"Free Speech Zones"; WTF country is this?

[Baldwin]

GW Bush is coming to my town (Atlanta) today, to stump for Republican candidates. Here's a column about how the Secret Service, with the cooperation of police, have been treating American citizens when Bush makes appearances:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/13/news_pf/Columns/President_seems_unabl.shtml

The gist of it is that people carrying pro-Bush signs are allowed to be where they want, but people carrying signs critical of Bush are segregated and kept in areas which are actually called, with no apparent irony, "Free Speech Zones", and told that they are subject to arrest if they step out while carrying the offending sign. (The Secret Service uses the universal excuse that this is a "security measure". Apparently it would never occur )

Uh, isn't my whole country a Free Speech Zone? Is this Beijing with its "Democracy Wall" under Mao?

According to this column, people have been arrested for holding up critical signs outside the "free speech zone". People with pro-Bush signs were left alone. This means that you've got two American citizens, both standing in a public space, both peacefully holding signs, and one of them is arrested because of the idea his sign expresses.

I don't see how this could be any more clearly unconstitutional and un-American. Maybe this is what Bush had in mind when he said, "There ought to be limits to freedom." (This was when he was a candidate, and was trying to shut down the satirical website about him, www.gwbush.com.) Of course, it's possible Bush doesn't know what's going on, because he's a fucking clueless half-wit, but I think it's more likely he knows and approves, because he's a fucking would-be dictator (as well as a fucking clueless half-wit). Either way, a chattering simian unsuited for the office he inhabits.

Here's a more personal account of this policy in action: http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id2498/pg1/ (though I don't know much about the website, and can't vouch for its accuracy).

[gobear]

Heh, just wait until 2004, when Bush and Ashcroft decide to suspend elections. It's pretty obvious that Dubya has contempt for every clause of the Constitution--except for the Second Amedment, of course.

[Liberal]

Baldwin queried:

Uh, isn't my whole country a Free Speech Zone?No, it isn't. And it's high time you learned the truth.

The right to speak, just as with any right, accrues to ownership. It is the owner of the property where you stand who will tell you what you can and cannot say, irrespective of any scribbles from ancient documents. In the case of so-called public property, ownership is held by those with the greatest political clout.

As you can plainly see firsthand.

[gobear]

The right to speak, just as with any right, accrues to ownership. It is the owner of the property where you stand who will tell you what you can and cannot say, irrespective of any scribbles from ancient documents. In the case of so-called public property, ownership is held by those with the greatest political clout.

That's not what the Constitution says...for now.

[Liberal]

As I said, irrespective of any scribbles from ancient documents...

[Truth Seeker]

Slow down there, Chicken Littles,

Neel was charged with disorderly conduct and has a hearing on Oct. 31 at which he intends to fight the charge with the help of the Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the U.S., it is constitutional to reasonably restrict the time, place and manner of demonstrations. For example, "Free Speech zones have been used at political conventions to ensure that the protests did not disrupt the entire city.

This, however, appears to be a pure "content based" restriction in speech which must satisfy an extremely high standard in order to pass constitutional muster. The "security" rationale doesn't even come close to meeting this standard -- more to the point, it doesn't even make much sense. Do they assume that every person holding an anti-Bush sign is a potential assassin? That allowing pro and anti-Bush demonstrators to mix would degenerate into a murderous melee?

More likely, the Secret Service people behind this never really thought it out. I'd guess that this is a knee-jerk security measure cooked up after 9/11 because people felt they had to be doing something.

To quote an American jurist, Alex Kozinski, "Liberty . . . is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark." The price of Liberty is, among other things, constantly having to beat back these little forays by the government. It's nothing new, it's just part of the process.

I predict that the ACLU will hand the government its head on this one. I hope they start seeking out preliminary injunctions challenging this policy whenever Bush is appearing somewhere.

[ivylass]

I'm waiting for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold law.

[matt_mcl]

In the U.S., it is constitutional to reasonably restrict the time, place and manner of demonstrations. For example, "Free Speech zones have been used at political conventions to ensure that the protests did not disrupt the entire city.

That would make sense if they were clearing the area of pro-Bush demonstrators as well as anti-Bush ones. According to the OP, this is not the case.

[shelbo]

So, if you are an assassin, carry a Bush/Cheney sign?

[Liberal]

Truth Seeker wrote:

It's nothing new, it's just part of the process.[...shudder...]

[Ferrous]

This is very disturbing. I hope Truth Seeker is right on the outcome.

[december]

I find this appalling. IIRC a similar practice was followed by Clinton, but that doesn't excuse Bush.

[Giraffe]

This administration truly scares me with the casualness by which it tries to brush aside major civil liberties. It's a far cry from jack-booted thugs breaking down our doors, but it's also getting to be a far cry from the guaranteed freedom that we have always prided ourselves on as a nation.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by december
I find this appalling. IIRC a similar practice was followed by Clinton, but that doesn't excuse Bush.

For the love of God, december, let it go!

[MaxTheVool]

Originally posted by december
I find this appalling. IIRC a similar practice was followed by Clinton, but that doesn't excuse Bush.

Cite?

I mean, come on man, you know that you have a reputation as being anti-Clinton. So when serious charges of anti-constitutional behavior are levelled at Bush, is your best choice of action:

(1) do nothing {a fine response}
(2) be outraged at the invasion of liberty {another fine response}
(3) using cites and evidence, point out that this is actually typical presidential behavior going back several administrations {yet another fine response}
or
(4) randomly say "Clinton did it too" with absolutely no cite or evidence {bad bad BAD BAD DECEMBER}

?



Grrrrrrrrr

[Liberal]

How the hell is he supposed to produce a cite for something that happened eight years ago, Fartwit? What are you, twelve or something? Or just amnesiatic? I remember it happening, too.

[Truth Seeker]

Well, I must be a "fartwit" because I don't remember this, either. Was it one incident at the beginning of his presidency? The height of protests against Clinton certainly didn't occur eight years ago. Nor do anti-Clinton protesters seem to have been discriminated against four years ago.

Hundreds more swarmed the a museum in San Jose where Clinton raised $600,000 for the Democratic Party. The crowd, divided into supporters, carrying "Peace for the president'' signs, and critics, one toting a "Clinton is the anti-Christ" placard, competed with each other in a booing and cheering contest as Clinton appeared Friday.

http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/nation/98/09/27/clinton.3-0.html



Matt, I'm not quite sure what to make of your comment. Did you read the entire post before responding?

