Zoned Speech for Thee But Not for Me

The ACLU is suing the Secret Service for confining anti-Bush demonstrators to free-speech zones while allowing people with pro-Bush placards to roam more freely.

Comments

[Concerned Citizen]

This just makes the media's job easier by providing easy access for the Anti-Bush protesters...it's not like a pro-Bush demonstrator has a chance in hell of getting past a producer and/or editor into a broadcast. Pro-Bush people are "partisans," remember, and anti-Bush people are "activists."

[Ray]

I think it is reasonable to allow the holder of the highest office in the land to have enough space to be heard. The "free speech zone" concept wasn't born of Bush or Ashcroft after all and there have been plenty of cases where hecklers of the Clintons or other prominent Dems have been effectively silenced.

[JSM]

Why would a producer or editor be interested in a pro-Bush supporter other than the number of partisans that back Bush? Their views are being expressed by Bush's speech. On the other hand, dissenters don't have a talking head countering Bush at the podium so a producer/editor would be interested in hearing what the dissenting point of view is, if it can be summed up in a 25 second piece. And certainly the number of protestors can sway public opinion.

However, Bush and the secret service have their trump card for this ploy, 9/11. You know, the day everything changed.

[PLC]

When do the rights of those who came to peacefully listen to a speach supercede the rights of those who came to disrupt it?

[Jesse Walker]

The "free speech zone" concept wasn't born of Bush or Ashcroft after all

What, and that's supposed to make it all right?

When do the rights of those who came to peacefully listen to a speach supercede the rights of those who came to disrupt it?

If you'd bother to read the links, PLC, you'd know that this has nothing to do with heckling.

[thoreau]

Waving a sign isn't disrupting a speech. I have no problem with saying that attendees at a speech need to shut their yappers while the speech is going on. But if a Bush fan gets to quietly wave a sign saying "4 more years!" why can't I quietly wave a sign saying "Change Our Regime: Vote Libertarian!" (yes, I actually made such a sign)

(And please don't try to say that "change our regime: vote Libertarian" is a threat against the President's life.)

[Anonymous]

This has slowly become the 'norm' when it comes to free speech in this country. These days, free speech is only Free as long as you have a permit, are standing in the proper zone, have the appropriete message, and keep the noise down.

The whole soap box on the corner is a myth. We are quickly becoming a Nationalist society that horrificly mirrors 1934 Germany. It seems however, thats what the people want....

[Ray]

Are anyone's rights being violated?

The freedom of speech is not a freedom to wantonly disrupt any gathering a person happens to choose.

The anti-Bush crowd have their place (their zone) and yes, they will be prominently displayed on the evening news; most likely from the right camera angles to make it appear as if their numbers are much larger than in reality.

Then on the security issue, a crowd of supporters are easier to monitor than a crowd of dissenters i.e. someone pulls out an assault rifle (the object of so many gun laws for what reason?) they will be much easier to spot.

[Daniel Leathers]

I work for the ACLU-NCA (National Capitol Area) that filed this suit. You should have been at the press conference. They locked up a 65 year old man for refusing to go INTO A CHAIN LINK fenced off area, and even the police officers that testified sid he was causing no disruption. Those aginast bush had to go into the pen, others could roam freely.

I'm saddened by anyone who wishes to call themself libertarian, and think practices like this are acceptable.

[Ray]

Jesse,
Ashcroft and Bush having nothing to do with the "free speech zone" is important because the overall gist of this entire story (not just here) is that the Bush "regime" has taken the initiative in "fencing in" the dissenters.

thoreau,

Because a quiet sign waver can shout out whatever obscenity at the perfect time during the ongoing speech. Essentially it is an uncontrollable situation so they just section the dissenters off to their own place.

Even though the dissenters are in their own zone, they will, in the long run, get more actual air time on the nightly news than the actual speech (as long as the speech is given by a right wing figure).

[PLC]

Jesse - it still seems to me that the root issue is whether or not the 1st ammendment guarantees the right to disrupt a political rally. For instance, when the KKK wants to have a rally, the police generally keep the counter-protestors away, in order to maintain order. If the Democratic party wants to have a big barbeque to raise funds in some local district, is it legal for a Republican or Green party activist to show up with a big sign and march around? I'm not pretending to know the answer - I'm just saying it ain't as clear-cut as the ACLU is making it out to be....

[Daniel Leathers]

By th way- the press was BANNED from the chain linked area as well ... try reading the papers before speaking.

[Conprag]

Perhaps this is a silly analysis, but I'm going to proffer it anyway. I see some sense to the notion of "free-speech zones," if only because free speech can be used to prevent free speech.

At a very crass level, it is entirely possible for a large crowd of protestors to so entirely disrupt a speaking event (with noise and physical obstruction) that the speaker never gets a chance to say a word to his or her audience. If a group of hard-core, dedicated protestors does this continually, and the speaker has no other outlets (ie. no serious media coverage, no chances to hold meetings on private property, etc.), isn't that potential speaker's right to free speech (and for that matter to hold a peaceable assembly) being violated?

What if this hard-core group of protestors intentionally targets the audience's ability to listen by chanting, by holding up signs or placards to block the view of the stage, etc.?

Let me quickly point out that the idea of the nearest "free-speech" zone for protestors of an event might be half a mile away from the event is disagreeable to me. I'm merely pointing out that some practical considerations must be made for a speaker, and an audience, to be able to assemble for free speech to take place--it is possible for free speech to be used to drown out the legimate free speech of others.

[Daniel Leathers]

Again - pay attention to what's at hand - not what you THINK the case involves. This involves people holding signs NOT EVEN TALKING or disrupting in the least.

[Ray]

Anon,

Our freedom of speech today is much freer than it has ever been in our country's history. Think of the freedom of our pop media as compared to just 40 years ago.

You can wear a Tshirt with heretofore unthought of obscenities without fear of prosecution and so on and so on.

There are of course valid issues of individual rights to be fought for today but those making the most noise, the ACLU in particular, are not the least bit concerned with a person's rights. Whether it's the ACLU and the 9th Circus making asses of themselves yet again or Jesse Jackson types crying racism everytime you switch the channel, the vacuity of the dissident Left today is astounding.

If the ACLU weren't so morally and intellectualy corrupt their cause would look much more like the Institute for Justice and not so much like the blunt tool of the radical Left fringe.

[Anonymous]

Ray, PLC, Concerned Citizen-

I believe the site you were looking for was http://www.freerepublic.com.

Just to reiterate, this is the GOVERNMENT discriminating on the basis of PROTECTED SPEECH CONTENT. All of the "But the media"/"disruption"/"But clinton..." is rationalization for the fact you all don't believe the Constitution applies to people you disagree with.

Give me a pot-smoking gay druid any day.

[Anonymous]

Its interesting to note that Bush and Ashcroft are all in favor of creating these 'speech zones' to counter and contain any disent against them, while atempting at every point they can to halt the practice of fencing off anti-abortion activists to maintain the safty of the doctors and patients of the clinic.

Also interesting enough, whos more likely to pull a gun and shoot, an anti-abortion activist or an anti-bush activist??

I can name a number of anti-abortion shootings in the past 2 years since Bush came into office, I cant recall a single shooting occuring at a republican rally by an anti-Bush activist. Can YOU??

[Ray]

Daniel,

It's already been stated, a quiet group of sign wavers can erupt with their vocal dissent at any given moment. It is an uncontrollable situation. Not being able to predict what the quiet sign wavers are actually going to do, they are cordoned off to a separate but near area.

Again, this is why it is important to remember that this "free speech zone" is not an Ashcroft/Bush creation. I've never heard the ACLU pick up this subject before it was used against their own people.

That's the problem with fringe groups like the ACLU because they are only representing a narrow agenda and those that subscribe to that view.

[joe]

Really bad showing from the righties on this thread. Do you people actually believe in anything?

[Anonymous]

Uncontrolable situation??

You mean they cant just escort the loudmouths out of the crowd if that person gets out of hand?? Seems to work for most everyone else....

I guess people caged up behind a fence makes for easier targets when they have to roll out the national guard....

[Ray]

Anon,

You failed to address that your initial post was egregiously wrong. We are not approaching a Nationalist state and our freedom of speech is not, on an aggregate level, less free today than any other time in our history.

Also, you are completely ignorant to the concept of free speech. You have taken the mistaken view that your freedom of speech entitles you to interfere with my speech. It does not and I do not have to listen to you.

If a group of Republicans crashed an ACLU/Democratic meeting sporting signs and yelling whatever it is they would yell, you would immediately see the infringement of free speech that this created.

Of course this would require some rational, objective thinking on your part which does seem unlikely but one can dream heh?

[Ray]

Anon,

It doesn't matter that you can escort the loud mouths out, after they've disrupted the speech the damage is done and you know it and the protesters would plan it as such.

Thus the uncontrollable situtation.

[Ray]

Jesse,

Now you see why it was important that it be pointed out that this "free speech zone" concept was not an Ashcroft/Bush creation.

Anon doesn't bother reading anyone else's post in entirety and so he has repeated and implied several times now that this whole thing is a recent GOP creation.

Oh the ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Failed to state where we have become a nationalist society?? You mean like my president telling me im not a patriot if I do not support his imperialist motives for invading a soverign nation unprovoked??

The Bill O'Reileys, Rush's, Sean Hannitys, Ann Coulters, John Ashcrofts, Mike Savages, etc. etc. who berate open thinking people as communists, pro-terrorists, anti-patriots, Unamerican etc. etc. for not agreeing with thier views....

Yea Ray, I can see what you mean about me not quite understanding what "Nationalist" societys do.

[Jesse Walker]

For the record, the ACLU has a long history of opposing free-speech zones on college campuses -- a position that predates the Bush presidency and involves standing up for conservative as well as leftist speech.

I should add that, while the Bush team certainly didn't invent the "free-speech zone" concept, they've been disturbingly enthusiastic about it.

[Ray]

joe,

You mean you buy into the ancient canard that your free speech rightfuly enables you to interfere with the free speech of another?

Oh the ignorance.

You probably think John Ashcroft created the "free speech zone" idea too.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

You seem to believe that free speech entitles you to some form of protection from oposition or disent.... or the right to have your audiance free of any disent or opposition... strange I never read that in the constitution.

talk about ignorance.... you have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from offense...

[bennett]

I can think of no better example of "Orwellian Doublethink" than the "free speech zone." There is no defensible argument for this practice, and we can not allow politicians to behave like this. Pure and simple, it is the supression of dissenting viewpoints. It is an attempt to control the message that makes it into the mass media by using the police power of government. I hope the ACLU lays the smack down on this one.

[Ray]

Anon,

You are truly the most ignorant poster I have ever encountered.

You switched from Bush to Sean Hannity without any acknowledgement that one is the govt and one is a private party.

Sean Hannity and the others you mentioned have the right to call people whatever they want. And you have the right not to listen.

If this were the Nationalist state that you purport it to be, you wouldn't be having this conversation right now, Reason mag wouldn't even exists, Noam Chomsky would be in jail, Ed Said would not have had the voice he had and so on.

You are completely disconnected from reality.

[thoreau]

If I want to shout out obscenities at a Bush rally, I could just as easily paper-over my "Change Our Regime: Vote Libertarian!" sign with a sign that says "4 More Years!" and don an NRA button and "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelet for good measure.

Then, after the government agents let me in because my belongings carry messages that are pleasing to our leader, at the right moment I can rip off the "4 More Years!" covering to reveal the sign underneath and start shouting anti-Bush propaganda.

So I don't see much practical benefit in discriminating on the basis of sign content.

[Ray]

Notice to all public school graduates:

Your free speech does not entitle you to disrupt or interfere with the free speech of another.

If there was some guarantee that a quiet sign waver would remain silent, they would be allowed in the speech. But of course a well placed obscentity shouted at the perfect time during a speech would be frozen forever in history and the damage would be done, regardless of that dissenter being shown the door.

Oh the ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Wow Ray, interesting....

You seem to argue just like every conservitive I have ever encountered. Attack with personal jabs and insults if you cannot make your point logicly.

You asked me to explain how we are quickly becoming a nationalist society... I just answered your question. Seems Im not allowed to have more then one thought, or argument.... because your having trouble following me if I present more then one argument...

So, you try to attack me on a personal level.....Its ironic that you use the exact same tactic that every one of the people I just mentioned use when they cant win an argument on thier radio or TV program.

You made my point for me... thank you

[Ray]

thoreau,

You're right, it isn't fool proof and I'm sure something like that is bound to happen.

The bottom line is still that shouting down a speaker is not a Constitutionally protected right.

[thoreau]

Somebody raised the issue of a bunch of Republicans crashing a liberal event:

If the event is invitation-only and held on private property (let's leave aside for the moment thorny issues concerning rented public property, e.g. parks) the liberal event organizers would have every right to call the cops and have the Republican crashers removed. Ditto if the partisan affiliations were reversed.

But if the President is speaking an event that is allegedly open to the general public, and he's ordering public employees (Secret Service) to selectively remove people for expressing certain opinions in a non-disruptive manner, that's a clear 1st amendment violation. Now, maybe if the event were hosted on private property and the owner of the property was selective in admission it would be a different story. But when this is undertaken by public employees at the behest of elected officials it's clearly a government action, not a private action.

[thoreau]

When in this thread have I said that shouting down a speaker is a Constitutionally protected right? NEVER!

But Ray and others are persistently arguing that I favor the right to disrupt somebody else's speech. All I ever said is that government agents (Secret Service and cops) shouldn't bar sign wavers from a public event solely based on the opinion displayed in the sign (apply all caveats that a sign like "Kill Bush!" is different, etc. etc.).

[Ray]

Anon,

Wow, you are obtuse!

Your proof of a Nationalist system is that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have the freedom to voice their opinions.

Wow, what a leap in logic.

You are dense, I mean really. There's not a lot of sun light making it to your leaves if you know what I mean.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

you seem to forget, there are already methods in place to deal with people who disrupt public gatherings.... Most Cities have laws against such practices, and most law enforcment agencies instruct thier officers on how to handle such people. They dont need to sequester people of disenting opinions behind two different lines...contrary to what you think.

Furthermore, political speeches have been givin by political candidates for almost 200 years in this country, many times with people of oposing views present in the audiance.

You seem to have a view of anyone that disagrees with you as some militant zealot bent on disruption. Contrary to what you think, not ALL anti-bush supporters are lawless morons like you seem to think.

[Ray]

thoreau,

Your second to last post nailed the key issue here. You said that the Secret Service was ordered to remove people who were otherwise not disruptive.

You cannot actually keep a quiet sign waver from suddenly becoming disruptive. So instead of having invitation only speeches, they simply give the dissenters their own area, close by, to voice their opinions. And we both know that these dissenters will get PLENTY of airtime.

[joe]

In order to prevent someone from getting too loud at a speech, Ray would require him to remain severl hundred yards away from the even, where he and other people who share his political ideas can be kept under the watchful eyes of the police.

Ray would do this, because Ray loves freedom.

Poor showing for the righties on this thread.

[thoreau]

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that a sign with anti-Bush sentiments indicates a very high risk of vocal disruption, so the Secret Service has the right to bar that sign bearer from Bush's speech.

How far can this go? Say that in a few years a Democrat is in the White House. Somebody shows up to his speech. In order to gauge the likelihood that the prospective attendee might pose disruption he's confronted with the following questions:

-Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?
-Have you ever posted messages on FreeRepublic.com?
-Have you ever donated money to a Republican candidate?
-Have you ever sent letters critical of the President to newspapers or other publications?
-Have you ever protested against a woman's right to choose?

These are all perfectly legitimate activities that have a place in a free society. But what if government officials decide that these actions fit the "profile" of somebody who might make loud negative comments in the middle of a speech by a Democratic President? Should they be able to bar you from the speech on those grounds? After all, carrying a sign that criticizes Bush is apparently sufficient reason to bar somebody, at least in Ray's opinion.

[Anonymous]

Remember, its only freedom when its republican freedom....

all the rest of you people are godless hethens, not fit for citizenship to this great nation under god.

If your not for US, your for the terrorists....

[Russ D]

Ray,

Your arguments amount to "suppression is better than disruption."

[Ray]

Anon,

Well, speaking of morons, I'm having this conversation with someone who thinks that because AM talk radio types have the freedom to voice their opinions, our country is becoming a Nationalist nazi like state.

What you've actually been decrying is free speech itself which is what makes it all so silly.

The laws already in place against disrupting public events are minor and are not much of a disincentive to someone who wants their voice forever caught on tape yelling some obscenity at the most opportune time of someone's speech.

And the security details have always, for 200 years, always kept the peace at Presidential functions. Escorting people out, keeping out the riff raff altogether sometimes etc.

Again, this "zone" idea is not new and has at it's origins more to do with security than speech disruption.

[Warren]

Ray,
You keep repeating over and over that the right to free speech doesn't give you the right to interfere with the free speech of others despite the fact that NO ONE has made or implied any such claim. So I will oblige you.

Why don't my friends and I have the right to shout down the speaker at a public gathering. What sort of Orwellian nonsense is it that, my right to free speech requires me to be silent just because one of the elite has taken the podium?

[Ray]

joe,

Poor showing for yourself. You have yet to make a valid case for the disrupting of another's free speech being your Constitutional right.

Russ & thoreau,
This "speech zone" idea is not a GOP creation and it's not new. It's main purpose was originally a security issue as loud mouthed sign wavers were more likely to include a gun wielding nut.

I think, and this is off the top of my head, but I think more Republican presdents have been shot than Democrat.
Lincoln
McKinley
Ford
Reagan

[Ray]

thoreau,

There you go, Warren is advocating the shouting down of others as a Constitutional right.

[thoreau]

I never claimed that the "speech zone" is new or exclusively a GOP idea. My point is that if we regard people as a threat solely because they exercise their first amendment rights in a quiet manner, where do we draw the line? How about political profiling? Democrats could do it to Republicans and Republicans could do it to Democrats.

How many of the people who killed or attempted to kill a President were waving signs?

[Anonymous]

Ray,

you seem to believe that because I see the fact that the people of the country are slowly becoming perpetrators of Nationalist retoric, that I have an issue with thier speech, or would like to supress the speech. Where do you get that idea??

The fact that Hannity, O'Rieley, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ashcroft, Bush, and a host of other 'high profile' conservitives are leading the cause should be enough to alarm everyone.

You find it funny to berate others in this thread by insulting thier level of education, it seems you are the one lacking on education. You obviously have never read a single account on how exactly the German state became a nationalist society opening the path to the nazi party. It started with 'high profile' conservitives voicing thier opinion to the masses. Who obediantly followed... a phenominon we are already seeing today.... you know, 70% of the population beliving that Saddam had a personal part in 9/11... wonder where they got that idea?? Couldnt be from a presidental state of the union address or the screaming of it over and over again on talk radio and TV right??

So bury your head in the sand, keep listening to the 'conservitive right'...... Us thinking minded people are all crazy... just like the free thinkers in 1934 who just couldnt believe what thier country had become.

[thoreau]

Ray-

Fine, then argue with Warren. But don't lump me in.

[Ray]

Warren,

If I cordon off a public space, whether it's rented or I just get permits from the municipality or whatever, and I have a rally with my political peers, this is the exercise of free speech.

If you come along and shout me down and physically disrupt our rally, that is not Constitutionally protected speech. No one is going to throw you in jail but if I hire security guards to keep the peace at my rally, in no way are those security guards suppressing your freedom of speech when they stop you from suppressing mine.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

how much suppression to let your voice be heard do you belive in??

You know, they were just surpressing a disruption at Kent State too....

[Warren]

The problem here is that it is a public space and you hired your security with my tax dollars so no you don't get the right to surpress my speach just because you are a member of the establishment

[Ray]

thoreau,

Look at this. Really. I'm not lumping you in with anyone, just look at this.

Anon attributes the speech of talk radio to the government (as long as the govt is currently of the right wing) and makes the quantum leap that this country must be on the verge of Nazism.

Warren is agruing exactly what you have refuted, the supposed "right" to shout someone down at their rally or function.

And joe basically chiming in with nonsensical little posts that don't actually say anything.

Those supposedly on your side are actually making the argument against free speech.

[JDM]

This really isn't so much about disruption. The protestors could easily put down their signs and and go in and disrupt the speech to their hearts' content. I have no doubt that every one of the protestors was happy to be locked away from the event. It actually gave them more attention than they would otherwise have gotten, and of a type that makes it easier for them to make their facile comparisons of the US under Bush as the rise of the Fourth Reich.

This isn't in any way about free speech either. This is about the President's people controlling the visual aspects of his rallies. There is no more reason to think that his opponents have a right to control what his rally looks like by holding up signs, than they have to control the script of his speech. I'm aware that they are using public funds, and I'd be happier than anyone if they had to pay for the damn things out of their campaign funds.

Having said that, this is wrong to the extent that it involves moving the protestors into a cage rather than moving the rally into one.

[Ray]

Warren,

You're wrong.

If I, as a public official or private citizen, make arrangements to hold a public rally, you do not have the right to break up that meeting.

That is a violation of free speech.

thoreau,

Are you reading this tripe? You're people are actually arguing against free speech.

[Warren]

Therefore you must be right because someone disagreed with you. Such people should be herded into free speech zones least they become disruptive to the establishment. Ahhhh I now I see, thanks for the enlightenment.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

you seem to jump to alot of conclusions based on things that were never said...

Verge of nazisim... no, i just mearly stated the danger of too much Nationalist propganda... it ushered in the nazi party. Did I say we were becoming nazis? NO, i said we were becoming Nationalist... again, your lack of reading comprehension does not give you the right to slander my argument.

Furthermore, the propoganda being spewed on talk radio orginates from the propoganda from this current administration... It wasnt Hannity or O'Reily who first used the phrase 'if your not with us, your for the terrorists', it was the current president. It was not talk radio that first tied Saddam to 9/11 it was the President, it was not talk radio that started the anti-american, or unpatriotic assults on disentors, it was the administration and the Republican party who used that assault against thier Democratic rivals...

It is talk radio that picked up that ball and ran with it...

again, how quickly you distort the facts.

[joe]

"You have yet to make a valid case for the disrupting of another's free speech being your Constitutional right." No, I haven't. I haven't even tried. Because I don't believe that. My objections are not based on a belief in right to shout down others. A person who causes a disruption and won't stop should be removed.

What I object to is the preventative detention of people who might cause a disruption, especially when the only reason to suspect they would do such a thing is their political beliefs. I also do not believe your right to free speech extends to having everyone in your sight agree with you.

You aren't defining disruption as "no one can hear, I'm being shouted down, let me speak!" You're defining disruption as "shit, those kids are ruining the ambiance of the footage that's going to appear on the news." Well too f-ing bad.

[Ray]

JDM,

That's why I said that I think the original premise for this "zone" thing (again, not an Ashcroft/Bush idea) was about security.

The problem with moving the speech instead of the protesters is two fold 1) It creates a possibly invitation only situation and 2) it allows the protesters to set the stage instead of those actually putting on the event. Something that you already adroitly addressed.

[dhex]

to what extent does a person with a sign (or group of people with signs) have the ability to disrupt a person with a microphone, amplifier and armed guards?

i find it hard to buy the whole "president as victim" schtick. much too clintonian for my blood.

[Ray]

joe,

you're wrong.

Read my posts directed to Warren.

You do not have the right to change the scenery of my rally if I have rented, gotten municipal permission or whatever, that public space.

Thoreau and JDM have actually backed me up on this and they're on your side.

[7.62]

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

I take this to mean on all public lands, in all public places, from sea to shining sea.

"Free speech zone". Just the name, makes me want to start filling clips with ammo.

[Ray]

dhex,

Read my previous posts to Warren addressing my right to hold a rally.

Other than that, I'm repeating myself so I'm going to the gym.

It's been fun, . . .

thoreau,
Look at this mess, your guys are actually arguing against free speech. I'm not lumping you in with them but they are on your side. You need to have a little talk with them or something.

[Brady]

Look, if you are in a public place and are trying to blab your opinion, anyone else can freely argue with you. Who cares if you have some pre-written speech and the other guy doing improv. If you are in a PUBLIC space that anyone (the public) can speak in that area. Just because one guy has guys in suits to muscle people around doesn't make their speech any more "free" than the other. Find a private place to rant if you want to be uninterupted.

The idea that their speech is infringing yours is bs. Free speech in the constitution means the government cannot limit the speech of its citizens, not that I cannot shout over someone if I disagree with their ideas.

By the same regard, let's say you hold a press conference and no one shows up because your opinion is unpopular (for whatever reason) to the media. Did they infringe on your speech? Hell no.

[Ray]

brady,

I never meant to imply that shouting down another's speech was a technical violation of the 1st Amendment but that disrupting another's speech is not Consitutionally protected.

And if I rent or otherwise procure a public space, you absolutely do not have the right to physically disrupt my rally. You are gravely mistaken, it may sound nice but that is, essentially distrurbing the peace.

[JDM]

Just wait until *all* campaign events are publicly financed. Won't that be fun:

"You're using public money! I can put my 'I'm with stupid' sign on the stage next to you if I want!"

[Spysander Looner]

We wouldn't have this problem if there were no public property.

[Glenn C]

Ray:
I hate to tell you this, but you are just plain wrong. I have a right to free speech, and a right of assembly. Keeping people out of a public event is a Constitutional violation. I have been to many events over the years where some jackass (Warren?) feels the need to demonstrate the utter vacuity of his opinions by trying to shout down the speakers. Those people get removed *after* they become disruptive. I've seen politicians from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan handle situations like that easily. Bush can learn.
Regarding security, I remind you McKinley and Garfield were killed by men who were pretending to be supporters.

[Ray]

brady,

Because I acknowledge that shouting down someone's speech isn't a technical Constitutional violation doesn't mean that what these posters are advocating is anything but anti-free speech.

[joe]

At a certain point in the Korean War, Marine Gen. "Chesty" Arthur found his division trapped on a frozen reservoir, with many thousands of North Korean troops holding the surrounding hills. A reporter was flown in, and Arthur told him, "We've got them right where we want them."

Ray often reminds me of Gen. Arthur.

[Ray]

Glenn,

Good point, that is why I mentioned earlier that the initial reasoning, as I understand it, wasn't about disruptions but about security.

JDM,
I'm in AZ where we have this "Clean Elections" nonsense i.e. public funded elections.
It is the hardest thing to explain to the otherwise uneducated how truly bad this is.

Anyway, I'm off, it's been fun.

[Warren]

Ray,
You are wrong. Disrupting a public speaker is constitutionally protected. Just read the first amendment, the language is quite clear.

Claiming that I am arguing against free speech is also false. I am not saying that you can't have your rally or take the podium and speak, just that I have the right to speak in a public place too. A right guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States of America.

You seem to think that Nuremberg should be the standard for political rallies here in the USA again you are wrong.

[Russ D]

Ray,

Who the hell said anything about physical disruption (besides you)? Your dissenters are only mentioning is VERBAL disruption.

Sticks and stones...

Apparently you equate talking and shouting with physical attack.

[JDM]

Brady,

What if I want to play hacky sack or play guitar, (or do whatever it is that hippies do) when they are setting up the podium? Is that not also an outrage?

[joe]

Oh, and Ray?

You're a NAZI! A NAZI! Like the NAZIS! You NAZI.

Just like the Nazis.

😉

[Brady]

I think I agree with Spysander Looner.

The problem I see is that how can you "rent" public space? If a space is truly public, isn't it a farce to say that someone can temporarily negate my rights on that land for a few bucks?

Why? 1) you are saying that free speech really isn't free at all, but that it requires the government's permission through a bribe. 2) if the government has to give you a permit, then the government is given the opportunity to choose who gets the chance to speak. 3) how can the government limit the public's right to "public" land without public consent?

In effect, under these circumstances, your money has granted you the right to limit free speech on public property. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

All public speech should be just that. If you cannot handle the wolves, rent a private area.

[Ray]

I keep coming back; (like a bad dream?)

A clarification:
If I'm holding my aforementioned rally and I have my allotted public space set up with chairs, podium etc, no one has the right to crash that cordoned area. They might be able to grab a seat or whatever but if they start disrupting my speech (verbal disruption is a physical disrutpion as it would not allow my speech to be heard) I can have my rent-a-cops remove them.

What the protesters can do, rightfully, is stay outside of my cordoned off area and shout to their heart's content.

Now, if I were a high public official with obvious security concerns, it seems rational to move the speech and/or the protesters to a manageable distance.

Again, and this is important to remember in light of the implications that this is all an evil Republican ploy to suppress our speech, the "speech zone" idea is not new and is not an Ashcroft/Bush idea. What the current administration is doing is merely SOP.

[Ed Lennox]

One recourse for determined protestors is a simple one, if they use their wits. Here it is:

Create your anti-Bush sign and cover it with a removable pro-Bush graphic. Dress like a conservative. Wear a "God loves me" grin. Ease your way to the front of the pack. When the crucial moment arrives, tear off the false sign and watch the horror unfold!

[Brady]

JDM...I have no clue of what you are trying to say.

[Curt Warner]

We're not just talking about refusing to let people into an event because it appears they might be disruptive. We're talking about pre-emptively detaining and fencing off those people, and arresting them if they don't ... what? Move from the sidewalk they're standing on?

This amounts to a prior restraint on free speech, and what amounts to a chilling effect on anyone who might think about heading off to protest the president's speech.

How all of that equals a boost to free speech, I just don't know.

[Ray]

Brady,

Well, if you don't like the practice of renting out public parks, softball fields and so on, write your appropriate public official.

We rent a public softball field every Saturday night. Does that mean I've bribed the Maricopa county government?

Of course it doesn't. And usually, speeches and such are not rented affairs but merely require some sort of municipal permit to ensure that there is someone accountable in case your rally turns into some kind of public nuisance.

[Ray]

Curt,

It has already been stated that the initial reasoning on this "speech zone" thing was not about disruptive speech but about security.

[Brady]

Ray,

The argument we are about to get into is a whole other can of worms, so I'll save it for another day.

As for now, its the weekend!

[Anonymous]

Its the tried and true security argument, allows you to surpress constitutional rights, imprison people without access to lawyer or trial, and invade soverign nations unprovoked.

Afterall, if security is more important then the constitution...

[PLC]

If I were to walk onto Ray's softball field in the 4th inning with a sign that read "Softball Sux - Soccer Rulz!", and the police came and told me to get the fuck off the field, would that be a violation of my free speach?

[joe]

"but if they start disrupting my speech (verbal disruption is a physical disrutpion as it would not allow my speech to be heard) I can have my rent-a-cops remove them"

granted. What you cannot do is have your rent-a-cops remove them because they're wearing t-shirts or holding signs you don't like - which is the issue here; people are being put into free speech cages because of signs and t-shirts.

[Anonymous]

Your forgeting PLC, by Rays argument, you should be fenced off half a mile down the road. Afterall he did 'rent' that space for softball, all you soccer freaks need to find your own park.

Its all about security, what if one of your soccerballs hits someone.. think of the children!!

[Warren]

Ray,
You are wrong. If it is a public space, it doesn't matter that you have rented it I have the righ to enter it and say what ever I want. If your rent-a-cops remove me they will be doing so in violation of the US Constitution. That is what freedom of speech means.

As for security. If your worried about getting shot, do go out in public. Your fear should not trump my rights of peacable assembly.

[Anonymous]

Ray, did you read the fuckin' article? They put the protesters a quarter mile away! Not a couple hundred feet. Get real.

[thoreau]

Some people have made a good point about "free speech zones" being more than just crowd control at the actual event:

I suppose reasonable people might disagree over the extent to which event organizers can control a more-or-less-public event like a Presidential speech. I'm personally queasy about conceding such things, but let's do it for the sake of argument.

But saying "No anti-Bush sign wavers within 50 feet of the stage" or whatever is far, far less restrictive than saying "All anti-Bush sign wavers go to a fenced-off area a half mile away." When I was growing up in Milwaukee I was told that it was 12 city blocks to the mile, so that's 6 blocks away (I insert the caveat about Milwaukee since city blocks might not have uniform sizes everywhere, and almost 100% of the Milwaukee metro area is laid out on a grid, unlike some places). Even if you're going to defend the right of an event planner to create perfect visual effects without pesky ACLU types harping on the first amendment, sending them 6 blocks away is intolerable in a free society.

Mind you, I'm not here to defend a rule like "no anti-Bush signs within 50 feet of the stage". I'm just saying that, however reasonable it might sound, and however much Ray and other defenders of "free speech zones" might claim that's all they want, the truth is that these free speech zones are often located 6 blocks away. That's not artistic event planning, that's banishing dissenters far, far away from the Glorious Leader.

Final thought: I believe that once upon a time, every square inch of land our great Republic was considered a free speech zone. Of course, that rule was put in place by long-haired radicals who overthrew a government and in some cases wrote nasty things about Christianity.

[thoreau]

Maybe my previous post can be boiled down to this:

It's one thing to create small, temporary zones where free speech is curtailed. It's not good, but in a clash between the speaker's free speech and the protestors free speech, maybe (just maybe) things get a little murky and aren't worth debating.

It's quite another to temporarily squash free speech everywhere EXCEPT small fenced-off zones.

Hmm, maybe we could make these fenced-off free speech zones portable. Move them around on train cars. And if things get rowdy we just move the train car and everyone on it to a camp where we sort out the matter...

[JDM]

Brady,

There are 2 separate issues here. Should anyone be granted exclusive use of a public space, and who should pay for it. Your argument that you can't stand around talking in a public space is just as valid against the process of setting up a stage for the president to speak on. Why can't you stand right where they are setting up the stage?

People are already allowed to reserve and use public spaces exclusively - a rock band in a publically funded stadium, a church group in a section of a park, etc. So just saying you should be allowed to stand in a public space speaking your mind no matter what is going on at the time is not much of an argument.

The fact of the matter is that the sitting president always gets to put on lots of publically funded campaign events. This is what needs to change. The argument is not about how best to use public spaces.

Republicans blocking Democrats, or whoever, from being able to use public areas for their own rallies would be infringement of free speech. Holding their own rally is not.

Also, I don't blame you for not being able to figure out what I was saying.

[StMack]

" What the current administration is doing is merely SOP."

Thanks Ray for finally pointing out what is really wrong.

And using the "everybody does it" defense. Nice touch, resorting to the last refuge of those without sound ideas - and eight-year-olds everywhere.

[matt]

Does anyone know if it was held on public or private property? I can't tell from the article. That's really what it boils down to here though. Even though they are government officials, if its on pivate property somewhere then they Constitutionally can exclude whomever they want. If its on government property then it gets more complicated...and perhaps no on should be excluded. It would all be a lot easier if all property was private....

[ed]

It's funny. Threads used to be what zoned-out hippies wore. Now a thread is a mostly pointless exercise in abuse by inherently angry and frustrated individuals who shout into the void: "Who will listen to my pronouncements?"

Everyone's a wag on the www.

[Anonymous]

"Your forgeting PLC, by Rays argument, you should be fenced off half a mile down the road."

I'm pretty sure that in my hypothetical example, I'd be "fenced off" all the way in the county jail.

Free speach doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want, where-ever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want. There are reasonable limits to free speach. The limit espoused here seems pefectly reasonable to me.

[thoreau]

Matt-

Private property might complicate it, but it doesn't remove the fundamental fact that the government is bound by the first amendment. Otherwise the gov't could just rent all the buildings that it uses and do whatever it likes willy-nilly in those buildings on the grounds that "hey, we did it on private property."

Now, if it were done at the behest of the actual property owner rather than the Secret Service then it's a different matter. Even owner complicity isn't really enough to justify it, since the Secret Service can basically say to the owner "What? Are you going to try and kick us out?" Good luck to anybody who feels like trying to evict the Secret Service, I'll be sure to visit you in the hospital.

[Warren]

wag?

[PLC]

"Good luck to anybody who feels like trying to evict the Secret Service, I'll be sure to visit you in the hospital."

What the hell does this mean? I'm 100% certain that if a landlord wanted to evict the secret service, he would have no problems whatsoever. You'd have to be a true paranoid delusional to think they would break you legs or something...

[Anonymous]

This is approaching the eminent domain topic.

[Gene 6-Pack]

Some idiot up a ways mentioned Kent State.
If I am legally armed and legally attempting to keep the peace, and a mob attacks me, throwing stones, I have two options - abandon my post and duty, or respond to the attack. Don't EVER attack me with stones when I am armed.
"Peaceably to assemble" seems to exclude interference. It isn't as if contrary views lack an audience.

[Don]

"At a certain point in the Korean War, Marine Gen. "Chesty" Arthur found his division trapped on a frozen reservoir, with many thousands of North Korean troops holding the surrounding hills. . . ."

I believe that those were Chinese troops Joe, not NKs.

[mine]

Here is the problem with a "Free Speech Zone" as I see it. If you cordon off an area and define it as a free speech zone, by definition what does that make the area outside the zone.

It then becomes the restricted speech zone.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Joe, the Marine commander at Chosin Reservoir was Brigadier General Lewis Burwell Puller, aka "Chesty Puller".

Chester Arthur, on the other hand, was the unelected 21st President of the United States, who succeeded to the presidency when James Garfield was shot by a pissed off lawyer.

[biff]

Before you endorse this idea as being the least bit reasonable, try to imagine it happening during a Hillary Clinton presidency.

[JDM]

For the last time - it happened during her first presidency.

[Kevin Carson.]

thoreau,

You're right, there are ways to deal with security and potential disruption without removing protestors with signs to a completely separate location.

Ray,

The right not to be disrupted is one thing. The right to preemptively restrain anyone who *might* disrupt you, is an entirely different thing. I believe that's what Solzhenitsyn called "social prophylaxis."

And this is only one example of a much more general phenomenon: scripting press conferences, using canned applause, etc. Every damned public appearance, he's trying to manufacture an sanitized environment where there's not even the smallest hint that the Fatherland is not united in joy under the reign of Dear Leader.

Oh, the ignorance!

[thoreau]

Paranoid? Me? 😉

But seriously, my only point is that if the Secret Service decides to bar somebody from an event simply because of his sign, the owner of the venue has zero chance of getting them to budge.

[thoreau]

OK, so these "free speech zones" predate Bush. Maybe the new wave of reporting on them indicates some sort of bias on the part of the media. Is this bias

a) A refusal to do their job correctly when previous Presidents (e.g. Democrats) were in office

or

b) A refusal to do their job correctly during the current administration?

I go with (a): The media should have been making a stink all along about the fact that free speech is now limited to certain fenced-off areas. At least they're finally reporting on this. But too many right-wingers will probably say (b), that the media should not have raised a stink over limitations on free speech during previous administrations, and they shouldn't be raising a stink now either.

Personally, I'm always glad to see the media raise a stink about abuses of power. When they do it selectively, the solution is to goad them into doing it more frequently, not less frequently.

[Jean Bart]

When the government creates a neutral forum, as it is doing here, the case law is fairly clear that the government may not exclude persons based on their unpopular views, or views which the government might construe as dangerous. I would view this as an attempt to exclude such views.

[Rod]

Contrary to the opinions of some, the mere concept of a 'free speech zone' is a violation of the right to speech and the right to assemble.

The idea that there is a valid rationale for sequestering away someone who *might* disagree with the organizer of the assembly is not only absurd, it is foolish and criminal.

Security is not even close to being a valid reason for such a debacle. Any individual who truly is a security threat isn't going to broadcast that fact by standing out from the crowd in any fashion whatsoever. Arresting someone who is doing nothing at all (apart perhaps, from not choosing to stand in a cage with the other 'dissidents') is also a criminal violation of due process and freedom of association.

And for those who argue that the mere possibility of a verbal outburst is sufficient cause to sequester those with whom you disagree ( I notice you are remarkably silent about the possibility of a verbal outburst from a supporter despite the fact that such an outburst can be equivalently disruptive), bear in mind that the same argument can be used to arrest you simply because it is possible that you *might* commit some crime (obviously, if you don't look like us, or agree with us, you must be a potential criminal, eh?).

[thoreau]

Joe-

But 9/11 means everything is different now. Those rotten tomatoes thrown at the speaker might have smallpox in them. That "Dean 2004" t-shirt might be covering a concealed weapon. After all, Vermont actually allows everyone to carry concealed weapons, so who knows what those Dean supporters are packing?

And those people being held without charges might actually be guilty despite the fact that the government has presented no evidence.

So pre-emption makes perfect sense. After all, it's for the children! We can't let some ridiculous amendments enacted by long-haired, government over-throwing (and in some cases drunk, womanizing agnostics) radicals get in the way of security!

[infohigh]

It just seems odd to me that the pro-Bush supporters here are happy to assume that these sign waving activists are already GUILTY of shouting down the President before any of them have ever done so.

I mean, isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of the hallmarks of our democracy?

Besides, by confining LW activists, while freeing RW supporters, does that open up a whole can full of "Equal Protection" problems? I mean, if you're going to lock up some sign wavers, you have to lock up ALL of them. Regardless of the message written on the actual signs.

[joe]

thoreau,

love the concealed carry argument. very nice.

[joe]

thoreau and infohigh:

I think it's even simpler than that. The security people say a half mile distance and no line of sight (or whatever) is the minimum necessary to provide the super-duper, double extra wide security buffer. In post-9/11 America, why NOT take it all? It's not like there are any good reasons NOT to prevent people from protesting the president. No important reasons anyway.

[Rick]

A so-called 'free speech zone' is a clear violation of constitutional principle, for the simple fact that the designation of something called a 'free speech zone', by definition, also creates an area that is *not* a 'free speech zone' (which would have to be a restricted speech zone).

Such a designation creates a situation where the freedoms of an individual can be selectively restricted based on the opinions of a select group of people. In every case where the courts legitimately allow the restriction of speech, etc., in a public arena, those restrictions apply equally to ALL people, not just a select group.

If a politician wants a dissent free discussion group, let him/her pay for a privately owned venue and sell tickets. As long as they are on public land, on public business, there is no legitimate argument for any restriction of some selected group of people (and you can't argue that they rented that public venue (they didn't), and additionally, WE own it, not them). Properly deal with security? Yes. Remove someone who is actually causing a disruption? Yes. (A sign isn't a disruption).

What too many people seem to forget is that these people are our employees, not the other way around. They are obligated to answer to us, whether they agree with us or not. They swore an OATH to uphold the constitution, and the act of creating such travesties as a 'free speech zone' is a violation of that oath, and anyone who violates their oath of office should be fired or forced to resign.

[joe]

Thank you, Don and Stephen, for cleaning up my addled history.

I've done some reading about political gatherings in American history. Vegetables being thrown, mobs chasing abolitionists out of town, signs being waved - it's a pretty rowdy subject. But now George the Younger needs to make sure the opposition is safely cordoned off and under the watchful eye of the police.

What kind of prissy wuss are you people nominating? That bulge in his flight suit was a full diaper.

[Gene 6-Pack]

If, at ten appearances the peace is disturbed by people of a certain persuasion, security that does not acknowledge this at the eleventh event is incompetent.
"...peaceably to assemble..."

[Anonymous]

ANY a priori restriction on any person or group of people on assembly at a public event is a violation of due process. PERIOD.

If a particular individual (or individuals) are identified as having actually been disruptive (and have been previously legally dealt with), then THOSE (and only those) persons can be legitimately restricted.

[Anonymous]

'People of a certain persuasion' is an inflammatory argument, and provides no lawful ground for any action.

Also, vocal disruption is not a security issue, in and of itself (it may be unpleasant, and may be just cause for the person to be removed, but it is not a valid reason for a preemptive restriction). Proper security will apply equally to all (supporters AND dissenters). Otherwise it isn't proper security in the first place, and has no excuse if it subsequently fails (and is therefore incompetent to start with).

[thoreau]

I'm going to commit a little bit of libertarian heresy:

I freely acknowledge that the people with signs opposed to the speaker are more likely to become disruptive at some point. So I have no problem if the event staff charged with keeping an eye on the crowd spend most of their time eyeballing the people with signs.

But that's about as far as I'll go in condoning any sort of "special attention" toward people whose views aparently don't coincide with those of the speaker.

(Insert all caveats that private property owners can admit or not admit whomever they wish on their property. This discussion is limited to government actions. A private property owner can refuse to let people into an event, but he can't cart them off to jail if they protest somewhere else within a half mile radius of the event.)

[Travis Bickle]

I'm going to go to Senator Palantine's rally Saturday. I've got to get my hair cut in a mohawk first.

[Rod]

thoreau,

I don't think that there's any libertarian heresy at all in that response.

It is a valid security viewpoint to pay attention for a potential disruption or security incident. That is both legitimate and pragmatic.

What is not correct is to make the argument that there is just cause for a presumption of guilt, merely because a group of people espouse an opposing position. And that is true regardless of who is speaking and which side is considered the opposition. Far too many people seem to take the position that such behaviour is okay if they disagree with the sequestered 'dissenters', and not okay if they agree with them. It is not okay, regardless.

[thoreau]

Rick-

When you said "public business" I think you hit the nail on the head. When the President goes around the country to address We the People and explain his policies, if the event was planned by White House staff (who are paid with tax dollars, unlike campaign staff who are paid with donations), it's public business. He can't turn us away just because we carry a sign that he doesn't like.

Even if it's on rented private property, if it was arranged by public employees he's conducting public business. When shopping around for private property to rent he should make sure the owner is OK with letting the public show up to wave signs. If the owner isn't OK with it the President needs to find a different venue for public business. The first amendment gives us the right to show up at public business and respectfully take issue with the President (e.g. quietly wave a sign that makes your position clear without intefering in another person's right to hear the speech).

(The only exception I can think of is if he goes specifically to address federal employees, e.g. military personnel, since as the head of the executive branch it's in his job description to go and tell federal employees what the agenda is, and he can't manage his employees if protestors show up in the middle of every briefing.)

(And I realize that even campaign events are planned with input from public employees, i.e. Secret Service, but asking Secret Service to sweep the area for bombs is different from having a White House staffer on the public payroll write the speech, deal with the press, invite dignitaries, and generally put together a good show.)

Anyway, the fact that this would even be controversial on a libertarian forum is astounding to me. I don't expect ideological purity, but this is pretty basic. I mean, it's the first amendment! Even left-wingers (you know, the people that so many libertarians blame for all the world's problems) know what the first amendment is about. Surely we should as well...

[GaryM]

I'm amazed by some of the posts I've seen in this thread. People like "Ray," who think that holding a sign endangers people's rights, hardly seem like the kind of people who would bother reading Reason magazine; did someone direct them to this board just so they can spew their statist doctrines on this topic?

It's also oddly selective. They don't appear to think that holding a pro-Bush sign poses a danger which requires their being cordoned off. What is the criterion? Is it that people opposing Republican presidents should be presumed dangerous? Or is it that people opposing whoever is currently in power should be presumed dangerous?

The claim that holding a sign interferes with other people's free speech rights is likewise being offered selectively. If the people making this claim believe it, then they should be complaining that the Secret Service is still allowing the pro-Bush signholders to interfere with other people's right not to see signs.

Ray's argument that "sign wavers" somehow have a unique ability to shout obscenities is interesting; is there some acoustic characteristic of signs which makes voices carry better?

The approach of the advocates of "speech zones" in this discussion seems to be that if they hurl enough bad arguments, some residue will stick. It sticks, all right -- but only to the impression of themselves which they leave.

[Daniel Leathers]

The ACLU Sued the Clinton Administration when they tried to keep anti-abortion protesters off the Mall on his 2nd Inauguration. The ACLU and thee anti-abortion protesters were allowed.

Please get your facts straight. I'm a libertarian, I PERSONALLY fight any left slant in the ACLU, please understand teh history of the ACLU before you throw lies about.

[Daniel Leathers]

Just an quick show of hands ... who'se gone to law school here? Who knows what the difference between prior restraint and subsequent punishment is? Who knows what strict scrutiny is?

I mean, this really isn't a left-right issue at all. Read your history, both of the ACLU, ftree seech cases, etc. etc.

The ACLU, Reason, Libertarians, Cato, etc. --- we're here for freedom. It's sadening it doesn't compute with some.

[Daniel Leathers]

Sorry - I keep reading through some not-so-enlightened posts. C'mon doesn't ANYONE know the difference between content based and content neautral restrictions? Or how about viewpoint based - ? Jeez ... it's really simples ... If it's Prior restraint, 99 times out of 100, it's not Constitutional. OK, so the oother side is subsequent punishment for speech - the two sides of that are content based, or neurtal - Neautral is ok, IF AND ONLY IF it meets all the criteria of intermediate scruntiny (still not easy burdent to meet.) (Examples of this type are 'time, place and manner restrictions.)

Other side of Sub. punishment is Content based. This is VERY VERY rare to be allowed, and only under extreme conditions (fighting words, etc.) ... Viewpoint based is NEVER allowed - period.

AND THEN of course you have to look at the other 'bonus' unconstitutional categories of being ovverbroad, or vauge.

What's being chalenged here will be EASY to win. This was a viewpoint based subsequent punishment case. Open and shut.

[Jeff Clothier]

I think we're missing the point here, people. At base, we have police power being used by the party in power to control and restrain dissent. I think most will agree this clearly violates the intent and spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment.

Shouting down, heckling or otherwise preventing a scheduled public speech from taking place (which apparently did NOT happen here) is a separate matter, and depending upon circumstance, may constitute disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly or some other breach of the peace which could warrent police control.

At the very least, such disruption demonstrates bad taste, poor manners, and lack of foresight on the part of those trying to get an opposing message across in such a way as to be heard and received positively by others.

[dhex]

so i guess bush *is* a pussy after all.

[Keith Heather]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-exercise.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 10:12:43
When prosperity comes, do not use all of it.

[Robbin Max]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 03:39:29
Buildings burn. People die. But real love is forever.