PDA

View Full Version : Good news for freedom of speech


Cyrus
01-06-2004, 06:26 AM
True to his commitment to work for the advancement of the cause of freedom, U.S. President George W (http://politicalhumor.miningco.com/library/images/blbushgotcoke.htm) Bush doesn't want to see any more protesters or signs opposing that noble work anywhere he makes a public appearance.

This should give all freedom-loving people everywhere a warm and reassuring feeling of confidence to the President's commitment to freedom.

Four more years! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL)

Utah
01-06-2004, 09:50 AM
Yep - it is an unforgivable thing to squash free speech like that. It is one of the main reasons I probably won't vote for Bush.

Maybe there is a rational, but I haven't seen it. Did Clinton freely allow protesters? I remember when he came and gave a speech in the Courtyard of the office building where I worked. I don't remember seeing a single protester, and he wasn't exactly a loved guy.

Kurn, son of Mogh
01-06-2004, 09:53 AM
Unreal. This from the same party that opposed "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.

adios
01-06-2004, 10:59 AM
No bias displayed by the writer of this article I see /images/graemlins/smile.gif. This is my favorite BS from the article:

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

Nobody's free speech rights are being infringed upon. You don't get to say anything you want, anyplace you want without facing consequences for your actions.

Are our free speech rights being violated by the following:

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured."

People still have the right to protest.

Note the following:

But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

So there it is legal to restrict access to the president hmmm.... Why not challenge such a law in the courts?

Ok Bush doesn't want to see or hear protestors at least at many of his appearances. So what? Nobody's right to protest is being violated that I can see. Don't vote for him because you don't like his behavior but the implication of the article that Bush is repressing people's rights is ludicrus.

sam h
01-06-2004, 11:03 AM
what exactly this guy actually stands for and why conservatives like him so much. Because he's a winner?

Absolute contempt for civil liberties, as evinced by the patriot act, the Ashcroft appointment, and things like this + absolute contempt for fiscal restraint, as evinced by a once-again huge budget deficit = one strange conservative.

Kurn, son of Mogh
01-06-2004, 11:03 AM
but the implication of the article that Bush is repressing people's rights is ludicrus.

But he is *restricting* that right. And the distance between restriction and repression is much shorter than you think.

adios
01-06-2004, 11:09 AM
"But he is *restricting* that right."

All rights are restricted as far as I can tell. I understand your point, it is truly well taken and I do appreciate your point of view. Where do you think Bush would cross the line to being repressive?

elwoodblues
01-06-2004, 11:14 AM
I would guess that this is pretty standard fare for the secret service. I'm no Bush fan (by any stretch of anyone's imagination), but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was done by most administrations.

adios
01-06-2004, 11:15 AM
Not a "loaded" post in the least as I know that you're no pissed off coservative /images/graemlins/smile.gif. We've gone over all this many times (Patriot Act, Ashcroft, budget defecit). So I would suggest you go back and find the threads and read why.

ACPlayer
01-06-2004, 11:15 AM
True conservatives do not like him, the republican sheep like him because he beat Clinton. The only people who can like him are big business. They have had a free ride under this admin.

sam h
01-06-2004, 11:15 AM
You obviously know nothing about speech law.

[ QUOTE ]
Are our free speech rights being violated by the following:

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured."

People still have the right to protest.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is that our speech rights absolutely are being violated here. You have a policy that is dividing people into two segments based upon the content of their speech, and allowing them differential access because of it. To say that people can still protest, in an area away from the president and the media, is like saying that they can still protest in their living rooms.

The security rationale is a complete joke. If you wanted to shoot the president, would you dress up like a protester and wave a sign that drew attention to yourself? If the argument is that protesters might cause confusion that would enable an assassination attempt, then people need to be banned from the site based on behavior, not the content of their speech. It is your knee-jerk defense of the president that is "ludicrus."

adios
01-06-2004, 11:18 AM
"The only people who can like him are big business. They have had a free ride under this admin."

Are you Howard Dean? His alternative is have government create jobs in the public sector by taxing and spending. I prefer jobs being created by private enterprise.

adios
01-06-2004, 11:27 AM
"The answer is that our speech rights absolutely are being violated here. You have a policy that is dividing people into two segments based upon the content of their speech, and allowing them differential access because of it. To say that people can still protest, in an area away from the president and the media, is like saying that they can still protest in their living rooms."

Not that like that at all. I don't even know how to address such illogic.

"The security rationale is a complete joke."

Nope it isn't but I know I couldn't convince you otherwise so I won't waste my time.

"If you wanted to shoot the president, would you dress up like a protester and wave a sign that drew attention to yourself?"

