You should read the link in the OP. In the case there, Bush was touring the Treasury building in Philadelphia. It was not a RNC sponsored event. In any case, the last time I checked the Secret Service was not working for the RNC, but for the American people. There job is to keep the president safe, not to protect him from protest.
I’m not surprised about this. In the NY Times yesterday it was mentioned that Bush has said he never watches TV news, and only skims the headlines, depending on aides to give him news summaries. Do you think they include information about opposition? No wonder he is so out of touch.
Bush is making Richard Nixon look like an ACLU member. Nixon certainly avoided protesters, but I don’t remember him trying to pull a trick like this.
Oh, and I’ll say something nice about Mr. Bush. It is unlikely that he will ever get a heart attack from overwork.
This hypothetical scenario bears absolutely no resemblance to the situations mentioned in the suit. Educate yourself(PDF).
An invitation-only event held on formally reserved public property, or an event on private property, no. An event open to the public and taking place on public property? Bzzt. They most certainly DO have the right to protest at such an event and to be in all the same places the rest of the general public is allowed to be.
Prove it. Assertions don’t hold water when there is evidence to the contrary.
Specifically, prove that the people mentioned in the many cites posted to this thread were removed because of security issues, and not because of their political views.
And also, please provide insight into the gargantuan leap of logic that suggests that someone carrying an anti-Bush sign is immediately dangerous and must be moved a half-mile away, while someone carrying a pro-Bush sign is perfectly safe. Sounds like bullshit to me, frankly.
Ugly little strawman you’re propping up there. We’re not talking about riots or violent demonstrations, we’re talking about people holding signs. Why don’t you try arguing with the facts, rather than inventing them out of thin air?
There have been two posts to this thread that pointed out that a terrorist who wished to get close to Bush apparently needs only to be showing a pro-Bush sign to be considered safe under these “security” (yeah, right) measures. Anyone care to respond to that?
As I said, it doesn’t have to be either. The purpose can be to keep the anti-Bush sentiment out of the pro-Bush (or whatever) message.
I suspect that in reality, it’s a bit of all three.
Is that somehow less of a media event than a pro-Bush rally?
[sarcasm]Sure, and the police work for you, too. [/sarcasm] The Secret Service works the President’s security detail, so they’re at every public event the President attends. The mere fact that a Secret Service agent is the one telling the protesters to move along, and not a police officer, does not make his/her actions illegal.
How is that nice? This is all backhanded and no compliment.
Thanks for the tip on the legal terminology Age Quod Agis, it helped a good deal on my googling. I can’t say that it makes the argument for Bush’s actions any better. In fact it seems to fall squarely behind those who say it is an unnecessary infringement of free speech. The preseidents “right” to associate with whom he chooses, and the SS’s protective duties do not trump the public’s right to free speech in public fora. If you somehow read this differently, please let me know.
Is this debate? “Nu-uh. Here’s a cite that may or may not say something different.”
How are the situations different? How is my hypothetical inapplicable to the current situation? If you don’t know, please don’t waste my time hiding behind hyperlinks.
I think you’re confusing public property with a public forum. Streets, sidewalks, and public plazas are public forums, where people generally have the right to peaceably assemble. Government buildings, which are generally considered “public property,” are not public forums. The government can exclude people from government buildings, and protesters have no right to enter those buildings.
I love the way the argument keeps changing… and all without addressing the real issue! So, the reasoning for allowing pro-Bush demonstrators but ejecting anti-Bush demonstrators would be…?
Hiding behind a hyperlink? What kind of nonsense is that? I linked to the case, the actual court brief filed as a basis of the suit. How the hell is that non-responsive when it is used to counter made-up assertions about what the basis of the case is? You said “Same thing’s happening here.” and I linked to the document which describes what is happening in the case this whole thread is about. I also asserted it has absolutely no semblance to your hypothetical scenario. Do I have to summarize every single argument and present it on the SDMB for your convenience? Am I supposed to spoon-feed you? Is a reference to the actual source material somehow not good enough? It is only fifteen pages, with big type, generous margins, and double-spaced. For your reference, this thread, in printable view, viewing all posts together, is 29 pages.