[Siege]

Actually, I do remember the local Rush Limbaugh wannabe (RLW for this post) talking about an incident like december referred to about 5 or 6 years ago. This is all from memory, no cite available, so please bear with me. The incident RLW was talking about involved a couple down in Texas who decided to travel some distance to call one of the Clintons (I think it was Hilary) un-Christian. They made a sign up to that effect and nailed it to a stake. The secret service saw a couple with anti-Clinton sentiments attached to a sharp pointy object (OK, perhaps not all that sharp), and decided this was not something which should be allowed close to the Clintons and hustled them off. RLW was outraged about the suppression of free speech. I was appalled that a couple of Christians would go to a fair amount of time, trouble, and effort to gratuitously insult someone. Then again, it was a co-worker who was a fan of RLW -- for me, listening to his program was like having acid dropped on my skin.

The incident in Pittsburgh happened on Labor Day and the sign the fellow who was relegated to the "Free Speech Zone" was carrying read, "Bush must love the poor. He's made so many of them." I don't remember the media mentioning if it the stick it was attached to had a point on it, or if any of the pro-Bush signs had points on them (not referring to the words in either case). The local news media reported it neutrally at the time. It wasn't until a few days later that people started to talk about the unfairness of it. The thing is, the pro-Bush signs were visible as part of routine media coverage; the anti-Bush signs weren't. This could give the impression that nobody in Pittsburgh disagrees with Mr. Bush.

Anyway, that's it for my contribution in terms of facts. In terms of opinion, I'm afraid I've quit being amazed by Mr. Bush's hypocrisy.

CJ

[Mr. Moto]

I've had anti-Clinton signs torn from my hands and have been physically intimidated by union goons at a Clinton rally. A free speech zone would have been an improvement.

The rally was in Market Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in October of 1992.

I hope this is enough if a citation.

[Larry Mudd]

Here's a cite for December. (http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=913)

Partisan digs aside, regardless of whodunnit first, it's bad, bad policy.

I'd like to say that it was something that Canadians can look down our collective nose at our neighbors' goverment for, but this week, legislation was introduced in British Columbia to keep protests away from the provincial legislature -- people can now be forcibly removed from the grounds at the Speaker's discretion.

I guess our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written on the same grade of paper as your First Amendment. Bummer.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Mr. Moto
I've had anti-Clinton signs torn from my hands and have been physically intimidated by union goons at a Clinton rally. A free speech zone would have been an improvement.

The rally was in Market Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in October of 1992.

I hope this is enough if a citation.

I'm certainly sorry you were subjected to this, but do I really need to point out that Mr. Clinton was not the President when this happened, and that neither the Secret Service nor any other arm of the Government was responsible for your mistreatment? The First Amendment guarantees that the Government won't interfere with your free speech - it doesn't apply to actions by non-Governmental goons, reprehensible as those actions may be.

[matt_mcl]

My bad. Gomen nasai.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally posted by Libertarian
How the hell is he supposed to produce a cite for something that happened eight years ago, Fartwit? What are you, twelve or something? Or just amnesiatic? I remember it happening, too.

{insults responding to the totally gratuitous "fartwit" removed after my anger cooled}


Grrrrrr....


-did I claim that nothing like this had ever happened before?
-did I claim that December was wrong?

No, and no. I did not say "that never happened". I did not say "Clinton is perfect". I did not say "you are a liar". I simply asked him for a cite. He bought up a hypothetical past incident. I asked him for evidence that it occurred.



I will point out, by the way, that the cite provided by Larry Mudd is only somewhat relevant, as it covers actions at the national conventions of both parties, which is a very different situation from the situation described in the OP.

If someone would like to find evidence that during the Clinton presidency, the secret service and local police arrested people in crowds solely for the content of their expressed political beliefs, more power to you. But no one yet has.

[saoirse]

Larry Mudd, at least Americans are still free to eat the dessert of their choice at political events.

[Larry Mudd]

Heh heh saoirse.. Amen to that.

Anyone in the dark over that cryptic comment can check this thread on the subject. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128836)

[Liberal]

MaxTheVool wrote:

He bought up a hypothetical past incident.Do you have any idea how wrong that is?

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Originally posted by Libertarian
MaxTheVool wrote:

Do you have any idea how wrong that is?

Nobody does because no cite has been provided that a "similar practice was followed by Clinton"

"practice" referring to "According to this column, people have been arrested for holding up critical signs outside the "free speech zone". People with pro-Bush signs were left alone."

[Liberal]

An incident cannot be both past and hypothetical.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Ah, just nitpicking his choice of words then.
And anyway, why can't it be past and hypothetical?

I know it's not the OED but Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hypothetical) doesn't seem to rule out the possibility, based on its definition of hypothetical.

Merriam webster references the word Conjectural which s based on conjecture, whose meaning are given as:

1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved.

[Liberal]

Atarian queried:

And anyway, why can't it be past and hypothetical?Because a hypothetical event has never happened, whereas a past event has. A and Not A cannot coexist in any possible world.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Atarian queried:

Because a hypothetical event has never happened, whereas a past event has. A and Not A cannot coexist in any possible world.

Try reading those dictionary definitions.

A hypothetical event can be one that is merely conjectured, without evidence as to it's reality/truth. Why that event cannot be conjectured to have happened in the past escapes me.

[Liberal]

Reading is not enough without comprehension. You are attempting to stretch the mathematical definition of the word into a political context.

It is like trying to interpret the phrase "I'm forced to conclude A" by calling upon the physics definition of force and analyzing how the mass times the acceleration led me to the conclusion.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Nope. I am not trying to stretch a mathematical definition.

I wasn't even aware that there is one. What is it by the way?
I am simply using the dictionary definitions.

If you want to rely on mathematical definitions of words, can you enlighten us as to the mathematical definitions of fartwit and amnesiatic please?

[Liberal]

Good lord. You aren't even reading your own posts.

a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved — Atarian 10-18-2002 06:37 AMStop staring at me. Eat your checkers.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

I don't appreciate being patronised; it is rude and uncalled for. Anyway...

Do you mean that the bit you accused me of not reading is the mathematical definition? If so, OK, point taken. How about addressing the rest of my points.

An event in the past can be considered hypothetical (ie. it is conjectured to have occured) if it is not known yet whether it occured or not. Once it has been demonstrated that it did occur, it is no longer hypothetical (it has been proved) if it cannot be so demonstrated it is still hypothetical since it could be demonstrated at a later date when we have more information available to us.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally posted by Early Out


I'm certainly sorry you were subjected to this, but do I really need to point out that Mr. Clinton was not the President when this happened, and that neither the Secret Service nor any other arm of the Government was responsible for your mistreatment? The First Amendment guarantees that the Government won't interfere with your free speech - it doesn't apply to actions by non-Governmental goons, reprehensible as those actions may be.

