Good news for freedom of speech

[Cyrus]

True to his commitment to work for the advancement of the cause of freedom, U.S. President George W 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!

[Utah]

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]

Unreal. This from the same party that opposed "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.

[adios]

No bias displayed by the writer of this article I see [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

Not a "loaded" post in the least as I know that you're no pissed off coservative [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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]

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.