Unfreedom of speech

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Penning peaceful demonstrators is what I except from repressive regimes in other parts of the world. Not here in the US. If the demonstrators break the law then arrest them, otherwise leave it be.

That sounds good on paper, Rokenn, but is not nearly so easy to do in reality.

A mob of 300+ people could easily "take on a life of its own". There are many documented cases of mobs starting off demonstrating peacefully, only to become more bold and agressive as their numbers grow. Very soon, they are a force that is entirely too large for the police to adequately handle.

I attended N.C. State University in 1983-84, the year after they won the NCAA National Tournament. Our first game the following year was against the very same Houston Cougars we had defeated for the national title. Once again, N.C. State was given no chance to win.....and once again they pulled off the upset.

I was part of the mob that went out in the streets to celebrate. We literally shut down Hillsborough Avenue - a major 4-lane highway that runs by the campus and is one of the primary business arteries for Raleigh. No traffic could even approach the 8-10 blocks we had poured on to. The police allowed us to celebrate for a short while, then told everybody to move the party onto the campus grounds so they could re-open the road. We did, but there were probably 2000 students out there. If we had told the police to back off, there wouldn't have been much they could've done about. Sure, they can bring in "riot squads", but you're talking several hours of manpower and lots of collateral damage.

A crowd of 300 Bush protestors could easily do the same thing. They could swarm the road and bring the entire motorcade to a screeching halt...presenting a very real threat to the President's safety. Supporters are allowed to line the road because it can be assumed that they will not try to stop the motorcade and present a hazard to the president.

If you check, I believe you will find this practice of a "designated place of protest" has been in effect since the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1980. I can assure you the policy was in place during Clinton's administration, just as I believe it was for the two administrations before him.

Attalus makes a very valid point.....Freedom of Speech is not the same as a freedom to create a potentially dangerous environment.

BTW, if you think a crowd of 300 couldn't accomplish the same thing the crowd of 2000 did, I offer yet another example from my year at N.C. State. A friend who lived in one of the dorms told me one day that he had joined a crowd of students from the neighboring dorms the night before and started running across the campus. The crowd was about 300 strong. They ran from one end of campus to the other. (Why? Because college kids do crazy things sometimes. ) On their way back, they ran onto the other 4-lane highway that bordered the campus.

Cars were forced to either slow down or stop as a crowd of 300 college kids came jogging down the freeway un-announced (although he said they DID stop for the traffic lights [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ) As I said, a mob sometimes becomes an "entity" unto itself....one that can quickly get out of control if it isn't handled properly.

Hunter, it isn't a matter of the First Amendment only granting Freedom of Inoffensive Speech. The protestors were allowed to hold their demonstration and speak their mind. They could easily have contacted local TV stations to get an "on air" interview to voice thier complaints publicly - and reach a much larger audience. Also, if this guy was an independent who just wanted a chance to George Bush how he felt in person, he could always picket in front of the White House. I know they have dramatically increased the security around the gates since the "shooting incident" a year or so ago, but I'm sure he could contact the P.R. people and set-up a time and place for his peaceful protest.

Well I don't know this Neel guy or his sister, but I have seen a lot of people who remind me of him and usually they get into trouble when they start to get loud, obnoxious and nasty. Every town in the country has rules about disorderly conduct and for public behaviour. This town apparently had no problem from the other 3000 protesters...so why did Neel and his sister warrent arrest? I'd bet it wasnt because they were polite and orderly.

You also have to realize a small town in Pa. doesn't have a huge police force to work with so they probably had no choice but to limit protestors to a single area.

[khazadman]

posted by rokenn
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political
institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information
related to a terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison
jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to
Americans accused of crimes.

* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror
investigation.

* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans
indefinitely without a trial.

* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being
able to confront witnesses against them.

yeah,but rokenn,you don't seem to realise that all these things have been done before by presidents(lincoln,wilson,and roosevelt) during wartime,and these measures were always rescinded when the war was over.

[Lox]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Here are a few things that are worth 'taking to the streets' imo: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights By The Associated Press September 5, 2002, 11:44 AM EDT Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks: * FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. [snip] At some point you have to say enough is enough.

