Four advocacy groups are joining in a lawsuit asking a federal judge to prevent the Bush administration’s practice of sytematically herding anti-Bush protesters into remote “free speech zones” (I thought the whole country was a free speech zone) during Bush appearances which are as much as a half-mile away from Bush.
The Secret Service is trying to hide behind security concerns as an excuse for this practice, and there is some merit to that justification provided that protesters and supporters are treated the same. This is not what’s being done. People with anti-Bush sign are being culled from areas where pro-Bush signs are allowed. The protesters are being discriminated against based purely on the content of their signs. If security was really the issue it would be a small matter for the would-be evil-doer to simply carry a pro-Bush sign, so that doesn’t really hold up a an excuse.
What this is really about is this administration’s pathological need to control any and everything they can about Shrub’s public image and appearances. They don’t want anti-Bush signs to be visible to TV cameras, it’s just that simple.
Is it permissible for the SS to herd anti-Bush protesters off into a corner (and off-camera) while letting the Bush lovers stand wherever they want? Will this lawsuit succeed? Should it?
On the face of it, this might seem obvious that all protestors must be treated the same. But, if the president is not violating the constitution by putting all protestors at bay, why is it not OK for him to chose (thru the Secret Service if necessary) with whom he chooses to associate? No one has a right to be within “x” feet of the president, do they? If not, does he not have the right to choose who can be within “x” feet of him?
Personally, I think this is bad practice, even if it is constitutional. But I don’t see it so cut and dry in terms of being unconstitutional.
No, no one has a right to be near the president, and No, he does not have the right to choose who can be near him on a public street. The SS has the right to take reasonable measures to ensure the protection of the individual in their care. This right trunps the public’s right to stand wherever the hell they want to stand. However, as DtC correctly states, a person with a “Buck Fush” sign is hardly any more of a danger to the current WH occupant than someone with a “Fellate Bush” sign. On a public street, both must be treated equally or their rights have been violated. Once on private property (or some federal properties I assume) the man can restrict to his heart’s content. Public land is public land, and he is a citizen of this nation, no better, no worse. I have no rights nor powers to determine who can be near me (without a court order), and neither does he.
This is not a partisan issue John Mace as much as you seem to want it to be. For once, just once, can one of our resident republicans just say “yeah, your right, that’s kinda shitty”? Just friggin once?
I have before, and I will again, but not this time.
What’s your complaint here? That Bush doesn’t have to witness the protests right before his eyes, as if that’s really gonna change his mind?
Waaaaah. He’s not obligated to watch a liberal circle-jerk, any more than you’re obligated to watch one of his speeches. You are obviously not his tagret audience, so he has no interest in your opinion. And that’s the truth.
Arthur Spitzer, ACLU legal advisor, as quoted in the linked article “The Bush administration has exceeded all past administrations in controlling camera angles and the public impression of the presidency.” The objection is to the manipulation of the president’s image, and the attempt to keep the protestors away from the media. Oftentimes the protestors are moved significant distances from the President, allowing them no opportunity to be recognized by the media or those attending Bush’s speech/event.
That’s right, he’s not obligated to watch a liberal circle-jerk. But he’s also not allowed - or at least, shouldn’t be allowed - to restrict what is said on public property, whether he wants to hear/see it or not.
Clearly the protestors are not Bush’s target audience. But as I explained above, not being seen by Bush is not the only objection the protestors have to this practice. As for him not being interested in the protestor’s opinions… he should be! He’s an elected official in a representative democracy, not some sort of dictator. I’ve contacted my Republican senator before. He responded politely, even though he disagrees. Certainly this is better than just plain not caring about the opinions of those who disagree?
It’s beyond shitty. It stinks so bad it could be a liberal policy. Indeed, it smacks a great deal of the sort of PC speech code rubbish that I had to deal with in college. Certain attitudes were permissable and others had to be hidden away from public view.
GWBush could not be more blatantly liberal if he tried with this policy. It screams “speech code” like a siren.