Need I point out that Mr. Clinton was a presidential candidate at the time, and entitled to Secret Service protection. Or that said Secret Service is completely in charge of security at campaign rallies?

If you'll insist, I'll leave the Secret Service out of this, and accuse, with justification, a future President of suppressing free speech. Said future President supported and encouraged violence and the threat of violence to suppress dissent.

Sorry, Early Out, your assertions don't make it look any prettier.

[E-Sabbath]

Er, I think this is a matter of sentence parsing.

There can be a hypothetical past event. That is an event, hypotheized, that would, if it were true, have happened in the past.

There can also be a past hypothetical event. That would be an event that, in the past, had been hypotheized about.

There could also be an unknown past event, an event that is not known to be true, that would have happened in the past.

Right?

[Shade]

What would they do if someone had a sign saying "George Bush is articulate and fair-minded. No, really."?

Would you have to prove you weren't being sarcastic? Or just that you plausibly might not have been being sarcastic?

[Neurotik]

That would be the greatest protest sign of all time, Shade.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Mr. Moto
Said future President supported and encouraged violence and the threat of violence to suppress dissent.

Really?! That's quite a stretch. Are you asserting that, before the rally, Clinton met with some union supporters, and got them all pumped up to go out and beat up on some protesters? I'm sure I was paying attention at the time, but I don't remember that ever making the headlines.

In any event, I'll say it again, for clarity: What happened to you was shameful. It should not have happened in a country that values freedom of expression. But it had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the First Amendment. Even if Clinton had done what you've accused him of (and I don't buy it for a second), it would still not have anything to do with the First Amendment. There was no governmental action involved.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Libertarian
A and Not A cannot coexist in any possible world. What do you mean? Jethro Tull DID win a Grammy for Hard Rock/Heavy Metal.

[Mr. Moto]

I believe my original point is that a free speech zone would have been an improvement.

Democratic organizers in Pennsylvania often use union thugs as muscle. If you like, I'll put the blame on them.

[Liberal]

Atarian pecked:

How about addressing the rest of my points.I'm reminded of a scene from Funny Farm.

Andy Farmer has written the first few chapters of possibly history's worst novel, The Great Heist. He gave his wife, Elizabeth, those chapters as an anniversary present. He asked her to read them. Right then and there as they sat in their motel room.

She started reading. He went to get champagne.

When he returned, he queried her excitedly. "What did you think?" he asked, oblivious to her expression of dread. "Wait!" he exclaimed, and poured some champagne, finally settling down. "Well?"

Elizabeth fought back tears. Andy seemed puzzled, "What, you didn't like it?" He proceeded to point out passages that he was sure were remarkably brilliant.

She began to cry. "But in the first few pages alone," she mourned, "you have three flashbacks, two flash forwards, and I think a flash sideways. It's horrible!"

"But," stammered Andy, "what about the story?"

Her frustration welled fully ebullient. She creased her eyebrows and formed her face into an expression of desperate pleading. Her lip quivered as she stared at him incredulously. She blurted out through her copious tears in a trembling and squeaky voice.

"The story?"

So, to answer your question, I would reply "Your points?"

[Homebrew]

Lib, you might be being a tad pedantic on this point. Surely you recognize Max meant an "incident that is alleged to have occured at some point in the past" when he requested a cite.

You're usually above petty semantic nitpicking. Why stoop to that level now?

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Libertarian
The right to speak, just as with any right, accrues to ownership. It is the owner of the property where you stand who will tell you what you can and cannot say, irrespective of any scribbles from ancient documents. In the case of so-called public property, ownership is held by those with the greatest political clout.Let no one be confused here: Libertarian isn't protesting the notion that the right to speak is tied to ownership of real property. He's for that.

He's only against the existence of public property that allows for the possibility of free speech for the rest of us. And for some reason, he sees it as an essential flaw in our system that free speech rights on public property are less than perfectly maintained.

[Miller]

When the hell did Libertarian and The Ryan switch brains? And is anyone ever going to take Lib seriously now that he admits to not only watching Chevy Chase films, but to being able to quote them at length?

[Liberal]

Homebrew wrote:

You're usually above petty semantic nitpicking. Why stoop to that level now?Unfortunately, I had to in order to communicate with the gentleman. His outrageous demand for a cite (in the Pit, no less) for a person's (now several persons') memory deserved the scorn it received.

-----

RT brayed:

Let no one be confused here: Libertarian isn't protesting the notion that the right to speak is tied to ownership of real property. He's for that.Not necessarily real property. This site, for example, is owned by the Chicago Reader, to whom all rights with respect to it accrue. It is merely a fact. Note, for example, how recent attempts at mutiny failed.

He's only against the existence of public property that allows for the possibility of free speech for the rest of us.The rest of you? Are you homeless? Did you sign a lease with one of your hypothetical madmen? Is it okay by you if one of the White Supremecists from Stormfront comes into your home to spout racial epithets? Why not? Why should you have the right to determine what's said in your home?

Is my fucking wallet yours? What the hell makes you think you're entitled to the fruit of my labor? Kiss my red ass. If anything is offensive around here, it is that lascivious propensity toward socialism and arbitrary entitlement by champions of oppression.

And for some reason, he sees it as an essential flaw in our system that free speech rights on public property are less than perfectly maintained.That is not the flaw. That is merely one manifestation of the flaw. The flaw is tyranny.

-----

Miller wrote:

And is anyone ever going to take Lib seriously now that he admits to not only watching Chevy Chase films, but to being able to quote them at length?Just wait 'till I start quoting Dude Where's My Car?. Shibby.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Unfortunately, I had to in order to communicate with the gentleman. His outrageous demand for a cite (in the Pit, no less) for a person's (now several persons') memory deserved the scorn it received.

Jesus, not this again. For the umpty-umpteenth time, posting in the Pit is not a blank check to spout unsubstantiated accusations. If you make a claim about a public or political figure or organization, expect people to ask you to back it up. Asking for a cite of a person's memory is not outrageous. For example, if I said, "Hey, Lib, I remember one time you posted a thread about how much you hated Jews and black people," I would fully expect someone to ask me for a cite to prove that you said those things. The fact that I have (or claim to have) a memory that they happened is not enough. You've been here longer than me, Lib, you ought to know that by now.

