Bush violates protestors' rights!

[Ronn_Bman]

Oops, no wait, it was the Democratic National Convention that put the protestors behind barbed wire. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I understand the need to allow people to protest without allowing them to interfere with or block public events, but after all the hubbub W has been given about Free Speech Zones in the past, I find it incredibly humorous that the DNC put their Free Speech Zone behind barbed wire, and no one has seen fit to mention it here.

Somehow, I don't think I'll have to be the one to start the upcoming thread about the FS Zone at the Republican Convention. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Hopefully the Republicans will be smart enough to opt out of the concentration camp look and feel though.

Now, I'm not saying that it is ok for the Republicans to have a Free Speech Zone because the DNC has done it or vice versa. I'm saying Free Speech Zones, in general, are not an abomination, but if anyone feels they are, then they should be outraged at the DNC.

Original Article Found At UTNE Dealing with a Braying Donkey in Their Backyard Protestors, some Bostonians, give Democratic National Convention a cold reception —By Jacob Wheeler, Utne.com July 2004 Issue BOSTON -- Even before the 2004 Democratic National Convention kicked off in a puff of pomp and patriotic smoke, much of New England had already grown sick and tired of the whole ordeal. A three-city-block radius of prime expressways and urban thoroughfares around the Fleet Center downtown had been closed off, as well as sections of the city Transit line to deter any would-be terrorist mischief. Senior citizens living in the neighborhood were told to keep forms of identification on them at all times, lest they be mistaken for Al Qaeda sleeper cells. Worst of all, the state security apparatus had erected a "free speech zone" in damp quarters hidden under the train tracks and surrounded by barbed wire and netting, into which the authorities will seek to confine the thousands of protestors expected to crash the big party. Analogies to Guantanamo Bay -- even Auschwitz -- abounded. "I would expect to see this in other countries, but not in America. This is not what we're about," said John Tompkins a Bostonian whose family of three was legging out a three-mile detour on their typical evening stroll for ice cream. "It doesn't sound very good," echoed Congressman Dennis Kucinich, after speaking at a panel at the Boston Social Forum on Saturday. "It doesn't sound very consistent with a Democratic society." Before the Convention got under way on Monday, approximately 60 organized protestors gathered in the Free Speech Zone at 9 a.m. to act out scenes of oppression reminiscent of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Activists wearing DNC shirts ordered others in street clothes to don black hoods while their hands were bound behind their backs. The "prisoners" were then forced into the Free Speech Zone and forced to kneel in uncomfortable positions. Sound familiar? According to Gan Golan, a graduate student majoring in urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a local member of the Save Our Civil Liberties group, the "prisoners" wore civilian clothing and not the orange suits of Guantanamo Bay infamy to show that they are normal, everyday people. "This insulting protest pen proves that Democrats are unwilling to differentiate from Republicans on issues relating to civil liberties and our inherent right to protest," Golan said. "Many of us naively thought this wouldn't happen in Boston, but the lockdown is becoming an established pattern at mass protests. Over the last few years we've seen police gradually increase security and the potential for violence, even though the U.S. protest movement is one of the most nonviolent in the world. We don't throw Molotov Cocktails here! By trying to put free speech in a cage, Boston has unwillingly declared the whole city a protest zone," Golan foreshadowed.

I'm not sure if UTNE is a 'fair and balanced' news source or not, but I've seen the complaints about the DNC's FS Zone over the past few weeks on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. IF you don't like my source, google your own. [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

[ 07-29-2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Gnarf]

Heard of it. Silly me was hoping that at least one of the two parties standing a chance over there was for free speech. Too bad, really

[Grojlach]

While we're on the subject of the DNC, here is Ann Coulter's report of it.
Seems she's living in her own, special world.

[ 07-28-2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Gnarf, it isn't really as bad as all that. I'm sure the protestors would have preferred to block the entrance, but the truth is their rights don't allow them to stop the other folks from enjoying their right to assemble.

Sorry Groj, but I couldn't make it past the first paragraph. She's a political commentator and not a comedienne. Too bad she couldn't have realized that before she submitted that experiment.

[ 07-28-2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Gnarf]

You can say a whole lot'a bad stuff about that column, but I don't get how anyone can find it "not funny"...

I'm sure the protestors would have preferred to block the entrance, but the truth is their rights don't allow them to stop the other folks from enjoying their right to assemble.

Sure, like when you arrest random guys because you, though having no proof, are "sure they'll commit a crime"? I don't see how that point is a good one.

[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.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

This is a letdown. Judging from the thread's title, I expected to hear about the rights of a single protestor being violated. That had potential to be most amusing. How unfortunate...

Edit- Thank you.

[ 07-30-2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[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.

As for myself, I maintain the same position I always have - that this is not a restriction of Free Speech. The protestors are being allowed to voice their opinions, but they are being kept a "safe" distance away from main venue in order to avoid any potential conflicts with DNC supporters. I seriously doubt any of the protestors (in any of the incidents ever mentioned here) represent a true "threat" against the group they are protesting. However, when you mix stalwart protesters with staunch supporters, the emotional confrontations often DO lead to scuffles and/or even outright fights - which makes the job of the security personnel that much more difficult. So I still have no problem with keeping two emotional groups separated to avoid potential clashes.

I will also go a step further to say that the actions of the Boston protesters creating mock scenes of Guantanamo and Abu Gharib are deplorable. I'm sure they had no problem with anti-Bush protestors being kept a "safe distance" away from the President and his entourage(sp?), so they need to be willing to accept the same circumstances.

[The Hierophant]

Dude, that sucks.

ps:I can't say I'm keen on the whole 'party convention' thing anyway. They just look like hideously choreographed indoctrination festivals to me. Come to think of it, I'm not too keen on the institutionalised factionalism that is the party system, period. Yuck... [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[ 07-29-2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

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?