It wasn’t a lie, it was a mistake by my part in the summary. The article I linked to in the original post said 50 yards–I mistakenly wrote 50 feet instead. Sorry.
And there’s nothing that excludes the yardspeakers being both 50 feet (or yards) away from the protesters and inside the post.
I’ll agree that those who do try and “sneak” on the base (it’s pretty conspicuous sneaking, from what I read) are breaking the law and should be punished. And they are–they’re arrested by the military, transferred to civilian authorities, and commonly serve federal sentences of 6 months or so. This is an appropriate way of dealing with protesters who cross the line. The system works. Yay.
But that does not give the government the right to censor the peaceful speakers participating in a legal activity.
No censorship occurred. The idiot protesters were still able to babble and wave stupid signs all they want. The Army gave them a humorous and harmless little response. No cracking of skulls or mass arrests occurred; No censorship occurred.
Well, that’s all well and good for the idiot protestors, friend Brutus, but what about the rest of the lot? I am sure the mentally challenged appreciate your sympathy, within thier limitations. But I think your view of civil liberties a bit narrow.
The smart protesters were at home, working on the campaign committees of their favorite politicians, and getting off their asses to vote every now and again. The smart ones recognize that public demonstrations are a useless waste of time.
I’m still inclined towards this position myself, Brutus, but nevertheless I find the behavior rather suspicious. If a court case came down against them (now that I know they had a permit to assemble), I wouldn’t cry foul at all.
All in all, this is some pretty small potatoes. But there is a principle here that nags at me.
It seems to me as if the “loud music” response was a political response, kind of like a counter-demonstration.
Now, its perfectly acceptable and desirable for individual soldiers to have political opinions. But this is as though the military has a political opinion. History has shown that a politically active military is not a great idea. If I may indulge in nuetron density understatement.
We already have our opinions about the SOA; Some addlebrained bongo-beaters won’t change that. What we actually are discussing has little or nothing to do with the SOA. Unless the ‘protesters’ were cleverly using the pretext of SOA protests to spark a conversation about humorous Army techniques to mock hippies, they have failed. Not that there was any hope of success in the first place.
I haven’t heard this mentioned, and I could not find it in the article. How big were the speakers that the protesters had? How many years have they been “broadcasting” their psyco babble accross the fence onto the base?
Probably a disagreement over what constitutes “censorship,” but if you want to turn it into a fault of mine, fine… :rolleyes:
So then what, exactly, constitutes censorship? I tend to broadly define the term to mean anytime the government suppresses any kind of speech, and I consider masking speech with loud music censorship.
If you define the term more narrowly, to, say, the government making specific laws that target speech, then would you be OK with the government broadcasting recordings of “White Rabbit” on the same frequency and during the same time as Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasts? If you don’t think that would be OK, why not?
You would be better served by using the dictionary definition of censorship.
Your Rush/White Rabbit scenario is comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention, the gov’t would be in violation of FCC regulations.
The question was, why do you think it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison? (Set aside FCC regulations, and I’ll set aside noise ordinances).
The differences between the two I can think of are:
[ul]
[li]Trying to drown out Rush would impact more people.[/li][li]Trying to drown out Rush would harm a commercial enterprise.[/li][li]Trying to drown out Rush would suppress a right-wing political cause.[/li][li]The protesters probably like softer drugs then Rush. ;)[/li][/ul]
I don’t think any of those are compelling reasons for allowing the government to mask over protesters but not Rush Limbaugh.
I think what the protesters are really upset about is that, let’s face it, they were outwitted. By the army of all people! The big dumb, lumbering thugs in green! Outwitted the intelligensia! Oh heavens!
They thought they’d be clever by having a rally in front of a Federal installation with speakers loud enough to be heard on the base. Thus defying the ban on protesting on Federal property and disseminating their message on the base without permission from the Installation commander. Oooo! They’re so clever! Like lil foxes they are!
Unfortunately for the foxes, the Army had (gasp) a plan. They did NOTHING to interfere with the demonstration, but ensured the message wouldn’t be heard on base or, accidentally, where the protesters were gathered.
Both sides were playing a game, only the Base Commander was simply more tactically clever about it. They brought bigger speakers and louder music.
Score:
Army 1
Protesters 0
Next time they’ll probably just have a helo practicing manuevers just on the Army side of the fence… you thought a speaker was loud, wait till you get an earful of Blackhawk or Chinook at 150 ft.
I’m sure the base commander will get a reprimand from his fellow generals, probably while sipping scotch in the Officers club. Something like… “Fred, next time, be a bit more sensative… play The Internationale at least once for them”.
Well, yes, overwhelming force is a distinct tactical advantage, one I’m pretty sure they cover at West Point.
I am much reassured by your insight. I sleep better knowing an armored division is safe from an assault by a crack squad of pacifists, Quakers, and granny ladies, due to the tactical brilliance of field commanders.
The protestors had a legal right to be loud outside Army property, even though their noise would certainly be not respectful of property lines, yes?. Thus the Army has the equal right to be loud on their property, even though their noise would also not respect property lines.
If the protestors have a right to make a loud noise to support their position- why does not the Army?
Because the “noise” of the protesters was an articulated message with the intent of educating people and drawing attention to a human rights violation, and the “noise” of the Army was blaring, patriotic music intended to drown out the “noise” of the protestors?
Because the Army is the government and the protestors are the people, and, ostensibly, we, the people, should find it repugnant that the government is trying to silence the people? Political dissent is a cherished cornerstone of our democracy–not only is the military showing contempt for that, they are showing contempt in the style of 2-year olds the world over.
You think “patriotic music” does not carry a message? How then do you characterize it as “patriotic”?
As far as your assumption that soldiers are morally compelled to listen to the blatherings of the idle Left, piffle. They turn up their speakers trying to be heard, the military turns up theirs so they are not. They throw a conniption fit and whine mightily. Everyone else laughs at their antics.
I said “articulated message.” In other words the message that the protesters were trying to make was complex enough to require speakers (as in people who speak, not an electronic device). If their speakers can’t be heard, then they obviously can’t deliver their message.
I think patriotic music carries a message–but that message was clearly secondary to preventing the protesters from speaking. If the only “message” that the Army wanted to make was the one contained in patriotic music, don’t you think they could have found a more respectful way to do it? Set the speakers up on the other side of the base and call it a free concert for those who want to listen (this is supposed to be a ridiculous suggestion–that’s the point).
I don’t think the soldiers are compelled to listen to the message, I think they’re compelled to not stifle that message.
Fort Benning is a big place. No one was making all the soldiers in it sit and watch the protests.
