"Free Speech Zones"; WTF country is this?

The BBQ Pit
1

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).

2

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.

3

Baldwin queried:

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.

4

That’s not what the Constitution says…for now.

5

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

6

Slow down there, Chicken Littles,

**

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.

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

Truth Seeker wrote:

[…shudder…]

11

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

12

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

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

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.

17

[hijack] 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.

**

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

[/hijack]

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

18

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

19

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.

20

Here’s a cite for December.

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.