Is Someone Just Being an Ass Or Is This Legitmate Prosecution?

Start here.

My vote is cast as someone is being an ass. Unless there’re some unreported extenuating circumstances this guy was just standing in a crowd of people, many who were also holding signs. But if there are extenuating circumstances of some sort, why not charge him with whatever charges are relevant to those?

I started to put this in GD, but then I expect that there isn’t that much to debate here.

Someone is just being an ass.

The skies have changed somewhat since 9/11. We’re all on edge, and whether the increased security is legitimate is up for debate. I’ll keep my opinion to myself on this one.

Strom Jr? Great, another 3 or 4 hundred years of hearing this name in the news…

Yeah, right. Imagine what terrorist havoc could be wrought with a “No war for oil” sign. :rolleyes:

Not to mention a “Bush Rocks” sign.

My guess is that STJ is positioning himself to run for office of some sort.

Eh, my point was that we’re all a little more freaked out by anyone who appears to be railing against the current government’s position, acting oddly, etc.
Hate it, but it’s a fact. Not a day goes by that I don’t remember those days where the skies were empty of airplanes. Cursed and cried because I brought kids into the world who will learn about it in history class.
Hopefully, this too shall pass.

Well, yeah, but…

He was already removed from the scene, arrested and booked and charged with trespassing. After the trespassing charge was dropped, and long after he was distant from the Prez, he was charged w/ violating the Prez’s security space by being in the crowd.

Your argument could be seen as valid for removing him from the area, but to subsequently charge him with what they did when they did it?

Yeah, how dare he question the government in this new Post Nine-Eleven Era! Now is the time for lockstep obedience, not dissent!

There is no excuse, and never will be, to attempt to quell freedom of speech. If they want, the secret service can completely clear an area of all non-official personnel. They CANNOT clear individuals based on their specific speech. For example: banning all signs, regardless of message, is ok. Banning all anti-Bush signs is unconstitutional.

Well, if that’s only if we’re lucky. Given that Strom Sr outlived the life expectantcy of those born in the same year as him, by at least 50 years, and you figure that since medical science is rapidly improving…
(Anybody know if Strom Sr has plans to have himself frozen after he died [assuming he ever does]?)

Speak for yourself. I’m not “freaked out” by free speech or criticism of Bush. FUCK Bush! That’s right, you heard me FUCK Shrub Bush up his ass and fuck his slimy war too. Are you all freaked out now?

Enough with bringing up 9/11 as an all purpose totem to excuse the rape of civil liberties and the squelching of dissent. It’s fucking bullshit.

Very true. He was arrested for the content of his sign, not that he was there with a sign. We can infer this from the fact that many others were there with signs in the same area, just with different content.

Personally, I think there should always be some type of protest whenever a sitting President arrives anywhere. But that’s just me.

I think that every session of the Senate and every session of the House should be addressed by an official ranter. I suggest George Carlin, Dennis Leary, or Dennis Miller.

Re Free Speech Zone

They pulled this crap when the GOP convention was in town. Through the usual paperwork, officials were able to deny groups use of the zone (I’m sorry you didn’t initial page 32/k. The time slot you wanted will instead go to ‘Bush Is Neat’). I don’t have a cite handy, but I seem to recall a childhood visit to Independence Hall when I learned that the 1st ammendment made the entire country a free speech zone.

Well, considering how well Mr. Bursey fared with his opinion, I think Blonde is being quite reasonable.

This seems like a bogus charge. Hopefully it will be dropped soon.

Blonde

The more we cut back on our freedoms, the more the terrorists have achieved.

From what was reported, this was indeed the case. Apparently, there were even other people with signs that were less than favorably disposed toward Bush policies.

** And that’s the bottom line**,
I hope you’re right. However, the date of the story is 6-19 and 11 congressmen have already written to Ashcroft regarding the case:

The prosecutor’s office says “unless we get a directive from Attorney-General Ashcroft’s office [telling us to drop or settle the case], we shall proceed.”

Bin Laden actually said that his goals involved a crackdown on Americans domestic freedoms by the gov as well as more string-arm tactics in the ME by the US.

Bin laden has gotten the US out of SA, a lessening of US liberties, and the strong-arm tactics in the ME. From some perspectives, we can be seen as bending backwards to accomodate him.