Agreed. All I can add is that the first time anyone tries to make me sing The Star-spangled Banner before I can pile my plate 14 inches high with mashed potatoes, all hell’s breakin’ loose!
OttoDaFe: Considering your handle, sir, I hope Our Singing Torquemada and his minions do not read this board. 
Well, you never expect the Singing Torquemada…
And as OST and the chorus break into What a Day from Candide (the second edition) . . .
I had another thought: my rendition of The Star-spangled Banner (or anything else, for that matter) would probably lead to a 25-30% drop in the level of overeating, at least at the buffet in question. So maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea afer all.
Our two weapons are fear, surprise, and Y M C A from Can’t Stop the Music.
despite the fact that Godwin’s law seems to apply to this thread already…
Link removed - CF
Sir, if you insist on threatening us with weapons of sonic mass destruction, we’ll be forced to invade and depose you.
God, I hate this fucking attitude. Like the heckler’s veto is a valid exercise of free speech. What a load of bullshit.
Drowning out the words of another speaker – effectively denying them their free speech rights by simply screaming louder – is not what the American ideal of free political discourse is all about.
That ideal is about a marketplace of ideas, one where ideas of all kinds can be introduced and discussed. Shutting out a competing market participant by interfering with his free speech activities is contrary to, not consonant with, that ideal. If Bush detractors wish to spread their message, they can find methods of doing so that don’t step on the toes of Bush supporters.
And just to be sure, because your post comes dangerously close to committing this common fallacy (and I note that Mockingbird goes ahead and commits it anyway): this isn’t a first amendment issue. The government isn’t making a distinction here. The RNC and the Bush-Cheney campaign are private actors, and can set the rules of entry to their events as they see fit, including efforts to keep out hecklers.
Yes, the method chosen here is a bit silly and probably ineffectual. But let’s not paint this as some kind of affront to free speech, because that’s clearly not the goal. The goal, in fact, is to protect the free speech rights of the speaker from disruption.
I noted this in my last post, but just to be clear: exactly how is this unconstitutional? The RNC and the Bush-Cheney campaign are private actors, and their setting the rules of entry to their own events is no affront to the constitution. If you think otherwise, please do construct an argument to the contrary.
Ah-hah!
I think we knew it all along, they’re not public servants, but private individuals acting a role. mwahahahah!
[FinnAgain does not support of endorse the above statements]
This is a campaign appearance, and not one in his official capacity as Vice President.
So… he’s campaigning to be… dog catcher?
At this appearance, he is not appearing in an official capacity. He is appearing as a candidate for office. This isn’t like, say, Bush trying to keep all the Democratic Representatives and Senators from the State of the Union address.
A private citizen running for office has every right to set the rules for attendance at his campaign stops. That Cheney is an incumbent shouldn’t change that basic principle. Cheney didn’t check his rights of free speech and free association at the door when he took office.
- I’m not objecting to the repubs deciding on their guestlist.
- I simply feel that your reasoning is obfuscatory. How on earth is the standing Veep not the standing vice president? How is he not acting as the standing vice president when he gives a speech as the standing vice president?
Notice, I haven’t said the republicans can’t invite whoever they want to their convention, simply that the idea that the standing vice president giving a speech on why he should remain the standing vice president shouldn’t be considered to be acting as the standing vice persident.
This isn’t that difficult. Giving campaign speeches isn’t part of the job of the vice president. They are unrelated to his official duties. Ergo, when he gives such speeches, he is acting in the capacity of a private citizen.
Yeah, I grasp that, he isn’t vice-pres in every capacity, when he takes a dump he’s just another asshole.
But I suspect the issue is less a matter of hecklers drowning out the speaker, since we can be pretty well assured that any such hecklers would be a very tiny minority of the audience, and unlikely to drown out an amplified speech with sheer volume.
No, what they want to avoid is the appearance of dissent, much like they are motivated to protect and nurture free speech by giving it a special reservation, much as they protected and nurtured the American Indian. They want any snippets that hit the airwaves to show crowds of enthusiastic supporters, unsullied by doubt. They don’t the viewer to be reminded that not everyone marches in lockstep, they believe that the image of a clear and solid majority may help to create the same.
Official warning. Do NOT link to pornographic material on the SDMB.
Several years ago, when I was a law student, Hillary Clinton gave speech in one of UT’s larger auditoriums that was interrupted by a handful of hecklers (say, 5 or 6). You don’t need big numbers to disrupt a presentation. And you can guess what the news focused on that night: not the content of the speech, but the images of security dragging those fucknuggets out of the auditorium.
Is this any different from the Democrats? Did you see the fenced-off area in Boston? How many “Bush-Cheney” shirts do you think would be allowed in to a Kerry campaign stop?
But more to the point: who cares? Opponents of Bush and Kerry can certainly set up and stage their own protests and rallies. Dissent is alive and well and living in the United States. You don’t need to go very far to find it. Bush and Kerry seeking to ensure that their audiences hear their messages unimpeded is not an affront to the rights of others who wish to dissent.
This is true of any politician in any campaign. So what? A campaign’s refusal to provide a stage for the campaign’s opponents is not a threat to free speech.
How legally binding would that be? Say I wanted to attend this little rally - I don’t live too far away. But I’m a Democrat. So I sign their little paper, what then? Can they really force me to campaign for Bush? Give my money to him? Put Pro Bush bumper stickers on my car? Force me to vote for him? What really does that “pledge to endore Bush” mean?
Dewey, I fear that you are operating on the presumption that my every word is a direct contradiction to you. Be assured you ain’t my Betty Noyer. I don’t think this kind of control of a stump speech has any significant impact on freedom of speech. Its preaching to the choir, for the most part.
What I do find repugnant is controlling the outside environment, herding protestors from the public streets and biways so their appearance does not mar the adulation for the Shining One as he approaches the venue of the speech.
And, yes, point of fact, I think a “Bush-Cheney” shirt wearer would be “allowed” to be present at a Dem gathering, leastwise, I’ve not heard of any being ejected. Have you? The Dems are not nearly the control freaks that the Pubs are, it is simultaneously thier biggest strength and biggest weakness.