Not necessarily real property. This site, for example, is owned by the Chicago Reader, to whom all rights with respect to it accrue. It is merely a fact. Note, for example, how recent attempts at mutiny failed.

Mutiny? Beggin' yer pardon, Cap'n Bligh, but what mutiny would that be? Got a cite?

Is my fucking wallet yours? What the hell makes you think you're entitled to the fruit of my labor? Kiss my red ass. If anything is offensive around here, it is that lascivious propensity toward socialism and arbitrary entitlement by champions of oppression.

I only quoted this to point out the irony in telling somebody to kiss your "red" ass for being a socialist.

[Baldwin]

Lib, please keep in mind that my OP deals with simple, old-fashioned 1st Amendment type protesting, in public space. (Public space includes sidewalks in front of private businesses; basically anwhere that it's normally legal to walk without having to get permission.) You may be unhappy with the concept of public property maintained with the money the evil government sucks out of your wallet, but it is in fact a fairly well-established legal reality. Private property rights have no bearing on the activities described in the column to which I linked.

Nobody wants you to have to submit to having Bad People come in your house and say Bad Things. I think we're all agreed on that.

[Klaatu]

Well actually Miller, the Pit IS the place to "spout unsubstantiated accusations".

Whether anyone believes or gives a flying fuck about them is a different story. Cites are not required, but uncited bullshit is of course subject to ridicule and derision, as the case may be.

Wow, isn't that the whole fucking point of the Pit? <smack> Duh!

[Liberal]

Miller said:

If you make a claim about a public or political figure or organization, expect people to ask you to back it up.December never made such a claim.

His claim was about a "practice" that was a news event many years ago. The only possible cite would be a news clipping from before the time when most news agencies had WWW sites. The best you could hope for is a link to a site where someone else remembered it. Therefore, the demand for a cite was outrageous.

December was attacked, in my opinion, for no reason other than that he was perceived as eminently attackable. An easy target. Someone who is unpopular among liberals for his political views. The object of several Pit threads.

He was judged solely by his "reputation", to wit: "I mean, come on man, you know that you have a reputation as being anti-Clinton." — MaxTheVool (10-18-2002 12:17 AM)

Therefore, the demand for a cite was snipish and cowardly.

And in fact, cites were offered in the form of personal memories from four people, including a testimony of personal experience, and a link that proved the existence of so-called "Free Speech Zones" during the Clinton administration.

-----

Baldwin wrote:

Nobody wants you to have to submit to having Bad People come in your house and say Bad Things. I think we're all agreed on that.Well, hasn't fortune smiled on me! And fortunate, too, for our women that nobody wants gang rape, I reckon.

[Shade]

Originally posted by Neurotik
That would be the greatest protest sign of all time, Shade.

Wow, thanks.

[Miller]

December never made such a claim.

In fact, he did. The OP complained about a sitting president using his Secret Service guys to restrict freedom of speech. This is, to a lot of people, a Very Bad Thing. december said Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing. I, for one, am not going to take the word of some random internet stranger on something like that. I'm certainly not going to take december's word on it.

His claim was about a "practice" that was a news event many years ago. The only possible cite would be a news clipping from before the time when most news agencies had WWW sites.

Assuming Max didn't know of the event (a plausible assumption, else why ask for a cite?), how on God's Green Earth was he supposed to know it happened eight years ago?

The best you could hope for is a link to a site where someone else remembered it. Therefore, the demand for a cite was outrageous.

No, it wasn't. And it still isn't. Surprisingly, there's a whole lot of information on the internet that is <gasp> more than eight years old! Look: The War of 1812! (http://www.multied.com/1812/) The sinking of the Titanic! (http://www.titanic1.org/) Bill Clinton doing exactly what december said he did! (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36f675cb3f2b.htm) Isn't the internet just jim-dandy?

December was attacked, in my opinion, for no reason other than that he was perceived as eminently attackable. An easy target. Someone who is unpopular among liberals for his political views. The object of several Pit threads.

He was judged solely by his "reputation", to wit: "I mean, come on man, you know that you have a reputation as being anti-Clinton." — MaxTheVool (10-18-2002 12:17 AM)

Therefore, the demand for a cite was snipish and cowardly.


Okay, first, he wasn't attacked. He was asked (fairly politely, all thing considered) if he would, for once in his career here at the SDMB, provide a reliable cite for the claims he makes. He was not called names, he was not shouted down, or ignored, he was asked for a cite for his claims. This is not an attack. Considering how relentlessly hostile you are around here, I'd expect you to know the difference.

Secondly, in case you haven't been paying attention, december isn't hugely popular with conservatives, either. Mostly for his habit of making unsupported (or unsupportable) claims, or by savagely distorting his sources to support his particular agenda. I don't think it's the least bit outrageous to not take what he says at face value. This has nothing to do with prejudicial politics, it has to do with december reaping what he has sowed.

And in fact, cites were offered in the form of personal memories from four people, including a testimony of personal experience, and a link that proved the existence of so-called "Free Speech Zones" during the Clinton administration.

Cites and testimony which were provided after you acted like an asshole to MaxtheVool. Couldn't you have just siad, "No, december is right, I remember it too?" Maybe provided the link yourself? Naw, 'cause then you would have passed up the opportunity to call someone a fartwit. Who cares about fighting ignorance, when there are gratuitous insults to be made?

Incidentally, do you realize that you started your last post by saying Max was an asshole for asking for a cite no one could possibly give him, and ended it by saying he's an asshole because somebody gave him the cite anyway? What was that you were saying earlier about "A and Not A"?

Still wonderin' about that "mutiny"...



Klaatu: Okay, point taken. I suppose you're not technically required to proved cites in Great Debates, either. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously without them, either here or in GD. At any rate, whining that "It's the pit! I don't haveta provide cites!" is pretty spineless.

[Klaatu]

Agreed Miller, and apologies for the somewhat derisive tone of that post I made.

[december]

Dear critics -- I have no problem with your requesting a cite, although your requests might have been a tad more polite. My understanding of The Pit is that observations and memories without cites are not inappropriate. My point was clearly labeled"IIRC". A cite would be nice, but it isn't required in this forum. I apprecite all those who provided information tending to confirm what I remembered.

Some of you seem to have criticized my post without fully reading it. MaxTheVool implicitly complained that I was not "outraged at the invasion of liberty [by Bush]," even though my post had had already called that action "appalling." Miller misrepresented my post, changing "a similar practice" into "exactly the same thing."

