The bulk of the convention is at the Pepsi Center, also surrounded by oodles of parking lots.
I find it inconsistent that you are complaining about people who you disagree with not being vocal enough in their disagreements.
I also find it inconsistent that you have failed to commend the ACLU for being completely consistent on the issue of free speech zones. The failure to go out of one’s way to complement those who are consistent on this issue really undermines the spirit OP.
Someone might say that this inconsistency is due to the fact that someone who supports free speech zones would be reluctant to complement the ACLU simply because of their agenda, which brings into question whether the distribution of complements (or lack thereof) is simply politically motivated.
[/tongue firmly in cheek]
Yes but breach of peace covers the annoying assmonkeys who always show up at conventions. You can argue all you like but they will not be blocking the sidewalk with their free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
No law abridging. No law. None.
I trust we can count on the complete support of the recently-victorious Second Amendment fans, who rejoiced when the Supreme Court found that the “well regulated militia” clause did NOT restrict an absolute right to bear arms? This reading seems equally clear and simple.
Sailboat
Assmonkey’s don’t assemble peaseably so cities establish assmonkey zones. That just don’t like to use the word assmonkey to describe them.
I have already stipulated they cannot block access to the venues, so you can stop flogging that deceased equine. That you find them annoying creates no grounds to prevent them from protesting.
Is this really suitable for Great Debates? It smells a little pitty to me.
Sailboat
But the same text applies to free speech, and while free speech and expression is the absolute paramount right, above all others, there are plenty of totally legitimate restrictions on it: libel/slander, invasion of privacy, incitement, advertisement for illegal products, etc.
Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate restrictions on free assembly, although they’re discussed less often so I can’t as easily enumerate them.
Show me a constitutional right to yell at someone. that is breach of peace. You do not have a right to an audience.
It’s standard practice to separate groups of dissenting opinion as a function of crowd control. It’s done for good reason. Watch any large political rally and there are always a group of screaming, shoving protestors who’s only intent is to disrupt. If you let them protest directly in front of an event it would dissolve into chaos in 5 seconds. Any municipality that didn’t provide some degree of control beforehand would be negligent.
I’ve attended protests. The police draw a line and you stand on your side and exercise your freedom of speech for as long as you like. But you don’t get to disrupt an event. That’s breach of peace.
And whenever their side does it, it’s a sign of an impending fascist overthrow of their society. It’s another of those famous irregular verbs:
Isn’t it in the nature of many things to generate a lot of fuss and squawking when they are first introduced, but to be accepted with resigned apathy a long time (such as four years) later? Or in other words “Free Speech Zones” are now just accepted as another delightful feature of US electioneering, along with negative adverts, push polling, pandering to extreme groups, and so on?
I think you may be seeing a conspiracy where a simpler explanation exists.
According to what I’ve read, the GOP doesn’t get much in the way of bonus points for “allowing” protestors to within 84 feet of the convention, since they won’t be permitted there when the convention is actually in session. They can show up, wave signs, yell and scream when no delegates are around.
Both parties are sanitizing their conventions to present a nice image. They should take some heat for going beyond security concerns to blot out dissent that would look bad for the cameras.
:eek:
Shouting slogans outside a venue is not breach of peace. If you find that disruptive, that is your problem. My right to express my dissent is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and you cannot restrict that right simply because you find my dissent disruptive. If I do not interfere with your access to the venue, and I demonstrate peacefully in a public space, the fact that you find that to be annoying is of no consequence.
At this point it seems to me that we are arguing not the right to speak or the right to assemble, but over the definition of peaceably in “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” That seems like a slightly different thing to me.
The line between a crowd shouting and acting rowdy and actual mob violence seems to be not only a thin line but one that shifts in a moment’s breeze. Perhaps it can only be judged by someone on-scene. I am starting to think “it’s a right, but be careful how you exercise it.”
Sailboat
Sigh… Maybe it’s the fact that we’re typing back and forth and something gets missed in communication.
You’re trying to argue an egalitarian scenario. I’m arguing reality. The reality of the situation is that at every convention there is a large group of crazy people who deliberately attempt to disrupt the event. They are out of control the second they hit the street. Municipalities realize this and put up barriers ahead of time to prevent a riot. That’s fact. It’s not a discussion of an interpretation of the 1st amendment.
And while your right to express yourself is guaranteed is not a license to annoy. Breach of the peace has nothing to do with the message delivered and everything to do with HOW it’s delivered. You CANNOT shout someone down and you cannot disrupt someone else’s right to free speech. And you can absolutely be arrested for breaching the peace. It happens every day. If I’m walking down the sidewalk talking to someone and you follow me screaming your opinion you are interrupting MY freedom to be heard. If I’m sitting in my house and you drive by with a boom box you are breaching the peace.
