# Democratic National Convention to have Free Speech Zone **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 17, 2004, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565 "2004-07-17T10:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/41 "2004-07-17T20:51:23Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Ummm. Maybe if your post made sense, I would understand it better. What kind of cite are you asking for? There’s one right here: the DNC convention. John Kerry was in Baltimore a few weeks back raising money at Ravens Stadium, and the area around the stadium was kept clear by the BCPD, the people I saw with protest signs were held well away from the venue itself. I saw this with my own two eyes. Howard Street was closed, I had to drive all the way around behind the baseball stadium to get where I was going. The protestors were a good 1/2 mile away, with police watching them. Pointing at something that is a security decision, made by security people and not under the control of either candidate, and then using it to lambaste one candidate is DISHONEST. There are enough legitimate reasons to dislike Bush, this kind of foolishness makes you look like an idiotic, shit for brains moron who cares not for the truth or reality in the noble quest to demonize Bush for any and all reasons, real and imagined. Not cite, cites. Plural. You claim that the Free Speech Zone is a common occurance, a matter of local security. This is an extraordinary claim. News reports have given me the impression that the FSZ is a common occurance, if not universal, at Bush venues. I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that such was _equally_ common at Kerry venues. I offer you the opportunity to prove your point, and you come up with a grand total of one. Which leads this idiotic, shit for brains moron to conclude that you cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/42 "2004-07-17T20:53:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is still no fucking equivalency here. A private party convention is in no way comprable to an official public appearance by a president. How about a [private book signing](http://www.hillnews.com/under_dome/070804.aspx)? Was it wrong to sequester the protesters? ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/43 "2004-07-17T20:57:31Z")
**Diogenes the Cynic** , your transparent attempt at doublespeak is embarrassing. Your “private party” bullshit has already been refuted, and even if it weren’t, it’s repugnant. You’re relying on the same defense as male-only clubs to defend discrimination. And no, **Revtim** , protests have been increasingly disruptive since the late 1960s. Several instances–1968, the anti-globalization crowd–have already been cited. No one believes they can get their message across with peace, anymore. It’s all about media coverage. I suspect the main reason there isn’t more of an outcry against FSZs is that it centralizes media coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/44 "2004-07-17T20:58:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that such was _equally_ common at Kerry venues. I offer you the opportunity to prove your point, and you come up with a grand total of one. Here’s one: [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm) It seems rather naive to think that one side would regularly have protestors and the other would not. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/45 "2004-07-17T21:08:28Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is still no fucking equivalency here. A private party convention is in no way comprable to an official public appearance by a president. **The convention itself is paid for only by the party, not with taxpayer funds.** Bullshit, Diogenes. Read the link. The convention is paid for ENTIRELY by taxpayer funds, federal and city. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/46 "2004-07-17T21:42:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I offer you the opportunity to prove your point, and you come up with a grand total of one. > > Which leads this idiotic, shit for brains moron to conclude that you cannot. Cannot what, count? I listed two in my previous posts, Boston and Baltimore. See this is what happens when you allow then to replace your frontal lobe with the “Partisan Knee Jerk™” attachment, you ignore everything except the narrow point you are determined to make, espectally facts that contradict that point. You also convienently ignore two other examples, posted by people other than myself, of apearences by prominent Democrats (Kerry and Clinton) where protestors were sequestered away from the event. As I said before, there are tons of legitimate resons to dislike Bush, why are you so married to this one which is so patently false? Don’t you feel it damages your side’s cred when you mouth off so much about distorted issues or blatent lies? Remember Chicken Little? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/47 "2004-07-17T21:44:30Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Bullshit, Diogenes. Read the link. The convention is paid for ENTIRELY by taxpayer funds, federal and city. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read [here](http://www.cltg.org/dnc/) for an excruciatingly detailed examination of what the DNC is costing, who’s paying, and who’s affected by this monster, as told by Citizens For Limited Taxation – a group which has its own axes screeching on the grindstone. There you may learn that the original plan was to have the thing paid for by private (read: mostly corporate) donations plus $15 million of federal funds that are given to both parties’ convention organizers. Ain’t how it’s played out, of course, as costs have mushroomed. But it’s no more correct to say that the whole shindig is being paid for exclusively by taxpayers’ money than it is to say it’s all coming from the Democratic National Committee, or donations, or wherever. And yes, Boston’s Mayor Menino has been in the thick of getting this thing from the start. See [this article on CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/democrats.boston/). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/48 "2004-07-17T21:51:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Here’s one: > It seems rather naive to think that one side would regularly have protestors and the other would not. I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt, **Lib** , and assume you misunderstood. By no means am I suggesting that one candidate is innocent of protestors. In my opinion, (opinion, mind you…) the Bushiviks are at pains to present that image. My point is that GeeDubya has been using this technique pretty much regularly: keep the dissenters out of camera range, present an image of a wildly popular President be adored by the masses. Is it a facistic plot to stifle dissent? No, of course not, it is merely a political ploy to present a false image. But it gets entirely out of hand when people can be arrested for no other crime than self-expression, as was the case in W.V. All that said, I regret that such procedures will probably prove unavoidable, as emotions rise and the battle thickens. Regretable, yes, but still better to have an polarized and inflamed public than one clotted with cynicism and apathy, resigned to helplessness. Of course, with the inevitable ascension to power of the Libertarian Party, all of these problems will fade away… ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/49 "2004-07-17T21:57:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > How about a [private book signing](http://www.hillnews.com/under_dome/070804.aspx)? Was it wrong to sequester the protesters? Your link does not support the notion that the protestors were kept away by any authority. The link states that the protestors were a half-block away and were advised that if they blocked access to the private property of the store they would be removed. > [@](#): > > An assortment of anti-Clinton protesters was also on hand, sequestered half a block down the sidewalk. > > Kathy Wood of the conservative organization Free Republic said D.C. police immediately informed members of her group that if they denied “egress” to any passers-by, they would be removed from the area. If you have a link showing they were told by police or Secret Service they had to maintain a minimum distance (as opposed to “you can’t block the entrance to this privately-owned store” which I hope even you find reasonable) then please post it. The use of the word “sequestered” in the link without anything supporting the notion that some authority figure initiated the sequestration beyond advising the group not to block the store is disingenuous on the part of the writer. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/50 "2004-07-17T21:59:23Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > This type of thing stinks no matter who does it. What he said. I’m just waiting for the conclusions as to who to flame for these FSZs, either the DNC or the BCPD. > [@Early Out](#): > > You’ll also notice that Lib has been very careful to avoid saying directly that the DNC is actually responsible for the creation of these “free speech zones.” He’s managed to leave the impression that they are, of course (“I would like to call upon all those Dopers who rightly condemned the Republican use of this tactic to condemn this one as well.”), but when confronted with the inevitable, “It’s the Boston police doing this, not the DNC,” he will respond with, “Now where, precisely, did I say that it was the DNC committing this outrage?” The funny thing is, if you ask **Liberal** about _Fahrenheit 9/11,_ he’ll loudly tell you that he’s refusing to see the movie because he believes Michael Moore uses similar deceptive practices. I trust you can see the irony in that. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/51 "2004-07-17T22:03:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Here’s one: > > [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm) > > It seems rather naive to think that one side would regularly have protestors and the other would not. Do you actually read these links all the way through before you post them? > [@](#): > > The group had planned to stand at the entrance to the library, where Kerry, who is campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, was delivering an environmental speech, but Boston police officers pushed them more than 100 yards away, citing the nation’s heightened state of alert for a terrorist attack. So here we have the local police initiating the clearing of the protestors with nothing to support the notion that Kerry or the Democratic Party had anything to do with it, and the justification for their being moved is, ironically, the _Republican-issued_ terror alert! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/52 "2004-07-17T22:05:29Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Cannot what, count? I listed two in my previous posts, Boston and Baltimore. Gosh, really, a whole two! Wow! Boy, I’d be hard pressed to come up with two whole examples of Bush using this ploy, huh? You think? > [@](#): > > … convienently ignore two other examples, posted by people other than myself, of apearences by prominent Democrats (Kerry and Clinton) where protestors were sequestered away from the event… Well, just for starters, Clinton isn’t running for anything. Secondly, you read the cite, they were held “half a block” away, whats that, about 40 yards? You’re comparing apples and orangutans. > [@](#): > > …As I said before, there are tons of legitimate resons to dislike Bush, why are you so married to this one which is so patently false?.. I’m not. It just happens to be what this thread is about, I can pretty much shrug it off. Just as you say, we got tons of solid ammo. But it isn’t “patently false”, your shrill insistence notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > …Don’t you feel it damages your side’s cred when you mouth off so much about distorted issues or blatent lies?.. Sure would, if I did. Didn’t. Don’t have to, got the facts. > [@](#): > > …Remember Chicken Little? Sure. Remember the Alamo? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/53 "2004-07-17T22:14:08Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read [here](http://www.cltg.org/dnc/) for an excruciatingly detailed examination of what the DNC is costing, who’s paying, and who’s affected by this monster, as told by Citizens For Limited Taxation – a group which has its own axes screeching on the grindstone. > > There you may learn that the original plan was to have the thing paid for by private (read: mostly corporate) donations plus $15 million of federal funds that are given to both parties’ convention organizers. Ain’t how it’s played out, of course, as costs have mushroomed. But it’s no more correct to say that the whole shindig is being paid for exclusively by taxpayers’ money than it is to say it’s all coming from the Democratic National Committee, or donations, or wherever. > > And yes, Boston’s Mayor Menino has been in the thick of getting this thing from the start. See [this article on CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/democrats.boston/). The MSNBC cite states that the Feds provide $15 million, and the city pays the rest of the costs. If MSNBC is wrong, your beef is with them, not me. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/54 "2004-07-17T23:01:52Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > The MSNBC cite states that the Feds provide $15 million, and the city pays the rest of the costs. If MSNBC is wrong, your beef is with them, not me. No, my beef is with you, for saying: > [@](#): > > Bullshit, Diogenes. Read the link. The convention is paid for ENTIRELY by taxpayer funds, federal and city. I read the MSNBC story. It’s a barebones outline of FAQs about the convention, on the level of: “The DNC for Dummies”. Ambiguously worded, at that, and if you were in the least familiar with the issue, you’d know that there’s more to it. I posted my links about the funding after extensive Googling to clarify exactly what’s the story. I guess that’s too much work for you, though, once you’ve found a cite that fits your preconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/55 "2004-07-17T23:07:53Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > “The DNC for Dummies”. Wouldn’t that be your party platform? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/56 "2004-07-17T23:11:16Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Wouldn’t that be your party platform? No, that’s the guidebook for recovering Bushistas. The ones who are still salvageable. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/57 "2004-07-18T00:15:27Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > The reference to Kent State, of course, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. **Lib’s** reason for tossing it in can only be guessed at. It’s certainly inflamatory, if nothing else. Not only that, it was also incorrect. The Kent State shootings happened in a grassy field, surrounded by a hill. Not a parking lot. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/58 "2004-07-18T00:56:13Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Not only that, it was also incorrect. The Kent State shootings happened in a grassy field, surrounded by a hill. Not a parking lot. [http://www.library.kent.edu/exhibits/4may95/exhibit/chronology/index.html](http://www.library.kent.edu/exhibits/4may95/exhibit/chronology/index.html) [http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm](http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm) Yes, but no. Read the links. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/59 "2004-07-18T07:10:25Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > **"TVeblen – _Pit Mod!!!"_** A Quinn Martin Production. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565/60 "2004-07-18T08:14:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Pointing at something that is a security decision, made by security people and not under the control of either candidate, and then using it to lambaste one candidate is DISHONEST. I seem to recall that it was the Bush people in England who wanted the British protestors kept at a distance and the British officials refused this request. Am I mistaken? **Lib** , of course I am against limiting access to protestors. Kerry himself is a former protestor. If _he_ tries or allows such staging tricks as Bush after he becomes President, I would be really surprised. I have lived under 12 different Presidents. Contrary to what has been said, herding people off to a separate zone is a _recent_ development. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-national-convention-to-have-free-speech-zone/255565.md?page=4)