I remember the election cycle of 2004 very well. When the Republicans met in New York to nominate Bush for a second term, leftists who wanted to protest were outraged to be relegated to “free speech zones”. Bush and the Republicans were “trampling on free speech” we heard. It was an “unconscionable attack on the right to protest” according to many Democrats. Controlling protesters away from the front doors of the convention was just not done, why, they had the right to protest anywhere and everywhere. It was a huge deal on these very boards.
Fast forward to 2008. The DNC has arraigned for people who want to protest their convention to be held wayyyyyyyy away from the doors to the building cite.
The Republicans, while doing the same thing, have protesters in an area just 84 feet away. Those who want to go to Denver to protest are held “several football-field lengths away”.
84 feet.
vs
At least 200 yards.
Hmmmmm
Methinks there is a disparity here, but I’m sure that they’ll be lots of people in here to defend it, which is fine and good, but where were y’all in 2004 when it wasn’t your ox being gored?
Both are wrong. 84 feet or a few football pitch lengths is irrelevant. And as your own cite shows civil rights people are opposing both decisions equally.
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. You claim that in a democracy this should be allowed. Is there any democracy on earth that places no constraints on protesters? I wonder why that is…
This is nonsense. The people attending these conventions have a right to come and go from their meetings, and the protesters can be required to keep clear from public areas to some extent to make this possible. A thousand protesters standing in a solid line outside the entrances to the convention may be peaceful, but it it would infringe on the rights of others. So the police need to set some limits, but in a non-partisan way.
No, it doesn’t work that way. I’m not talking about people defending the practice, I’m talking about the way it was universally and loudly condemned as the hallmark of a fascist regime when it was the Repubs doing it, but when it’s the Dems doing the same thing (worse, since they want to push protesters out of sight), not a peep. Hypocrites, heal thy double standard.
In my world, the one with blue sky, the world ‘peacefully’ does not mean ‘preventing the free movement’ of delegates or whatever other ridiculous scenarios you want to conjure up.
It does for me. I’ve been on picket lines – peaceful picket lines – and I don’t see any contradiction in the phrase at all. The problem is that one person peacefully protesting is not going to be an issue, because you can always walk around one person. However, they are talking about tens of thousands of protesters at these conventions. Even if they didn’t deliberately line up to block the entrance, that number of people all trying to get into the best position to be seen by the delegates and by the TV cameras will inevitably make it hard for delegates to come and go. So the police would need to designate areas that need to be kept clear – there must be some limits on the protest.
That means the argument should not be about whether there are limits – it should be about how to set reasonable limits, which allow convention delegates to do their work, and allow all the different groups of protesters are right to voice their views where they can be seen and heard.
I don’t know the answer to this, but might the difference in distance be because of some physical difference in the venues? As in - the nearest safe space for the one is further than the other?
In the words of The Perfect Master, little things cause little problems. Big things cause big problems.
If Obama wins and continues the Convention policy for several years and no one here complains, feel free to call out “hypocrite!” again when it will be more appropriate.