I really don't see that you folks had cause for this degree of excitement and hostility.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by december
Dear critics -- I have no problem with your requesting a cite, although your requests might have been a tad more polite.

Apparently, when december says that he has "no problem" with requests for a cite, he means that he still won't provide one to back up his offhand assertions.

[MaxTheVool]

(a) Miller, thanks for getting my back in such a rational and articulate fashion

(b) just for the record, this link (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36f675cb3f2b.htm) that Miller found does, in fact, describe almost exactly the same thing being done by the Clinton administration. Allow me to express my belated outrage. Grrrr! Damn those Clintonistas!!!!

(c) as for the initial tone of my post, whether it was appropriate to ask for a cite, and whether I was attacking December simply because of his political views, well, it's not quite that simple. Rightly or wrongly, December has a reputation on the SDMB as someone who holds conservative views, is incredibly vocal about them, and plays a tad fast and loose with the evidence to back them up. I'm not saying that there's any justification for that reputation... suffice it to say that that reputation exists. (Anyone want me to provide a cite?)

Given that, if he authors a post like the one that started this tiff, even if (as in this case), he is 100% correct, there's a good chance that people will ignore him or dismiss his post, simply due to his reputation. Which, at least in this case, would be a shame.

Perhaps we should start referring to him as "the boy who cried Clinton"...

(d) one other thing... December, upon rereading my first post, I see that I did in fact imply that you weren't outraged. That was poor wording on my part, for which I apologize. Please replace "be outraged" with "post something describing your outrage" in my original post...

[Liberal]

Miller wrote:

In fact, he did. The OP complained about a sitting president using his Secret Service guys to restrict freedom of speech. This is, to a lot of people, a Very Bad Thing. december said Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing. I, for one, am not going to take the word of some random internet stranger on something like that. I'm certainly not going to take december's word on it.Setting the record straight

Obviously. What you certainly are going to do, and have done, is take December's word and modify it. Here is what december said:

"I find this appalling. IIRC a similar practice was followed by Clinton, but that doesn't excuse Bush." — Emphasis mine

Your fabrication is that December "said Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing." — Emphasis mine

Before your knee slaps your forehead, I would ask you to consider that this is no semantic nitpick. He said "similar"; you said "exactly".

Moreover, he prefaced his remark with IIRC, which is an acronym meaning "If I recall correctly". He was offering his own recollection. Again, unless you make a complete mush of the language, his own recollection is not a claim of fact, but of memory.

So, the only thing we have so far is December saying that he believes he remembers a similar circumstance with Clinton. Note also that he went out of his way to condemn the circumstance involving Bush. He called it "appalling", and said that any similarity to what he was recalling "doesn't excuse Bush".

How the gentleman could possibly have been more fair, polite, and reasonable can hardly be imagined.

The pile-on begins

But that was not suitable to you and your ilk. Just as you yourself have isolated, identified, and tagged December as someone whose word is worthless (see quote above), so did Early Out waste no time in eagerly beginning the assault on December. An assault, not on the theme of December's post, but on its penumbra.

Early Out wrote:

"For the love of God, december, let it go!"

Let what go? His opinion that it was appalling? No. His opinion that Bush is not excused? No. Early Out appealed to God's love as what ought to motivate December to let go his recollection of a similar circumstance with Bill Clinton.

That was salvo number one from the December Haters.

Salvo number two began with MaxTheVool. A man asking for a cite, even when he has ignored the claim of recollection, and presumes it as a statement of fact, might post only MaxTheVool's first line, which was:

"Cite?"

But that's not where MaxTheVool stopped. His next line was a shot aimed directly at the man behind the post, and his reputation. It was:

"I mean, come on man, you know that you have a reputation as being anti-Clinton."

He then proceeded to list what would have been acceptable and unacceptable responses from December. Nevermind the fact that MaxTheVool lacks any authority whatsoever with regards to what is acceptable and what is not. Disregard that his judgment on that matter is worthless.

He proceeded to do what you have done and rephrase what December said to suit himself. He wrote:

"(4) randomly say "Clinton did it too" with absolutely no cite or evidence {bad bad BAD BAD DECEMBER}" — Original quotes left intact

Once again, what December actually said was that he seemed to recall a similar thing happening with Clinton.

It is clear to me that MaxTheVool smelled blood. He saw that Early Out had already begun the December pile-on, and he took this as his cue. He deliberately decided to kick the man who lay on the sidewalk, and he delighted in doing it. He took his time to compose a post complete with enumerated points, the whole of which was designed for the sole purpose of bashing December.

I sensed this pile-on beginning and decided to come to December's aid. I offered that I recalled it as well. Subsequently, CJHoworth likewise recalled it. Mr. Moto testified that he had had an anti-Clinton sign torn from his hands. Larry Mudd offered a link to a story that at the very least ought to have clued you in that our recollections were possibly true.

And now the aftermath

Even Early Out himself now took pause, and expressed regret that Mr. Moto had been subjected to Clinton's harassment.

But MaxTheVool pressed on. Realizing that the man he had kicked now has defenders, he began flailing about with irrelevant non sequiturs, straw men, and pleadings that he never claimed Clinton was perfect. He even dismissed Mr. Moto's testimony as "only somewhat relevant".

Only now has he admitted of "exactly the same thing being done by the Clinton administration", and has fashioned one of those famous qualified apologies along the lines of I'm sorry IF I offended you. He is first grateful merely that you had his back.

Shame on you for revelling in the admiration of muggers whom you have defended and wooed with your dispassionate revisionism.

I disagree with December as much as anyone. But I do not automatically distrust his word any more than I do yours. And I certainly do not seek him out for no reason other than to jump his bones while others secure his arms.

The lot of you owe December an unqualified apology.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Early Out wrote:

"For the love of God, december, let it go!"

Let what go?

His obsession with Bill Clinton. The man's been out of office for almost two years. What I was saying was, "Get on with your life, december."

Besides that, the actions of this administration deserve to be judged on their own merit. The assertion that "Clinton did it, too," doesn't make these actions any more or less proper.

Originally posted by Libertarian

Even Early Out himself now took pause, and expressed regret that Mr. Moto had been subjected to Clinton's harassment.

Wrong again. I expressed regret that Mr. Moto had been roughed up by some overenthusiastic supporters of Clinton. I categorically reject Mr. Moto's suggestion that his mistreatment was caused by, or condoned by, Clinton. His suggestion that having union members beat up protesters is a standard Democratic tactic ("Democratic organizers in Pennsylvania often use union thugs as muscle.") is offensive, and isn't supported by any evidence that anyone has taken the time to cite.

[Baldwin]

Probably I should have started this thread in Great Debates instead of the Pit.

[Liberal]

Early Out

So what if he's obsessed with Bill Clinton!? You're obsessed with December. Why don't you let it go, man?

And stop lying about what December said. Both his actual words and your fabrications are a matter of record.

[december]

Originally posted by Early Out
Besides that, the actions of this administration deserve to be judged on their own merit. The assertion that "Clinton did it, too," doesn't make these actions any more or less proper.Funny, that's exactly what I said.

However, for the sake of understanding the problem, there's value to determining whether it's a longer-term, systematic problem with the Presidency and/or Secret Service or whether it's something specific to Bush.

[Some Guy]

So, then, anybody know if Bush Sr. did the same?

Just to add to the whole hijack-what-swallowed-the-thread, back when Clinton was a candidate, he appeared at a high school in Atlanta about two days before the election. I can testify as fact that anti-Clinton signs were being confiscated, even outside the reasonable boundaries of the event.

OTOH, I also attended a Clinton appearance a couple of years later, with a fair number of friends who were anarchists (this being my radical phase), and despite having anti-gummint signs and handouts, we basically got ignored, despite being inside the event. It was actually pretty disappointing at the time.

Both of these incidents are anecdotal, of course.

[Early Out]

I'm so embarrassed. Once again, december has successfully pulled off the trick that stage magicians refer to as "misdirection." And I fell for it, along with several others. He must be sitting up there in Jersey, laughing his ass off. Credit where credit is due: the guy is really good at it.

Baldwin started a thread about whether or not the Bush administration is systematically violating free speech guarantees. Now, december clearly doesn't like having anyone say anything disparaging about the people he supports (after all, who does?), so what does he do? Offer some kind of evidence that the administration isn't doing what Baldwin says? No, he tosses out an offhand remark about Clinton having perhaps done something similar. In short order, no one in the thread is still paying any attention to the alleged misfeasance of the Bush administration, but is, instead, engaged in a pissing contest about what may or may not have happened several years ago.

To be fair, december did say that if the Bush administration is doing what Baldwin has said they're doing, it's appalling, and should be stopped. But including the Clinton aside in his remarks is a bit like wrapping a lovely poem around a lit cherry bomb - no one notices the poem.

Well done, december! In the immortal words of the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

[MaxTheVool]

OK, I'm going to try to make my point one more time and we'll see what happens. I'm not going to try to give a point-by-point response to Libertarian because, quite frankly, I don't have the energy. Plus, he's someone who gets his panties bunched up when someone uses the phrase "hypothetical past event". 'nuff said. If he wants to claim victory because of this, more power to him.


So here's my point: December has quite a reputation. That doesn't mean the reputation is justified. It doesn't mean that I personally think December is a bad person, or a dumb person, or a person whose views are wrong. But that reputation exists.

Given that reputation, there's a likelihood that statements he makes about Clinton will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as "just more December". Honestly, if that happens, it's no skin off my back. If December wants to continue to occupy the role he does, hey, that's his choice. But I find it frustrating, as someone who respects the level of passion that December brings to the SDMB, that so much of it is wasted in apparent "drive by" Clinton bashing that when he does have a valid point to make, it is likely to get lost in the tussle.


I hope I'm not coming off too condescending here, because goodness knows I'm neither a respected senior doper or someone who sets guidelines of any sort.

(One final note: I think it's a bit sad that we've almost forgotten the original topic, namely, how frickin' outrageous and heinous a violation of first amendment rights the OP describes, in this december/cite hijack.)

[Liberal]

Early Out wrote:

But including the Clinton aside in his remarks is a bit like wrapping a lovely poem around a lit cherry bomb - no one notices the poem.I noticed the poem, and I am not no one. But you perceived a cherry bomb when there was nothing but a puff of air.

-----

MaxTheVool wrote:

Given that reputation, there's a likelihood that statements he makes about Clinton will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as "just more December".I would ask for a cite about the likelihood declaration, but then I'd be a jackass.

But if there is such a likelihood, then there might be a likelihood that statements you make about December will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as "just more December bashing". A reputation is as a reputation does.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally posted by Libertarian

But if there is such a likelihood, then there might be a likelihood that statements you make about December will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as "just more December bashing". A reputation is as a reputation does.

A reasonable point. Which is why I've been going out of my way to be clear that I'm not making statements of the form "December is ____" or "December thinks _____" or "we should think ____ about ____ because December said ____ about it". I found December's first post irritating partially due simply to its content, but mainly due to its context given his reputation. And I tried to steer clear from personal attacks entirely.

[Liberal]

Hint: a person's reputation is a part of him.

[Larry Mudd]

Holy crap! How did this thread, which started out as a rant about a serious abridgement of Americans' right to freedom of expression, turn into a thread about december?

Leaving aside the issues in OP, which are obviously of no concern to anyone anyway, I'd like to say that I can't find any fault with december's contribution to this thread.

Sure, the man's views are far from popular around here- I often (okay, usually,) take exception to them myself. That being said, I admire the courage of his convictions and I'm glad that he has the patience (or bullheadedness) required to stick around when he's treated so poorly by some Dopers. Vigorous debate is good. Automatically attacking someone because they're on a list of people you hold a grudge against is a pinheaded thing to do, regardless of whether that person is a former head-of-state or a member of message board that you use.

The man made a perfectly valid observation in a perfectly acceptable way-- this sort of thing is not unique to the GWB administration. If you didn't know that before, you owe december a debt of gratitude. At the very least, if you've reflexively attacked the man for no good reason at all, you owe him an apology.

What's so offensive about pointing out that Clinton wasn't a saint? Sure, I'd sleep better at night if he, (or a trained monkey) were in the Oval Office instead of the lunatic who is sitting there now, but Clinton had a little evil on him, too, remember? He helped to ram NAFTA through, which, along with a hundred other horrible things, means that my heating bill jumped nearly 250% in 2000, forcing me to switch to electric heat or stop buying food. The Clinton administration is only a cunt-hair less conservative than the Bush administration.

Please excuse my drifting off-topic.

Go ahead, resume your ad hominum ad nauseum.

December, Libertarian, while politically we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, allow me to say that I deeply sympathize with y'all, and I look forward to the day when all Dopers conform to the supposed Doper ideal -- that people are judged on the strength of their arguments, rather than on the basis of partisan bullshit.

[december]

A book written by Patrick Halley, a Clinton advance man, tells how he routinely employed "goon squads" to intimidate protesters and quash anti-Clinton demonstrations (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/10/21/02147). This is according to yesterday's right-wing Newsmax.com. It should be noted that Halley totally supports Hillary. An Amazon reviewer said of him, "I have never seen anyone else say such positive things about Hillary in such a convincing way."

The Newsmax article appears to be based on a combination of Halley's book and statements Halley made during interviews. The article says: A Democratic Party political operative who worked for eight years as an advance man for Hillary Clinton has revealed that he routinely employed "goon squads" to intimidate protesters and quash anti-Clinton demonstrations.

"Less genteel souls sometimes referred to them as goon squads," writes Patrick Halley in his new book "On the Road with Hillary." "But I objected to that term. I was proud of the fact that not one of them had ever been arrested," he boasts.

Halley said he prefers the term "etiquette squad" to describe the Clinton goon squads, but he admitted that "they could certainly be intimidating if the occasion called for it."...

Halley revealed that whenever an anti-Hillary protest looked likely, he'd "sprinkle" the Clinton goons throughout the crowd, "so there was always someone able to respond quickly."

The Clinton campaign "never advocated physical confrontation and always insisted that the etiquette squad stay within the boundaries of the law," he claimed.

But in the next breath Halley confessed, "Sadly, but inevitably, things sometimes got a little frisky, but my recruits knew how to handle themselves."

The Clinton operative recalled that one etiquette squad "had come from the longshoreman's union, and I had heard rumors that they had been very adamant about defending themselves when set upon by protesters."

Rumors of Clinton operatives roughing up both reporters and protesters during Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign were legion, but the mainstream press declined to cover the assaults.

One such altercation took place as Mrs. Clinton marched in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade during the campaign. The scene was described moments later by Metro Network News reporter Glenn Schuck, who assumed that rogue Secret Service agents had been responsible for the thug-like tactics:

"Secret Service agents literally are pushing press to the ground. They just lost their minds, in my opinion," Schuck told WABC Radio's Sean Hannity.

"I mean they just started pushing and shoving; female camera people five feet tall were getting thrown to the ground, cameras flying. Myself, I was grabbed by the shoulder, I was thrown back over. I think somebody from Channel 11 landed on my back. From that point it really didn't get any better."

A few days after Schuck's report, a caller to WOR Radio's Bob Grant Show reported that she and her family were also accosted by the Clinton goons along the parade route.Today's Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/22/182250) recounted a similar episode during a different parade.The incident took place at New York City's Israeli Day parade at the height of Mrs. Clinton's 2000 campaign for the Senate, where, by all accounts, the-then first lady was roundly booed by the crowd as she stoically marched from block to block.

A member of the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com, dressed for the occasion as the Devil, joined the crowd to add his voice to the protest. He recounted the episode Tuesday:

"To suppress opposing views in the crowd the Clinton campaign had people on both sides of the street walking the route with Hillary - but behind the barriers. They were carrying professionally printed pro-Clinton signs."

"Before she passed," he recalled, "they shoved me back and got in front of me, holding their signs in front of mine. However, my signs had a 3 foot handle and I raised them up."

At that point, recounts the FreeRepublic protester, "I was poked in the eye by a finger inserted to the eyehole in my mask."

[Mtgman]

Re: Goon Squads.

Bust them up with legitimate law enforcement officers. Protect the protesters who are exercising their constitutional right to peacably protest. If the protesters get violent, they get busted by law enforcement as well. Carefully select/instruct your law enforcement officers so they don't try to take the law into their own hands or react in a professional capacity to something that is offensive to them personally. Violence, or the immediate threat of violence, is the only thing they're there to prevent.

It should be noted, however, that goon squads, however deplorable, are not the type of clear censorship that "free speech zones" are. In the case of goon squads, I blame the law enforcement officers for not supressing the goons just as I would if they failed to supress violent protesters. In the case of "Free Speech Zones" I blame the policymakers for violating the constitutionally protected right to peacably protest in public.

You're talking apples and oranges here. They produce the same net effect, silencing the protestor, but one is an illegal act which is hidden by the anonymonity of the goon, the other is an illegal act which is being passed off as law. I regret the existance of goon squads, but I feel sure the law is on my side opposing them to support my right of peaceful protest. If I oppose the "Free Speech Zones" then suddenly I'm on the wrong side of the law. Peaceful protest is, by definition in the constitution, not illegal. Any policy which sets up a "Free Speech Zone" is abhorrent, moreso, to me at least, than the use of goons because it pretends to be law.

Enjoy,
Steven

[december]

I won't debate which form of censorship is worse; they're both wrong.

However, Mtgman, your remedy of using legitimate law enforcement officers looks too idealistic. The squad was working on behalf of the wife of the President -- "the most powerful man in the world." IMHO these incidents show is that as a practical matter, the President has the power to silence dissent by means of "etiquette squads." How can a mere policeman interfere with the President's or First Lady's guards?

[Baldwin]

I guess I'm an idealist; I would love to see a city police department stand up to the Secret Service, including arresting agents for interfering with the civil rights of citizens. Has anything like that ever happened? It seems like often the local police are only too happy to help.

If the story from Newsmax is accurate, then Hillary Clinton is to blame. Whatever else she is, she isn't stupid, and there's no excuse for either not knowing this was going on, or knowing about it and approving. I'd like to see criminal charges come out of this.

But it does seem worse to me that the current administration is violating constitutional rights all over the place, blatantly, and pretending it's legal.

[Mtgman]

Let's look at the scenario from your cite earlier. A member of the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com, dressed for the occasion as the Devil, joined the crowd to add his voice to the protest. He recounted the episode Tuesday:

"To suppress opposing views in the crowd the Clinton campaign had people on both sides of the street walking the route with Hillary - but behind the barriers. They were carrying professionally printed pro-Clinton signs."

"Before she passed," he recalled, "they shoved me back and got in front of me, holding their signs in front of mine. However, my signs had a 3 foot handle and I raised them up."

At that point, recounts the FreeRepublic protester, "I was poked in the eye by a finger inserted to the eyehole in my mask."Now let's make a few assumptions. The FR protestor did not try to push, shove, or otherwise use physical force or immediately threaten violence(fighting words) against the goon squad who was marching along with Hillary Clinton. The FR protestor simply stood his ground and held the signs higher so they could be seen above the signs carried by the goons.

