Yes, and if the police did it it would be wrong also. First, there is NO security issue here. Maybe an anti-Bush protester could go crazy, but so could a pro-Bushie. If there were a danger from someone being too close, then everyone should be moved. Second, in a public event, funded no doubt by taxpayer money, Bush has no right to violate anyone’s constitutional rights for his pleasure.
So, tell me why do you like to spit on the Constitution?
You are correct, it is perfectly reasonable to exclude protesters from a public forum. However, if you read the link in the OP again, you’d see that the protesters were neither in the building or trying to enter the building. They were on the public sidewalk.
There have been protesters at rallies organized by both Republican and Democratic presidents. I don’t know of any cases where they were ordered to be moved - not even by Richard Nixon.
BTW, in this country at least, though you may require a permit to hold a parade, you don’t have to get a permit to hold up a sign.
It seems to me that the pro-Bush responses on this thread all seem to hinge on the removal of protestors as a legitimate security concern. And that argument simply dissolves when the point is brought up (as it has been – several times) that an assasin or other evildoer could get within range of Bush simply by hanging with the pro-Bush crowds whose movements are not so severely restricted.
Sorry, the “security” claim is ridiculous on the face of it. It’s pure politics.
Per the requests of a couple of folks, I thought I would briefly stop by to sort out the legal issues presented by the lawsuit described in the OP. The suit claims that people protesting Bush’s policies are sent to designated areas far away from the president, while people demonstrating in support of Bush are welcome to do so close to the president.
In First Amendment law, this is what’s known as a “content-based restriction” on speech. That is, the government’s restriction depends solely on the content of the speech–if your speech is pro-Bush, you can stay good and close, but you have to stay half a mile away if your speech is critical of the president.
The courts are very tough with content-based restrictions. Content-based restrictions are only permissible if the regulation is “necessary to serve a compelling [governmental] interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 231 (1987); Simon & Shuster v. New York Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 118 (1991).
While the security of the president is certainly a compelling governmental interest, this practice will almost certainly be struck down by the courts because it is not narrowly drawn and is probably not necessary to serve the goal of protecting the president. Basically, if there’s any other way that the government can achieve its compelling state interest without burdening speech on the basis of its content, or if the burdening of speech does not effectively promote the goal anyway, the challenged government practice is going to get trumped by the First Amendment. And thank goodness for that.
He’s gonna have a lot of fun in London I reckon
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/6902360?source=Evening%20Standard
It isn’t my job to tell you why you are wrong. It is your job to tell us why you are right. Anyone can make up a hypothetical and assert it is correct and applicable. It is not my job to point out the flaws in your completely made-up situation. It is your job to support your made-up situation with facts and citations to source material. Since your scenario was lacking in both facts and citations, I offered you a link to the source material so you could lean what the facts in the situation are.
Pot, what the hell are you smoking? You can’t start from hypothetical situations and then claim your conclusions are binding on the situation the suit is based on. You need to examine the merits of the actual situations in the suit. To do otherwise is ivory tower intellectual masturbation.
**Why? The arguement is inapplicable to the situation. A good many of the issues raised in this thread are simple red herrings, invented out of whole cloth. The situations were very straightforward and the issues clear. This was not a case, as John Mace speculated, of the protestors being mixed in with the general population then getting mad because some supporters were allowed closer for a photo op. This was not a case where one group had acquired exclusive rights to a venue and the other group had no right to be there at all. These were public events, perhaps organized by a private party, but still open to the public. Even in events where the venue was restricted and invitation only, protesting just outside the venue, on a sidewalk for instance, is legal. The documentation for the suit includes a reference to the experience of Bill Neel. In a nutshell, the President was going to speak at a private venue in Philadelphia. Mr Neel joined with a crowd of people on public property(a local park), outside the venue, and was arrested because he refused to leave the general public area and go into a “protest zone” behind a 6-foot fence inside the park. Pro-Bush bystanders were allowed to line the sidewalk around the park unfettered.
Absolute rubbish. You cite examples which were referenced in passing, assume facts not in evidence, and claim your scenario is valid? You ignore the detailed incidents in the case, both of which, as I mentioned, do not resemble your hypothetical in the least. You also ignore my cite which gave further information on the supporting incidents mentioned in passing on pages 11 and 12. Rubbish. Note that Mr Neel’s event was one of those you said fit your scenario because the event was on private property. But Mr Neel was arrested on PUBLIC property, OUTSIDE the venue. He was not, in any way, crashing the event.
How about the two cases which were detailed in the suit? How about the group in Philadelphia who had a reserved spot along a motorcade route? What about the ACORN group who had an agreement with local police that all demonstrators, pro and anti, would be across the street on the sidewalk from the Treasury building Bush was visiting and then were forced out of that space into an even more remote location? Care to tackle either of the incidents where we have the most details of what happened?
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m sorry, I apparently missed this comment earlier in the thread. I’d like to take a moment to address this issue. First, good for you for sticking up for your beliefs, especially in the face of opposition. Did you ever report these assaults to the authorities? Did your female friend report her assault? This kind of thing should not be tolerated and the authorities should act on it.
In a previous pit thread about “Free Speech Zones” the issue of the Clintons using goons as their crowd control came up. I had the same position then, arrest the damn goons, charge them with assault. If there is a way to prove who hired them or if they’re willing to give evidence, go after their employers as well. I vehemently oppose suppression of speech, throw the book at the goons being hired to silence the opposition. If a govt official perverts the authorities into acting as goons, then kick that official right in the nuts and restore the law enforcement personnel to their rightful duties as protectors of the rights of the citizen. It really chaps my hide to see law enforcement professionals abused like this. Here in an excerpt from one of my posts in that previous thread when responding to a documented incident of the Clinton’s using a goon squad to suppress dissidents.
I still believe the perversion of the legal framework is a very heinous crime. The human effects of using authority figures to suppress speech as opposed to brute force to suppress it may be less(a policeman will, naturally, require less force to suppress dissent because they carry more authority, whereas a brute has to use more force because they carry no authority). Still, the costs in rights of having police be goons is much higher. A person assaulted by a goon in a crowd still has recourse and the perpertrator can be brought to justice. If it is the system itself which is corrupted then you have to fight city hall, and that can be extremely difficult. Thankfully there are people like the ACLU and the EFF to help with these kinds of fights.
Enjoy,
Steven
At the time, though, Clinton was a candidate only. The goonery was suborned by his campaign organization and the local Democratic machine.
We faced a dilemma at the time on whether to make allegations that likely wouldn’t have been provable in court (although local Democratic party operatives admitted their actions when they taunted some of our members). It would also not have furthered our cause. It would have made our party look like dilletantes that couldn’t handle the rough-and-tumble of Pennsylvania politics.
The realities of the situation led us to let it go. However, that isn’t to say that I approve of any of these actions.
I think certain rules need to be observed, and the majority of people (save troublemakers) would be happy.
In a public rally:
No free speech zones.
No suppression of signs.
No bullying
No attempts to drown out or shout down the speaker.
If a venue is needed where a focused message needs to be given to a more sympathetic audience, a hall should be rented. Any disturbance there can be handled by sucurity appropriately, since the event is invitation only.