When they came for the Afghans, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Yemenis, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Syrians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Palestinians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Saudis, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Koreans, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Columbians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.

Originally posted by Rokenn: Here are a few things that are worth 'taking to the streets' imo: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights By The Associated Press September 5, 2002, 11:44 AM EDT Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks: * FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. There was never any law against them doing that in the first place. You see each agent is also a free person too. Each agent may freely go and observe any public event. Just untill now he wasnt allowed to act on criminal or possibly criminal acts and use the information in court. If you thought no law enforcement people ever observed religious or political groups untill now, you are mistaken. * FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. There is no law stating that immigration hearings will be public. The Supreme court has looked into these "secretly detained" innocent "victims" and has ruled the government is acting in accordance with the laws in MOST cases. There were a couple of exceptions and mistakes have been corrected. * FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. As is the case with any gag order about ongoing investigations. People are not free to shout to criminals "look out they are on to you" That becomes aiding and abetting..which is a crime. * RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. Again the supreme court has looked at the issues and are upholding the existing laws. Not everyone is entitled to the same rights especially when they are being held under military law or during time of war. As for the first part of this statement, where did you hear that they are monitoring conversations between attournies and federal prisoners? And I thought you said they were being held without representation, how can they have conversations with attournies if they are being denied representation? * FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Can you cite the source of this? We haven't had a single person seize any of our papers yet....Are you sure that they don't have to have SOME cause for suspicion? I would think so other wise they have 300,000,000 people to start seizing papers from * RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. This depends on wether you are tlaking about military prisoners or just regular street criminals (who sometimes have to wait months and months for a trial since the courts are backed up....speedyy is not an absolute quantity. It really sounds like you are just repeating a particular lawyer I saw in an interview... he was denied access to a client that never hired him. He was an arab lawyer trying to get public attention and publicity not right any real wrong. * RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. Where is this established? Is there a presidential order? is there a case law docet that is referenced? You posted a lot of stuff here but mostly it looks like the unfounded types of info I hear from some really agenda driven agitators who spout publicly but then when the courts look into it, theres nothing to the charges. Umm Im not refering to "YOU" in that last sentence, Im talking about the talking heads on tv. ************************************************** **** At some point you have to say enough is enough. err Enough!?!?

[Kaltia]

Lox, that was a form of a quote by the head of the rebellious Cerman Church during the Nazi regime, right?

Originally posted by Lox: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: Here are a few things that are worth 'taking to the streets' imo: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights By The Associated Press September 5, 2002, 11:44 AM EDT Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks: * FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. [snip] At some point you have to say enough is enough.

When they came for the Afghans, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Yemenis, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Syrians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Palestinians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Saudis, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Koreans, I didn't say anything.
When they came for the Columbians, I didn't say anything.
When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.[/QUOTE]errr don't you think this is being a bit paranoid? As I said, Hickvill Pa. (I grew up in PA) doesnt have a troop of police to ensure security and safety for a crowd of 3000, it is not uncommon to limit areas for protestors, for everyones safety and sake.

Oh and by the way Lox..are you sure you want to side with some of those governments? having witnessed only some of them up close, I am convinced that the world would be a much much safer place if they just suddenly disappeared.

[ 09-06-2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Morgan_Corbesant]

when are people going to realize that the freedom of speach was NOT established so you can talk down the president or country. it was so you can say whatever you want freely yes, but not to do the above. personally, i feel that if you hate the country or its leaders THAT much, move the hell out!! nobody wants you here anyway!! its easy. just hop a flight to afghanistan, and see how free you truly are here. so what if a president makes a few mistakes. he is HUMAN!!! to spend your life complaining about those in power, simply because you dont have it and "want to be heard. want the little mans voice to be heard" is just plain dumb. that "damn the man" attitude is ridiculeous. the way i see it, those who say that America is crap, and burn our flag, and protest EVERYTHING we do (unless we are giving money to the animals) are giving up their rights as Americans. i mean if you dont support the country, arent you against it!? if you burn our flag, that shows that you are not a true American. burning our flag should INSTANTLY strip you of any rights or freedoms. since they are given, they should be taken away by those who would abuse them. our forefathers did NOT intend for the constitution that they worked so hard for, to be RAPED by people who just want to "stand up". bah, ive said enough, for already i sense that ill catch some flack for this post!!! good day all.