Quit getting tied down into your hypothetical nitpickery and read the actual case. I think you’d be suprised at the facts contained therein. The case details very specific situations and very specific behavior. If you want to assert things like “this is what is happening” then it may be wise to check the source material in case it absolutely disagrees with your assertion. Please note that there are seventeen seperate incidents of discrimination cited in the suit. If it is your assertion that they all fit your description in your hypothetical situation then I would like to take this moment to formally request you demonstrate this. Hell, I’ll help you. I already provided a link to the suit, two situations are detailed therein and others are referenced by name and further detailed here. Now, with your newfound source material, show that the Republican supporters had exclusive rights to these venues, as a group who had reserved a public place for a private use would. Also please note that these occasions were not private events held on public property with reservations and invitations and such. These were public venues, used by public servants, to address the public. In at least one instance the protestors DID have a permit to protest along a motorcade route, but come the day of the motorcade they were moved down a couple of blocks to a place the motorcade would not even pass.
Good work on the cites, CTB. A couple of things, though.
“Content-based restrictions” and “content-neutral restrictions” don’t necessarily mean “without regard to content.” Typically, courts seem to ask whether the restriction serves a neutral purpose, or whether it is aimed at general suppression of that speech. Accordingly, if the KKK is parading through downtown Birmingham, the Birmingham City Council can refuse to grant the NAACP a parade permit on the same day because the content of their speech is at odds with the KKK’s, and may lead to a breach of the peace. However, the Birmingham City Council can’t deny the NAACP a parade permit because they don’t think African-Americans are entitlted to equal rights. In the pro-Bush rally example, the neutral purpose asserted will likely be either the President’s security, or maintaining the peace. It’s up to the judge as to whether either of those flies.
“Are reasonable, alternative channels of communication still available?” I think this one factors in favor of the Pres. Noone is telling the protesters they can’t protest at all, they’re just saying they have to protest somewhere else or some other time. An example of a statute that violated this tenant is a city ordinance that made it illegal to distribute fliers on city streets. The Court held that the ordinance didn’t leave reasonable alternatives, pointing out that the broad-based prohibition on flyers effectively left no alternatives.
“Is the restriction justified by a substantial government interest?” I would think the substantial interest advanced here is likely to be the security of the President. Again, I think the Courts are likely to rule in favor of the Pres on this one. Many have pointed out that a good way to get past the security measures is to act like a Bush supporter, but Courts typically show deference to the military in matters military, the executive in matters executive, and the legislature in matters legistlative. I think it’s pretty likely that they’ll defer to the Secret Service on the necessity and adequacy of matters relating to Presidential security. And I doubt any Judge wants to make Presidential security more lax, lest he be blamed for a successful assasination attempt.
“Is the restriction no broader than necessary to serve the government’s purpose? (Is it narrowly tailored)” Here’s where I think the regulation will run into trouble. It seems that whatever the interest – Presidential security or keeping the peace or unifying their message – the Pres’s methods are too broad. If the Secret Service is actually placing every protestor a mile and a half away from the site, then that just seems like overkill.
And I admire your steadfast determination that Bush must be doing something wrong. The reasons for ejecting protestors are the same as they were in the prior posts: Presidential security, maintaining the peace, and allowing whatever entity is speaking to set its own message.
What are you talking about? Did I not use the words “backhanded” and “compliment” in my prior post? Don’t blame me because you don’t know what a backhanded compliment is.
Maintaining the peace. Now I’d say it is up to you to show these protestors were disturbing the peace. All the articles and source documents I have seen indicate they were peacefully assembled, in accordance with their constitutional right. In fact the court case details one incident where the protesters were actually berated by one of the pro-Bush people who were allowed closer to the President than the protestors were. No mention of disorderly conduct on the part of the protestors. If you have evidence to the contrary I’d be interested in seeing it. Remember, seventeen seperate incidents were cited in the suit.
“[A]llowing whatever entity is speaking to set its own message.” Again, the burden of proof is on you to show the protestors were upstaging the speaker. They weren’t competing for the stage. They were mixed in with all the other members of the public audience. For the most part these events did not require reservations and in a couple of instances where a ticket or reservation was required, it was specifically mentioned that the groups had gotten the proper permits and tickets.
If you want a response, then you have to make arguments. Your prior post didn’t. It just said, “You’re wrong,” with a link. If it’s too much work for you to tell me why I’m wrong, then it’s too much work for me to tell you why I think I’m right.
“Kettle, thou art black.”
We’ve discussed at least 3 reasons to uphold Bush’s tactics, and instead of replying to any one of the reasons or their bases, you keep responding to an example. How about addressing the substance of the arguments? How about making an argument? I know you can do it because I’ve seen you do it in other forums.