Probably not but not really sure since my mind doesn't contemplate such thoughts.

"If the argument is that protesters might cause confusion that would enable an assassination attempt, then people need to be banned from the site based on behavior, not the content of their speech."

Again I can envision scenarios that compromise security. But I've already acknowledged that Bush doesn't want to see or hear protestors at his appearances. Again so what?

"It is your knee-jerk defense of the president that is "ludicrus."

Since I've acknowledged that he doesn't want to hear protesters or see them when he makes appearance in my original post, how is this a knee jerk defense of the president? All I'm stating is that people's right to free speech is not being repressed. It's legal to restrict access to the president and if the law is uncostitutional, challenge it in the courts.

elwoodblues
01-06-2004, 11:34 AM
Adios -- It sounds like your position is that this type of restriction is okay if the president doesn't want to "see or hear" protesters. Just to rephrase (and slightly extend the rationalle) --- it is okay to arrest people who voice opposition because the president disagrees with them. That's scary stuff.

Kurn, son of Mogh
01-06-2004, 11:39 AM
Where do you think Bush would cross the line to being repressive?

Any government official would cross the line by making a separate access point for the press and intentionally keeping the press and protesters apart.

It does freedom no good to insulate one side from the opinions of the other side. The perception of repression is as dangerous as repression itself.

adios
01-06-2004, 11:42 AM
"Just to rephrase (and slightly extend the rationalle) --- it is okay to arrest people who voice opposition because the president disagrees "

Nope not what I stated. If they violate the law about access to the president not for what they're saying. I know what's coming, well there more restricted than those that support Bush. Security is an issue and I can envision scenarios where it could be comprised by protestors. Again I'm fully acknowledging that Bush doesn't want to see or here them at his appearances. Again where should the dividing line be when people's free speech rights are being violated? If the law restricting access is unconstitutional challenge it.

Gotta go for now. I'll be back this evening for more fun and adventure.

Kurn, son of Mogh
01-06-2004, 11:44 AM
The security rationale is a complete joke.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin "He who would trade a portion of his liberty for a small measure of security deserves neither."

Just an observation from a guy who prefers a free, unruly society to a restricted orderly one. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

adios
01-06-2004, 11:44 AM
Obviously I disagree but I do respect your point of view and thanks for the response.

elwoodblues
01-06-2004, 11:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If the law restricting access is unconstitutional challenge it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that is the appropriate course of action. Without hesitation, I would challenge it if I were arrested (next time the president comes to Rosemount, MN he can expect a protest). I also think those creating and enforcing the law have a duty to weigh its impact on Constitutionally protected speech.

[ QUOTE ]
Security is an issue and I can envision scenarios where it could be comprised by protestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agree with you. I don't think this should give license to effectively silence the protesters unless/until those specific scenarios come up. Actions/laws that limit free speech based on safety, for example, should be narrowly tailored to satisfy that purpose. They should also be facially neutral in that they don't favor one position over another. Thus, if the Secret Service determines that it is a danger to have signs with wood hand-holds, they should ban all such signs (not just those of the president's political opponents) and should not ban signs that are made entirely of paper. It is the Secret Service's job to protect the president's safety, not to shield him from political opposition/embarassment.

MMMMMM
01-06-2004, 12:02 PM
OK, here's how I see it:

1. It seems unfair, and may be an infringement of rights to free speech

2. It is not unlikely that the chance of security threats, or chances of melee or fiasco, from certain hot-headed protestors is greater than that from supporters

3. Given that there are probably quite a few nuts out there protesting who might not be able to control themselves, and given Bush's political situation domestically and on the world stage at this time of crisis, I think the Secret Service may well be doing the right thing in keeping the public at a distance from Bush during appearances. HOWEVER, I think that if this is the case, then even supporters should not be allowed to assemble or march so near the President. In other words if there are legitimate security concerns requiring a physical distancing, or legitimate concerns regarding fears of crowd chaos, then ALL public protestors AND supporters should be kept at a prudent distance from the President during public appearances. This is especially so because any truly devious and determined assassin might masquerade as a supporter near the President, and under cover of his sign, draw and fire a weapon.

So if the Secret Service has legitimate concerns about controlling the protest crowds, or of the President's safety from them, then IMO so too should the public supporters be distanced for reasons of security.

Gamblor
01-06-2004, 12:43 PM
between incitement and free speech?

Not that it may be relevant to this discussion, but does Zundel count as free speech?

ACPlayer
01-06-2004, 03:02 PM
There is an article in the NY Times titled "Shrink Government the Right Tells the Right"

This admin does not tax and spend, it just spends and spends.

Terry
01-06-2004, 03:34 PM
I thought you were gonna say Ashcroft was gone.

Here’s a link to some very creative Bush bashing. The link is to a Quicktime video that takes a couple minutes to download on dial-up, so don’t click if you’re in a game. There are 15 of these on the site.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/06_small.shtml

MMMMMM
01-06-2004, 05:33 PM
"This admin does not tax and spend, it just spends and spends."

Perhaps, but as has been shown, it collects more tax revenue precisely because it lowered taxes which in turn spurred the economy and increased the entire GDP. The total taxable pie was larger even if the tax rate was lower, so total tax revenues went up.

Quite a revolutionary concept, eh, ACPlayer!?

hetron
01-06-2004, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]


This admin does not tax and spend, it just spends and spends.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "spend and spend" days have been going on with every Republican administration since Reagan. Tremendous government spending is justified if the spending has to do with defense, and mocked if it involves education or social programs "because those things don't work". (Maybe they would work if they weren't fought tooth and nail every step of the way...)

Say what you want about Clinton, but he did make a concerted effort to get rid of the deficit and start paying off the debt. Bush seemingly has no compunction to do so

hetron
01-06-2004, 06:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"This admin does not tax and spend, it just spends and spends."

Perhaps, but as has been shown, it collects more tax revenue precisely because it lowered taxes which in turn spurred the economy and increased the entire GDP. The total taxable pie was larger even if the tax rate was lower, so total tax revenues went up.

Quite a revolutionary concept, eh, ACPlayer!?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the case, why are we running budget deficits again?

MMMMMM
01-06-2004, 06:52 PM
"If that is the case (Bush's tax cuts generating more tax revenue), why are we running budget deficits again?"

Ask Tom Haley (if Tom doesn't mind, that is). Tom has posted fairly extensively on this subject and supplied backup data, and is far better equipped to summarize such things than I am. Or maybe someone could direct you to the proper posts in the archives.

Also, the deficit we currently have, when taken as a percentage of GDP, is not bad at all compared to many other deficts we have had at times. Those who speak of the deficit as being huge (in absolute terms) are either being deliberately deceitful for propaganda purposes or are ignorant as to how to make meaningful comparisons.

ACPlayer
01-06-2004, 07:00 PM
Not really. I believe in lower tax rates and overall lower tax revenues to the government.

However, for a true conservative cutting spending by the govt should be more important. The federal govt should be taking in less dollars to control the out of control spending appetites. The Republican Admin and the Republican congress should be cutting spending with the same zeal with each it pillories the Democratic spending habits during the Democratic years.

Basic conservative principles are being ignored. A fine opportunity frittered away.

BruceZ
01-06-2004, 07:03 PM
the republican sheep like him because he beat Clinton.

Also those who are informed enough to actually know who he beat.

ACPlayer
01-06-2004, 07:08 PM
You got me.

adios
01-07-2004, 07:35 AM
Hetron read my posts in July of this year. Basically it's these reasons:

1 - Decreased government revenues from the boom years of the late 90's and 2000. Of course part of this is due to tax cuts but the unemployment situation is the major contributer. The debate about tax cuts is about whether or not they'll contribute to economic growth and thus provide more jobs.

2 - Non linear increases in Medicaid/Medicare outlays.

3 - Increases in defense spending.

4 - Homeland security

5 - Other increases in discretionary spending.

Suprisingly interest payments on the deficit have decreased since the Clinton administration due to coupon rates on treasuries. I've already acknowledged that I feel that Clinton did a good job in controlling the growth of Medicaid/Medicare spending. Others have pointed out some very valid reasons for Medicaid/Medicare increases as well. As I'm sure you know Congress has just passed a Medicare/Medicaid reform bill which I'm currently in the process of educating myself on. I think it's fair to say that it's a program that needs attention and an important program as well.

Defense spending has increased a lot since the Clinton adminiatration. However, it should be noted that defense spending in the Clinton administration was at levels not seen since immediately after WWII when normalized for GDP. I might add that with the ending of the cold war there was certainly justification for at least some if not all of the reduced level of spending. What the level of defense spending should be is a debatable issue no doubt.

Even though social security is currently running at a surplus the system probably needs to change. It's based on the notion that people who are eligible today will be taken care of by those who are employed and are not currently eligible. The demographics of the "baby boomers" is such that there won't be enough people paying into the system to meet social security payments to the "baby boomers" when they're eligible. This could change in a variety of ways.

Cyndie
01-09-2004, 02:35 AM
Makes sense. If there are different qualifications for everyone who has close proximity and the restriction is for security...supporters should have the same procedure to gain closer access...

Rules that allow selective enforcement lead regularly to unintended consequences that somehow bite the dorsal anatomy of the rule maker.