To gouge the eyes of the protestor would be unprovoked assault. If a member of this goon squad was, in actuality, a member of the Secret Service and represented themselves as such, then press for assault charges before they could blink. If they were SS agents disguised as normal people then I would have defended action on the part of the protestor to defend themselves through the use of their own force.

The point here is that even if the person trying to supress my right to protest IS a member of the VIP's group, they have no force of law behind their actions and, if they're supposed to be an agent of law, then they must keep their identity secred. If I were protesting along the route of Hillary Clinton, then I am perfectly justified, and in the right, both legally and morally in defending myself. I was doing no wrong by legal standards. The goons who were trying to silence me have to silence me and any law enforcement officer who happens to be nearby and does their duty. I've got the law on my side here.

Now the policies laid down to establish "free speech zones" put the law on the side of the goon. More than that, they turn the law enforcement officer, who was previously on my side, into the goon.

I assert that perverting the law in a manner which is clearly a violation of the constitution is a larger offense than the, also reprehensible, employment of goon squads.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mtgman]

Just like to add some more clarification to my last statement.

I assert that perverting the law in a manner which is clearly a violation of the constitution is a larger offense than the, also reprehensible, employment of goon squads. The primary difference is that by perverting the law, you have taken recourse away from the citizen. If I am illegally supressed by a goon squad, I can seek help from law enforcement. If I am illegally supressed by the law, I have only civil disobedience to fall back upon. While this may be the right thing to do it is simply wrong to force citizens into this position when the "supreme law of the land" is so clear on the issue.

Enjoy,
Steven

[RexDart]

I've seen Bush speak, when he was a candidate. The event took place in an airport hanger, after he landed. There were protestors, anti-Bush people, outside the hanger that were not allowed in. I am glad they weren't let in. Myself and many, many others waited in lines, passed through security, and fought our way closer to the front so that we could see and hear Bush. The protestors outside were chanting and making a ruckus. Isn't it fair to those of us who went to hear Bush speak that we were allowed to do so without interference from his opposition? If they wanted to hear him, they could have put down the signs and gone in with the rest of us. They'd rather chant inane slogans, so stay out where you aren't ruining my chance to hear and see a presidential candidate. Seems fair to me.

Demonstrators should restrict themselves to places where they won't interfere with everyone else. To do anything else is disrespectful to the person who is making the public appearance (especially in a place such as I live, where important government officials almost never visit, being rudely harassed isn't likely to inspire a return trip someday) and also disrespectful to the people who came to enjoy the speech and see the speaker.

[RexDart]

I've seen Bush speak, when he was a candidate. The event took place in an airport hanger, after he landed. There were protestors, anti-Bush people, outside the hanger that were not allowed in. I am glad they weren't let in. Myself and many, many others waited in lines, passed through security, and fought our way closer to the front so that we could see and hear Bush. The protestors outside were chanting and making a ruckus. Isn't it fair to those of us who went to hear Bush speak that we were allowed to do so without interference from his opposition? If they wanted to hear him, they could have put down the signs and gone in with the rest of us. They'd rather chant inane slogans, so stay out where you aren't ruining my chance to hear and see a presidential candidate. Seems fair to me.

Demonstrators should restrict themselves to places where they won't interfere with everyone else. To do anything else is disrespectful to the person who is making the public appearance (especially in a place such as I live, where important government officials almost never visit, being rudely harassed isn't likely to inspire a return trip someday) and also disrespectful to the people who came to enjoy the speech and see the speaker.

[december]

Originally posted by Mtgman
To gouge the eyes of the protestor would be unprovoked assault.... If they were SS agents disguised as normal people then I would have defended action on the part of the protestor to defend themselves through the use of their own force. I hate to break the news to you, Mtgman, but your defence (or mine) of protestors' use of force against the First Lady's guards wouldn't mean shit. If the President of the United States chooses this sort of governance, it would take some very powerful, very determined institutions to do anything about it.

Conceivably a unified media might do some good if they got good video and had the courage to broadcast it. But, ordinary people simply don't have the clout to make a difference.

[Mtgman]

I consider Ammendment 1 of the Constitution to be an adequate defense against this type of censorship. Remember my assumptions in the scenario. We're not talking about someone who picked a fight with the officer. If the President of the United States chooses this type of governance then he should be impeached. You CAN fight city hall. Giving up without even trying, citing that maxim is detestable.

For a quick primer on the rights of demonstrators, you can look here (http://www.aclunc.org/911/demonstrate.pdf)(this is a pdf file). Granted that we only have one side of the story in the case of the FreeRepublic agent, but if it's truthful, the goon should have been charged with assault, I don't give a fuck who he worked for. If he was a SS agent in plainclothes, he should be prosecuted for obeying an illegal order and whoever gave him that order should be prosecuted as well.

Too bad the President isn't coming to my town with such rules governing his visit. I'm not normally one for demonstrations or protests, but I'd find something to put on a Anti-Bush sign just to challenge the notion that you can restrict our First Ammendment rights to "Free Speech Zones".

Enjoy,
Steven

[Enderw24]

I'm looking through this thread for links to legitimate news sources that show these barrierss and arrests to be an actual occurance. I haven't found too many. The OP had a link but the amount of Bush bashing that took place before Free Speech Zones were even mentioned leads me to believe it wasn't an entirely unbiased source.

I'd like to show this information to my professor tomorrow. Where can I find out more?

[Siege]

I just thought I'd let you know that disorderly conduct charges against the man who was arrested for protesting outside a "Free Speech Zone" in Pittsburgh have been thrown out by a District Justice. Here's (http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021101protester3.asp) an article about it from the local newspaper.

It's nice to know that the Constitution still trumps those who are sworn to uphold it, regardless of which party they belong to.

CJ

[Mtgman]

What did I ever do to you Mr Hampster? Oh well, may as well try again. Here is an excerpt from the article so kindly cited by cj. Detective Thomas Ianachione testified that he had received orders from his department superiors and the U.S. Secret Service to keep demonstrators against Bush behind the fence of a baseball field of Neville Island Memorial Park.
...
Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Thomas Farrell, Ianachione said Neel [the protestor] did not raise his voice, never used profanity and did not threaten anyone.
...
Ianachione said he had no choice but to arrest Neel and confiscate his protest sign.This is what I'm pissed about. The policeman have become the goons. This is wrong on so many levels. I wish the case had gone further and the officer charged with obeying an illegal order and his superiors charged as well. This simply HAS TO STOP! I wonder if Bush is coming to my area any time soon.

Enjoy,
Steven