See? That’s what I’m talking about. There’s an argument. Now, I could respond to you like this:
Or, I could point out what the link says, like this:
I have read your links and my example is applicable to the instances cited therein. For example, if you look on pages 11 and 12 of the ACLU’s brief to which you cite, you’ll see that 15 examples are provided. The brief never says that permits were obtained by the protestors. In fact, almost all of the rallies cited on those pages appear to be privately organized, and were being crashed by the protestors. For example, there are 8 Presidential/Vice-Presidential fundraisers. There is also a Presidential appearance at a labor rally, the St. Charles Family Area, and a local civic center, all of which seem to indicated private agendas. Third, most of the forums were not public (only 3 total – 2 at local parks, and one at Western Michigan University – were arguably public forums). So it’s certainly possible that my example didn’t fit all of the incidents in the ACLU’s brief, but I never said it did. In fact, my example fits most of the incidents complained of.
Even a cursory examination shows that the restriction is content based, and not content neutral.
I secluded area behind a chain link fence is not a “reasonable” alternative channel of communication when we compare it with what the Bush supporters get.
Peacefull protestors do not present any added threat to the President. A would be evildoer would only need to hold up a pro-bush sign, or no sign at all, to get in.
No substantial government interest is served by these restrictions, other than to squelch the speech of the anti-bush folk.
Can we at least dismiss the security aspects? To continue to assert that this is a reasonable justification seems a bit silly. Maybe if we can at least dismiss that one, we can all get a little closer to agreement.
Maintaining the peace is a reasonable justification, but it would seem that there would need to be some strong evidence to suggest that violence would result. Comparisons to GATT and other protests are unreasonable. While these did indeed come primarily from the left, it is not reasonable to place anti-Bush protesters in the same category just because they represent the same branch of the political spectrum. Both sides of the political spectrum have had violent outbreaks. There have been numerous protests against Bush and his policies, and violence has been rare to nonexistant.
Allowing whatever entity is speaking to set its own message is probably the weakest arguement. As has been pointed out, freedom to speak is not freedom to be heard. As long as it takes place on public grounds, Bush has only the right to say what he wants. He cannot in any way control what others around him are allowed to say.
As a side note to John Mace, my apologies for jumping on the partisan horse so quickly. In rereading the beginning of the thread, I recognize it was an incorrect understanding of your arguments. It is not generally my style. Blame it on having a newborn and being a bit sleep deprived.
It seems to me clearly that the Pro-Bush supporters and sign holders are paid by the Secret Service and therefore do not pose any danger to Bush… physical or mental. They have been approved by the Party as loyal followers. So the “separation” security wise is appropiate.
Come on guys... if Bush even discovers that people hate him he will have a reality shock and might die ! Do you want Cheney totally in power ? So be nice and stay behind the Greyhound buses or in the half a mile away sucker zone.
On a serious note thou... even from a rabid Shrub hater like myself... this seems clearly like the use of power and laws to put down dissent. Better keep everyone away or close for fairness sakes. Keep some cops in between the loyal and the dissenters to avoid signs become clubs and that should be fine.
Clearly this is not what America ever was about. If Bush wants to have approval ratings like Saddam had (90%+) then he should fake his elections more heavily too.
And that is one of his failures as has already been pointed out by other posters.
As and example. It seems to me that GW decided that Saddam’s government in Iraq is a problem. That’s OK. One way to find a solution is to explore various ways of neutralizing Saddam; getting rid of him by various methods including internal subversion, assassination, war, etc.; working to get an international effort to get rid of him; or other methods that I can’t think of at the moment.
Bush apparently didn’t explore any alternatives. He decided that war was the method and only explored means of waging war. His United Nations work was only in the context of getting support for a war, not how best to remove or neutralize Saddam.
So, not only am I not someone whose opinion he cares about, neither is anyone else who doesn’t fall in with a course that he has decided upon without much thought.
In my humble opinion GW is an immature, sophomoric ninny and mule-headed besides. Witness as just one example his “bring it on” statement which is typical of a Saturday afternoon beer bust comment down at the frat house. What sensible commander invites clandestine attacks on his own military?
It seems clear on the face of it that if pro-Bush protesters are allowed to be within, say, 100 yards of him in a public place, then anti-Bush protesters have the same right, absent any evidence that a specific protester, or group of protesters, poses a clear and present danger to the Presidential safety.
