| Author | Message | ||
     Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2654 Registered: 10-1999  |
The folks with the guns usually are blending in with the crowd, and not holding protest signs or otherwise attracting attention to themselves. I would guess that the real security experts at the secret service would be watching that part of the crowd as much as, or more, than any protesters. I still remember that George Wallace was shot by a guy who was seen smiling and applauding at a campaign appearance, right before he pulled out his gun. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2554 Registered: 5-2001  |
Well, then, these protesters make it even that much harder to spot these guys. They get in the way on their quest for media attention, even though it's aways portrayed as negative anyway, but hey, any attention is good attention, right? We had a anti-nukes sit in on Parker Ave. when I was at CHS (which seems to be the emotional age of a lot of protesters). Guess what impact it had? Detention. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 426 Registered: 8-2003  |
mem, they allow supporters near him. if a nut case wants to take a shot at the president, all he needs to do is carry a Bush-Cheney '04 placard and they'll usher him right in. this has nothing to do with security anyway. Anyone who gets within sight of the president (supporter or dissenter) is going to have to submit to a security check. I was at a speech of Ronald Reagan's in '83 and even then you couldn't get near the prez without going through a metal detector and submitting bags for a search. This is disturbing because we have a president who freely admits he doesn't read the news, and now his handlers are keeping dissenters out of his line of sight. Everything he knows is filtered by his staff. It's scary to think that he's existing in a bubble in which no bad news is ever allowed to penetrate. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2557 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, so we have bubble boy as president (for mental vs physical reasons). All the more reason to keep crazies away from our beloved, challenged, president. Whatever.  | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 898 Registered: 5-2001 |
The secret service can take reasonable security measures, including restricting the public to designated areas. But singling out those who are anti-Bush for exile is both a violation of the constitution and absurd as a security measure. If someone wants to hurt the President (G-d forbid) do you really think they won't be willing to carry an I love Bush sign? The idea that this is a security measure is preposterous and the hysteria of those like Mem, who place so little value on free speach and democracy, is the real threat. Protesting what you beleive is wrong in government is not "whining." It is exactly what the founders of this nation had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. Being so worried about PR that you use the secret service to ensure that your scripted photo ops are not disturbed is just pathetic. | ||
| Yogi Citizen Username: Yogi Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2003 |
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson & Adams are turning in their graves. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 281 Registered: 11-2003 |
There have never been so many vehicles available to the public in order to express discontent over government policies as there is today. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 427 Registered: 8-2003 |
When the govt decides to crack down on civil liberties (and any administration of either party will attempt to do it) I'm not as bothered as I am by the willing acquiescence of our citizens. The only time I begin to feel some despair about the direction the country is headed in is when I realize a lot of my fellow Americans couldn't care less about protecting the Bill of Rights. Those rights only exist if the people insist on preserving them. The people in power, be they Republican or Democrat, will be only too happy to see dissent and protest go away. Thank goodness for the ACLU. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2558 Registered: 5-2001 |
Asshear, How dare you decide what my values are. And you sound a lot more "hysterical" than me by attacking me personally. I have made it pretty clear, I happen to think that public protesting at a president's appearance is not only a waste of time, but dangerous as well, which has nothing to do with free speech. What if Hillary is elected and crazy "He-Man Woman Hating" clubs show up and try to bash her? See how the tables would turn. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 634 Registered: 8-2003 |
This is what you get panicked about, and you let Campaign Finance Reform sail through -- speech that could be more effective and seen by millions rather than hoping some broadcast network covers you and allows your "speech" to be heard. Pardon me for my lack of sympathy. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1656 Registered: 1-2003  |
mem, please read the whole article, the first one that ashear linked to. It points out that espousing beliefs that oppose the president's isn't any indication that the protestor is up to mischief. In fact, it's a good indicator he's not. Please remember what free speech is about. This is not about security. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 283 Registered: 11-2003 |
Everyone is for free speech, except when is concerns Straw. i wonder why? The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2559 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wow. Woosh woosh as my point goes right over these heads. I am not saying or caring what mischief or non-mischief these protesters are up to, in reflection of post 9/11, I personally believe that they are wasting their time and could be using their time and energy to make changes more intelligently. Heck, I sat down and wrote a letter to Home Depot complaining of their service and printed out my Home Depot MOL thread, and I got serious response from them. Granted, I heard they went right back to being impossible to deal with after a few weeks, but hey, if I was consistent, I am dead sure they would have kept up on it. I was exercizing my right to "free speech", and it worked. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2560 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh and Tom, thanks for reminding me to remember what free speech is all about. It has really helped my day. Yikes. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1657 Registered: 1-2003 |
OK, it might be a waste of time for the protestors, but it's still their right to use their time and space as they want. And public space is their space, just as it is yours and mine. What danger are you speaking of? Danger to the president? We've already rejected that argument. Danger to the protestors themselves? Only when the government poses the danger, which it has no right to do. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 428 Registered: 8-2003 |
gee, if I had just thought to write a letter to Bush and complain, maybe he would have re-thought that whole war thing... | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 900 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mem, you would be in a better position to complain about being called hysterical if you did not call those who choose to protest the President's actions childish, histrionic, and bratty. (I ascribed hysteria to "those, like Mem, who place so little value on free speech and democracy." My assessment of the value you place on those things is based on your statements.) If the tables were turned I would feel the same way, but I am a card carring member of the ACLU who thinks that the Republic can survive dissent. CJC - if you check back you will find that I agreed with you about campaign finance reform. I can certainly express my position no better than Justice Louis Brandeis did in Whitney v. California. "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it. Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly." I watched the towers burn and fall and felt the fear as I wondered what would happen next and watched the fighter jets fly over Penn Station. Almost every day I walk down the steps to the Path Station that sits by the invisible graves of thousands and I always think of them. But the idea that allowing protesters within sight of the President, while treating his supporters (or those carrying signs supporting him) differently furthers the defense of this nation is absurd. The idea that all dissent is treasonous or unworthy cuts at the very foundation of our democracy. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2561 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dear Dr. Booger, Would you please go sit in front of Home depot with your little "free speech" sign for me? I don't have the time and it's too cold. Thanks! | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1659 Registered: 1-2003 |
Well, mem, if you do remember what free speech is about, then would you agree that the people have a right to hold signs up in public places, whether the president is near or far? Their message may not get across to the intended recipients, but that has nothing to do with the right, that's about efficacy. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2562 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh brother. Now I am hysterical. Hysterically laughing. ACLU. Isn't that the NAMBLA people? |