Did you read my post? I said I thought it was a bad idea for Bush to do this (although I don’t consider myself a “resident Pubbie”). I believe you are the one insinuating a political agenda where none exists. Chill out, man.
Here’s the way I see it. The Secret Service are obliged to keep a secure area around the pres, even in a public space. Sorry if you don’t like that. You do not have a “right” to walk up and touch the president. He may, if he chooses, say he wants to shake your hand and invite you over to do so. Is there a way to distinguish between that and what actually happened in the real event? I’m just saying I see a continuum of interaction, and it’s unclear where to draw the line.
Supposing the pres wants a photo op. He invites 5 pro-Bush demonstrators over to be photo’d with him. Are you saying he is constitutionally obligated to also invite 5 anti-Bush folks over for the photo?
The whole concept of “free-speech zones” strikes me as disturbingly Orwellian. As Bursey said in the linked article above, isn’t all of America meant to be a “free-speech zone”?
Color me deeply disappointed, though not especially surprised.
This has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns, and everything to do with herding people away from public streetcorners based purely upon the content of their speech.
As for President Bush’s right to association, beyond the heightened security concerns that a president requires, his rights shouldn’t be any different from mine or yours when it comes to public property.
If I can’t force people on a public sidewalk to move half a half mile away soley because they are holding up signs I don’t like, than neither should George W. Bush be able to.
But that’s the whole point. The president can keep people farther away from him in a public place than you can.
I would wait to see what the courts have to say about the specifics of the distance involved. Clearly the Secret Service can keep people a certain disance from the pres. Is 1/2 mile too much? I don’t know how the courts determine that. But once that limit is defined, I don’t see how you can say that the president can’t also choose to allow certain individuals to get closer. If the courts say he can only keep demostrators 100 feet away, would you say he can’t let a few supporters come closer for whaterver reason he might want?
This may seem somewhat like sophistry, but these are actually the kinds of questions judges will ask in these types of situations. If you can’t answer them, don’t expect to win your case.
I almost hate to ask, but Dogface, are you really saying that anything you don’t like is therefore “liberal”? You really like those Pit threads, do you?
Here’s the thing. He can avoid the circle jerks all he wants. But, if he’s traveling along a public street then he can either suspend ALL traffic and keep everybody away, or he can allow the public to peacefully assemble along the route. The selection criteria being applied to decide WHO may peacefully assemble along the route is in violation of a basic right. Free speech and equal protection under the law. He is not allowed to segregate the public as they stand along the route by having “zones” established for certain races, genders, ages, or disabilities is he?
Quite so. If the Bushiviks want to claim a “security issue” with a straight face, then they must keep all persons, regardless of the opinion they might be expressing, at an equal distance. Thats fair, just and equable.
What they absitively and posolutely must *not]/i] be allowed to get away with is setting up photo ops that show Our Leader surrounded by adoring subjects in unanimity.
Why must they not do the photo op? You need to offer more of a reason than “because I said so”.
Photo Ops happen all the time. What’s the diffence between President Clinton inviting his supporters to the White House for a photo op, and being out in public and inviting other of his supporters over for a photo op even if some of his detractors are hanging around, too?
John Mace,
I think what 'lucy was saying in elucidatorese was that the Bushistas should not be allowed to employ discriminatory and unconstitutional tactics in order to facilitate those photo ops. They are attempting to illegally manipulate crowds in order to present a false public image on television.
I agree that the president should not use uconstitutional means to control protestors. The article is a little vague on the details of whether or not this was done wholesale or on a smaller, selective basis.
However, it is not uncostitutional for the president to try to present a certain image to the public. If the president somehow forbid the photographers from taking pictures of anti-president protesters, that would be a problem. But just setting things up so that the president is near supporters isn’t the same thing. Any photographer worth her salt will snap the anti-president protesters as well.
Isn’t it common for police to keep opposite sides of a protest seperate to avoid viiolence? If that’s the case. what’s wrong with the president walking over closer to the pro- side than to the anti- side? I don’t see a constitutional issuer there.
Like I said in my first post, this is very nuanced, and not so obviously cut and dry as it might seem.