming a pattern and practice of the Secret Service," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU's Washington office. "The Bush administration has exceeded all past administrations in controlling camera angles and the public impression of the presidency." Secret Service spokesman John Gill said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. "However, we have a longstanding policy of recognizing the constitutionally protected right of the public to demonstrate and voice their views to their elected officials," he said. The four groups suing are all protest-rally veterans: the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which lobbies for affordable housing; the National Organization for Women (NOW), an advocacy group for women's rights; United for Peace and Justice, an antiwar group; and USAction, which describes its mission as promoting social and economic justice. They filed the suit in Philadelphia to build upon a four-year-old lawsuit there in which a federal judge issued a restraining order this summer against the Secret Service for keeping anti-government protesters at bay. The suit highlights incidents in states from Arizona to Virginia that are similar to ACORN's July court fight in Philadelphia, where police barred protesters from a public sidewalk next to a Treasury building. Bush was touring the facility to highlight checks being printed for a new child tax credit, and ACORN demonstrated against what it said was the credit's small size. But Bush supporters were allowed on the sidewalk. The judge in Philadelphia that day issued a restraining order requiring the Secret Service to allow government critics to demonstrate peacefully as close as supporters.

I do apologize for accusing of claiming that Bush and his Administration were the ones responsible for the increased enforcement of this policy. That accusation was made within the article itself. You did voice your agreement with others who criticised the practice, which made it seem you agreed with the sentiments expressed in the article itself. Given your oft-repeated opinion of President Bush in general, that was not a very large leap in logic. However, you didn't actually state yourself that Bush was responsible for the practice, so I again offer my humble apologies for wrongly accusing you of that.

[Timber Loftis]

Free speech is the right to speak out. But, making people listen, interrupting traffic, having sit-ins, disrupting society, etc. goes too far. Free speech itself can be used to abuse society, and through it a very small minority can crash a whole system.

Look at these people (picture below), do they really deserve free speech? IMO, these professional assholes need to put down the bong, take a shower, and get a job so they can quit siphoning off daddy's trust fund.

If they do deserve free speech, do they deserve the right to do it in our face if we don't want to listen? Remember, it is COMPLETELY LEGAL to limit the TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER of public speech.



[ 07-29-2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I agree with you, Timber. I said in my first post that the actions of the protesters were deplorable. Other adjectives that are equally applicable are ignorant, childish, ridiculous, etc.

I have no problem with specific areas being cordoned off and assigned to those wanting to protest. I also have no problem with the assigned site being well-away from the actual venue of the event they are protesting.

And just because up to 10,000 protesters are expected doesn't mean Boston is obligated to provide an area that will accommodate that many people (though they probably could have made the area larger). The city officials FIRST obligation is to the citizens who live and work in Boston year-round - not to 10,000 that are coming to gripe and moan for a week.

[Timber Loftis]

I want to further note that I believe it was the state and the city who were responsible for the setup around Boston Gardens the Fleet (TM) Center.

[DBear]

I do have a feeling of schadenfreude when seeing that Boston businesses are taking a beating due to these "security" procedures. :nyah:

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The city officials FIRST obligation is to the citizens who live and work in Boston year-round - not to 10,000 that are coming to gripe and moan for a week.

How do you know that so many of the potential protesters are out-of-towners? I know plenty of protesters that live right here in the Metro area. Why aren't the protesters on the Common or in Government center put behind a barbed wire barrier if there is such a threat to everyday Bostonians?