A couple from Texas was arrested on sunday for wearing anti-Bush shirts to a spech given by Shrub in WV.
So everything was fine when they entered the event with a legitimate ticket, but then it was decided that they were “trespassing” when they revealed their shirts. A major part of this, of course, is Bush’s illegal, unconstitutional practice of banning protesters fropm his visual presence at all public events. The ostensible excuses about “security” are laughable at best since all a would be villain would have to do is pose as a pro-Bush rube and he would go right in.
I call fascism, man. We’re being taken over by brownshirts. We’re in 1930’s Germany, man. We’ve even got the camps. I am afraid for the future.
That’s absolutely astounding. How in the hell are people not up in arms over this? I had no idea he was in the habit of banning protesters from his sight at public appearances. How can anyone defend that? Please don’t say something like “Clinton did it” or whatever. Who cares about the actions of others, we’re talking about what’s right in the abstract, not precedent. I find it sad that our neighbours, who have always served as the world’s bastion of freedom, are turning into a police state. That may be an exaggeration, but this is a step in that direction.
The local radio coverage of the event made mention of the fact that this was considered a “Presidential” event and not a “political” event - and that supposedly folks wearing Bush-supportive T-shirts were also asked to remove them or leave.
So, since it’s a “Presidential” event (whatever that means), Constitutional rights to free speech don’t apply? Talk about bringing shame to the concept of “presidential,” and to the office of the President itself.
Freedom of expression is not subject to whimsical definitions of the purpose of an event. FTR, I don’t believe for a second that Bush supporters were asked to remove their shirts (and they certainly weren’t arrested) but even if they had been that would still be illegal. This was a public event on public property and freedom of speech is not curtailed simply because one is in the presence of GWB.
scule, the secret Service has been routinely herding Bush protesters into so-called “free speech zones” (an Orwellian designation if ever there was one) as much as a half-mile away.
The first amendment states that the government cannot pass a law inhibiting freedom of speech, so I guess if the government just decided to inhibit, without the law, it is technically okay
Anyone have anymore info on this? Are not Presidential events political? Anyway, I am more interested if there was some published dress codes that were violated by people on both sides of the spectrum.
Also, as Duke rightly points out, since when does a “Presidential Visit” nullify freedom of expression?
Here’s an excerpt from the speech that Bush gave on the State Capitol grounds in Charleston, WV, at the event where Nicole and Jeffrey Rank were arrested:
Never let it be said that this administration lacks a sense of irony.
I should learn better than to be surprised by the Bush team. Note that protesters at the Republican convention in New York are being allowed to gather- in Queens. How long before the army starts goose-stepping and the Bush Youth Corps is formed?
As previously indicated, I am only providing the perspective of the local news, along with the asserted justification they repeated. I did not say at any time I was in agreement with that stance, so I’m not the person to ask your outraged questions.
OK, so if (alright, WHEN) GWB is appointed to a second term…who’s with me in a march on the whitehouse replete with effegies & pitchforks & torches (oh my!)? I’m serious! We have to organize this while we still have the right to use the f-ing internet!
In 2000 I attended a Gore/Lieberman rally in Orlando. My recollection is that the Bush supporters and their signs were kept a few blocks away, out of view of the Vice President and the news. It was a by invitation only event, but held in a city park. As long as the same standard applies to both sides, which today I doubt, I see no real harm. I think it is fair to say that Bush has taken this to a whole new level IMO. Arresting citizens is the issue here and it sucks. Who’s going to protect them, the SCOTUS? On the other hand, shouldn’t a candidate be able to campaign without constant harassment?
Do I? You open your post in a fashion that implies that you’re trying to refute me (or the facts that I presented - perhaps the station was indeed wrong… though maybe it was referring to a different speech the same day, as I was thinking it was elsewhere in the state… perhaps my memory is conflating it with something else…) … and then begin your “largely rhetorical” question with “Also” - linking it to the statement that came before, which was at least partially directed at me, else you wouldn’t have bothered to quote my post.
Perhaps I misintepreted you, but you’re easy to misinterpret, then?
Of course free speech doesn’t apply in such a case!
If it was a “Presidential” event, then it was also a “Commander-in-Chief” event, because the role of commander-in-chief is part of the presidential role. When the president is acting has commander-in-chief, no laws apply. DUH!