* This post is in no way meant to insult anyone or make others mad.

Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant: when are people going to realize that the freedom of speach was NOT established so you can talk down the president or country. it was so you can say whatever you want freely yes, but not to do the above. personally, i feel that if you hate the country or its leaders THAT much, move the hell out!! nobody wants you here anyway!! its easy. just hop a flight to afghanistan, and see how free you truly are here. so what if a president makes a few mistakes. he is HUMAN!!! to spend your life complaining about those in power, simply because you dont have it and "want to be heard. want the little mans voice to be heard" is just plain dumb. that "damn the man" attitude is ridiculeous. the way i see it, those who say that America is crap, and burn our flag, and protest EVERYTHING we do (unless we are giving money to the animals) are giving up their rights as Americans. i mean if you dont support the country, arent you against it!? if you burn our flag, that shows that you are not a true American. burning our flag should INSTANTLY strip you of any rights or freedoms. since they are given, they should be taken away by those who would abuse them. our forefathers did NOT intend for the constitution that they worked so hard for, to be RAPED by people who just want to "stand up". bah, ive said enough, for already i sense that ill catch some flack for this post!!! good day all. While I have similar feelings, I do think the freedom of speach was enacted so that normal folk could speak out against their government. I think the problem comes in when they start to think that that freedom out weighs common sense or all other proprieties. The first ammendment is limited and has always been so from the very beginning, from the oft quoted example of "not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre" to not being allowed to bellow state secrets on the local street corner to having gag orders put on you to ensure that a criminal prosecution is not compromised. Someone mentioned librarians and their not having their freedom of speach...these would be the same librarians who's union demands that children be allowed the right to access porn on public computers? or that child porn not be filtered in any way on their public library computers?? The Union that has ties to NAMBLA and other such fine groups? This is one group I hope looses much of its freedom of speach. * This post is in no way meant to insult anyone or make others mad.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by khazadman: yeah,but rokenn,you don't seem to realise that all these things have been done before by presidents(lincoln,wilson,and roosevelt) during wartime,and these measures were always rescinded when the war was over.

Does that make it anymore right? I suppose by that logic the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII was ok and we should fully support the same for Arab-Americans if the Administration decides that is the best thing to do.

Magik:
I have seen many articles over the last few months dealing with many of these issues. From CNN to NPR to O'Reily's No Spin show. The article I quoted was from the AP newswire, which IMO is a fairly good source of news.

Cerek:
There is a large difference between a peace protest and a bunch of sports fans celebrating a victory (or mourning a defeat). Back in the 80's I took part in many demonstrations and marches and they were all peaceful.

Morgan_Corbesant:
You are missing the whole point of what Freedom of Speech is. It is there so that we CAN say we think the government is going in the wrong direction without fear of reprisals from said government. Provided, as Magik said, that you do not go around breaking other laws in the process. It is there as the Supreme Court has ruled to protect even the most offensive of speech as well as the inoffensive. Once we start saying that this group or that can not state its opinion because they are political unpopular today, who knows who will be the next group to be silenced tomorrow?

Here is another food for thought item:
On one hand we have a person accused of planning to make a 'dirty bomb' on uncorroborated information

On the other we have a Florida doctor caught with a huge cache of weapons, bombs, anti-personal mines, and detailed attack plans for attacking local Muslim buildings.

One had full access to the legal system from the day he was detained, the other did not. One was armed to the teeth, the other was not. One was captured based on 'secret evidence', the other by police responding to a domestic disturbance call. One is Muslim, the other is not.

Remember the second greatest act of domestic terrorism was perpetrated by an ex-military white christian.

I guess my main point here is that if we focus so hard on denying rights to or subjugating certain ethnic/religious groups to special measures we do two things. We alienate people within those communities that may have valuable information and two we will miss the guy coming from the other direction with a truck bomb and a van full of weapons.