Not to be flip, but let’s stipulate for a moment that the protestors have a valid point–that the Vietnam war was an unjust war.
If we stipulate that, then while the protestors were rude and uncivil, their rudeness, their incivility, shrinks to nothing compared to the “rudeness” and “incivility” against which they protest–namely, the carpet-bombing and napalming of human beings.
It’s one thing to disrupt conversation: that shouldn’t be done. But disrupting military recruiting may, if you accept the protestors’ premise, save lives; in such circumstances, rudeness and incivility are perfectly appropriate.
The question then becomes, are the protestors’ premises correct? Which is a whole nother ball game.
Forgive me, but I have to ask, are we talking about Vietnam protesters or this current bunch? There are thirty years and significant differences between the two.
The slogans employed this time around indicate that military policies toward gays were the target. If that’s so, the aim of the protests isn’t to save lives, just to have homosexuals killed in battle freely and without discrimination.
Unless, of course, that they’re using that policy by the military as a pretext to attack recruiters and drive them from campus in a general anti-military campaign. That would be dishonest, wouldn’t be popular with American taxpayers, and would be illegal besides, so I’m sure no self-respecting activist would try it.
You’ve been called on it. I’m glad you took those other people to task in those threads, and I trust that you did. However, you seem to have forgotten all about those sorts of things when you wrote your OP. And thus, you got called on it.
Bush doesn’t preach to the choir because of security concerns! How disingenous is that position?
He preachs to the choir as a marketing tool–and to reinforce the notion that “everybody” sees things his way.
this President doesn’t want to hear dissent, open his mind to new ideas etc. Powell was the last free thinker in the cabinet–and look how he was used.
I will never like Bush or his cronies–but I could respect him and his supporters alot more if they would open the floor to hard questions, allow dissenting voices to be heard and essentially be honest in their dealings with the public. They could also tone down the sanctimony, please.
I disapprove of any and all heckling at any public event, be it political or entertainment etc.
But to claim moral superiority of one party over the other in this arena is nonsense.
I was talking about Vietnam protestors–I thought that was the thread of debate going on there.
Well, first off, I’m unlike most leftists inasmuch as I have no problem with the military’s anti-gay policy. In fact, if the military only accepted blond, blue-eyed right-handed Aryan Protestant males over 6’6" tall and with no birthmarks, I’d be ecstatic. I think our military is impossibly bloated and has become a war machine looking for a job; anything that pares down the number of eligible participants is hunky dory by me.
That said, your hypothetical involves them using dishonest means to drive the military from campus. If we stipulate that they’re doing this in order to save innocent lives AND stipulate that their approach will achieve their goals, then the fact that it’s dishonest, unpopular with taxpayers, and illegal all pale in comparison to the lives saved.
I’m not at all sure that their approach will achieve their goals, so I’m not going to support them in your hypothetical. But if I thought their approach would be effective, then I’d support it: the laws of an unjust government do not deserve respect, to the extent that those laws further unjust aims, and surely there’s no greater mark of an unjust government than the commission of an unjust war.
And just a slightly different premise, and the same reasoning is support for killing doctors who perform abortions. I don’t think the sort of reasoning that involves trying to impose ones will on others and preventing active debate is a positive thing.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is President of the United States. He is as much my President and rjung’s and Left Hand of Dorkness’s president as he is Mr Moto’s or Bricker’s. It is not only unconscionable that his speeches as President (as opposed to ones he might make in his capacity as head of the Republican Party, which will from time to time occur) be restricted to Bush supporters, as it would be to grant access to the courts of law only to registered Republicans. And this not merely because of the rights of citizens to equal access to their President, but for his sake as well; he needs to know what the popular response to his programs and policies is, not be spoonfed what the party faithful want. He is responsible to all of us; he is functioning as Chief Executive for all of us; and it is his privilege if not his right to know what a cross section of all of us think.QUOTE]
This is EXACTLY right. The idea that any president needs (or wants) to be shielded from any and all Americans who might disagree his his policies just boggles my mind. Especially now that Bush is no longer running for president, but attempting to convince the country to radically change the Social Security program.
Well, just a slightly different premise, and the same reasoning is support for resisting the corrupt election of a new Prime Minister, or for blocking bulldozers that will knock down houses with people inside them, or for stopping traffic with massive anti-segregation rallies, or for resisting the German invasion of France. Or, for that matter, for kicking Saddam Hussein out of power.
The fact that sometimes people behave rudely in pursuit of an ignoble goal does not mean that rude behavior is never appropriate. It means you have to evaluate the goal first: some goals by their nature do not allow any behavior beyond civil discourse, while others allow more extreme action. Unless you’re an absolute pacifist, this is an uncontroversial idea.
I went to a David Horowitz speech last night and I had to listen to incessant chanting and heckling from people who kept interrupting him and yelling. This kind of conduct is not acceptable in other areas of life, why should it be in this one? Would you be ok with technophobes like Ted Kazynski going to college classes and yelling and interrupting class with info on how technology and acadamia are evil? Some people just go to college to learn, and we can’t do that with that kind of thing going on. How about intolerant buddhists going to a church service and yelling endlessly about how their god is made up? Are these people pro-american and pro-constitution? What if I went to a funeral and for no reason decided to scream at the top of my lungs for as long as I could, that is not pro-american, that is me being a disruptive asshole.
We have disorderly conduct laws for a reason, and we have laws against disruptively loud noises for a reason. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti american, it is about common courtesty & decorum. I can’t listen to a speech with people yelling and interrupting all the time, and I can’t sleep with the neighbors yelling, and I can’t listen to a class with people yelling, and I can’t (if I did) enjoy a church service with people yellling.
Hmmm. I guess it depends on how you define free speech zone. If its a zone designed to prevent disorderly conduct that is ok but when they are used to give the illusion that nobody is opposed to an event that is totally different. I didn’t see which description this thread was using for it.
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/syllabi/alreynol/j300/notes6.html Time, Place & Manner Restrictions
~a form of prior censorship, but not based on content
~the idea is that the government has a right to limit the time, place and manner of communication that interferes with the basic functions of society.
The government can impose reasonable regulations about when, where and how individuals or groups can communicate with other people.
The courts have developed a set of rules to help us determine when time, place & manner restrictions are OK.
~Is the restriction of expression truly content neutral?
~Are reasonable, alternative channels of communication still available?
~Is the restriction justified by a substantial government interest?
~Is the restriction no broader than necessary to serve the government’s purpose? (Is it narrowly tailored)
Types of Forums
Traditional public forum: public places that have long been devoted to assembly and speeches, places like street corners and public parks. Highest level of protection.
Designated public forum: Places created by government that are to be used for expressive activities, among other things. City-owned auditorium, state fairgrounds, community meeting halls and sometimes student newspapers, because they’re open to all students. Government has greater power to use TPM restrictions to regulate speech.
Public property that’s not a public forum: Public places, but they’re generally off-limits for expressive conduct. Examples include prisons, military bases.
**
Private property**: No FA guarantees, private owners are generally free to regulate. Most common areas of contention are shopping malls and private residences.
More details on the different types of forums. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tradforum.htm
Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.
Segregated “free speech zones” appear to fail “substantial government interest” test and dramatically fail the “content neutral” test.
Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation.
Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President’s policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone. These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer. Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.
Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.
Evansville, Indiana
On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading “Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man.” When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a “protest zone” more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested. Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President’s policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair’s constitutional rights
**
Kalamazoo, Michigan**
At President Bush’s appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election (“Welcome Governor Bush”). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a “protest zone” behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there. The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.
St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President’s policy on Iraq were ordered into a “protest zone” approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.
On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President’s foreign policy were sent to a “protest zone” located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking.* Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone. One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, “We Love You President Bush.” She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.
“Free speech zones” (how Orwellian) affect peaceable demonstrators with permits.
Most of who you hypothesized about were merely assholes. I don’t think that the aforementioned incidents of slung comestibles and shodding are covered under the 1st ammendment. Nor do I think that they have any really redeeming qualities. However, to use them to justify an even greater evil, “free-speech-zones,” is absurd.
If America is willing to sacrifice the lives of it’s young men and women for the sake of freedom, then I think we can sacrifice a little drycleaning as well. Our freedoms are somewhat more important.
I think it’s worth noting that we have disorderly conduct laws, and we have murder laws, and the former laws carry much lighter punishments than the latter laws. If someone’s gonna be a wacko who disrupts the process of civil discourse, I’d much rather them do it by chanting than by taking out a $250,000 bounty on someone’s head.
Yes, the chanters are wrong. No, they’re not especially newsworthy. They’re not vestal virgins, but nor are they the Whore of Babylon, to borrow a metaphor from Mr. Moto in another thread. They’re more like wet-T-shirt contestants.
Like I said, I thought those were the types you were referring to with free speech zones. I really didn’t know what a free speech zone was until now, I just thought it was a means of dealing with disorderly conduct.
You’re using the “end justifies the means” logic. Applied to your example, if someone disagreed with the protestors it would be appropriate to disrupt the disrupters with rude uncivil behavior, or as it’s usually called, a riot.
IMO the pie-flinging fringe on the left are following by example. There is currently a far greater amount of red-faced fist thumping on the Democratic side than the Republican side. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Robert Byrd have engaged in a level of uncivil theatrics that transcends the current norm in national politics. It does not represent/nor is a part of the Democratic legacy. It demonstrates a level of arrogance to treat other politicians in this manner and it caters to the lowest denominator.
When I see people selling T-shirts that say Dear Tom Delay, please commit suicide" I can’t help but feel the people doing this are taking their behavioral cues from the politicians they follow.