If you think you have a license to an audience then walk into the nearest courtroom and tell the judge what you think about ANYTHING. Tell him how much you dislike his or her robe. Bring a stopwatch and let us know how many seconds it took before you’re arrested. We’ll get to see you on the news as they drag you from the court screaming about your 1st amendment rights. Same scenario applies to any other public forum such as a city manager’s meeting. You want to shout at people you will be invited to leave, by force if necessary.
Don’t’cha just love it when someone starts a thread along the lines of “why aren’t the people on the other side of the political fence getting upset about” something that’s gotten next to no play in the news?
Double points if their silence about this event they’ve never heard of demonstrates their hypocrisy.
Well…not to state the obvious, but perhaps this isn’t news because Bush isn’t involved in the nefarious plan?
ducks
-XT
I doubt RTF would have noticed anyway, he gets his “news” from whatever leftist blog he happens to be reading, I doubt they’d feature it.
Maybe, but not for me at least. For me this is less of an issue because of the players involved. The DNC and RNC are private actors, their arrangements for security/freedom of movement around their events are between them and the cities they’re held in. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of wrongs. The DNC and RNC aren’t “the government”. This Constitutional protection applies here if the cities have included partisan factors in the decisions which went into the planning and giving of permits, etc. for these events. At worst we have city governments being partisan and using their police powers to shield their preferred political party from protests. That’s not good, but it’s up to their constituents to deal with. As neither a resident of St. Paul or Denver, I can’t get too worked up about this. There’s also the open question of if protestors must stay back but supporters can get right up front(meaning supporters who aren’t delegates or have tickets to the event). If the city governments are restricting anti- viewpoints while allowing unfettered access to pro- viewpoints then I can get a few more kinks in my panties about that, my city or not. Lack of information = unkinked panties.
The first time I was exposed to “free speech zones” was in the context of the President using them to segregate people based on the content of their speech. I AM his constituent, and he was using the power I granted him to commit this act. Might as well take the panties off at that point. I was so pissed they weren’t doing any good.
I got into a discussion with Mr. Moto about how suppression of anti- viewpoints is the norm at political events, and how a bunch of thugs, he believed were in the employ of the campaign, had assaulted him at a Clinton rally some years back for his anti-Clinton stance. His point was the President’s use of “free speech zones”, enforced by the Secret Service and local Police, was no big deal because it’s been the functional reality for some time. I disagreed, saying that if you’re assaulted by a bunch of goons, you can turn to the police, who will help redress the wrongs the thugs committed, and if they can prove a link to the campaign, maybe bring down those doing the hiring of thugs. Similarly, the campaign managers did not take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US and thereby promise to protect the right of free speech. Nor do they represent “the government” who is supposed to be available for petitioning for redress of grievances. Bush certainly does represent the government and should be open to petitioning by a peaceably assembled group, regardless of if their petition reads “We Love Bush” or “Buck Fush”.
By using the Secret Service to enforce partitions on people based on the content of their speech I felt Bush was both breaking his oath and subverting the legitimate authority of the SS and local police. That’s a much bigger deal to me. If I can’t go to the police to protect me from having my freedom of speech curtailed, because the police are the ones curtailing it, regardless of the clear statements in the Supreme Law of the Land, that’s a whole other kettle of fish from what we have here.
Enjoy,
Steven
At any rate:
-
Private property owners (and renters) have a right to use their facilities in whatever legal manner they choose. Including kicking protesters off the premises.
-
On public property, ‘free speech zones’ are a crock. Aside from private property, the whole damned country is a free-speech zone.
-
That’s speech, and the Constitutional right to peacably assemble, not the right to block access, or to harass and threaten people. (Hence the legitimacy of the protest setback rules around abortion clinics.) It’s perfectly reasonable to have protesters set back far enough so that the protestees, if you will, don’t have to worry about being whacked by a sign.
-
But not so far that protestees with normal hearing and sight can’t hear what the protesters are shouting, and can’t read their signs.
84 feet is too far. Several football fields is way too far.
I’m assuming that the distances are measured from the boundaries of the properties being rented and the nearest places the protesters are allowed. If it turns out they’re measured from a structure that’s well inside those boundaries, that would be a whole 'nother thing. If it turns out that protesters are expected to stay 30 feet away from the property line, but that happens to be 600 feet from the convention hall, then no harm, no foul.
From Weirddave’s link: