Everybody Agrees

New at Reason: Ron Bailey takes to the soapbox against "Free Speech Zones."

Comments

[nobody]

I agree, but one quibble:

"Protesters can peaceably assemble, just out of the President's sight and earshot."

Today's media fall over themselves covering protesters, so they (the protesters) are never really out of their target's range. They get their message out via newspapers, radio, video, the internet. I'm sure the President hears about it, albeit not directly.

[Warren]

nobody,
I disagree. Media coverage is largely driven by crowd size. Hurdling protesters into FSZ effectively prevents a protest from gaining steam and picking up support from passers by. However much attention protests have gotten I think its safe to say they'd have gotten much more if not for the Soviet style oppression.

[thoreau]

Nobody-

The Founders had a brilliant mechanism for handling the issue of whether protestors will get more coverage in a free speech zone or in the vicinity of the President. Here's how it worked:

The protestors would have the freedom to go anywhere they like with signs as long as their demonstration was peacable. Reporters could go anywhere they liked. Over time the protestors would figure out what gets them the most exposure in a peacable manner and act accordingly.

Too bad that our current President fears the sight of a sign criticizing him. The Founders stared down British muskets, and Bush is such a chicken-shit weasel that he can't stare down an idiot in a Che t-shirt carrying a sign.

[nobody]

There are many ways to protest. Yelling and displaying misspelled and childish pronouncements is so 20th Century. Besides, alert viewers know when they are being hoodwinked. A paranoid, isolated politician probably does himself more harm than good, unless his constituents really are gullible rubes. Then they get what they deserve.

[Warren]

nobody,
hmmmm sounds kinda like "only the guilty need worry"

[thoreau]

We don't need free speech rights, because the public will see through lying politicians without any urging by voices of dissent.

Meaning no disrespect to the general public (I'm part of it), but I think the general public benefits from a variety of voices out there with maximum freedom to compete. It's easy to see through a liar when the guy standing next to him is telling the truth.

And of course I'm not defending Seattle-style riots. I'm not defending disruptive speeches. I'm just saying that, if an event is held in a publicly accessible forum (and we can debate forever whether a rented public space constitutes that, yaddah yaddah yaddah), and the Secret Service admits any and all people with signs saying "God Bless My President", they should also admit people with signs saying "Let's Elect Somebody Else".

[joe]

"Yelling and displaying misspelled and childish pronouncements is so 20th Century."

And 17th, and 18th, and 19th...

[Steve in CO]

Thoreau for President!!!

I am thinking about getting a bumper sticker that reads, "Vote Bush/Kerry in '04!" The Republicrat ticket.

[nobody]

"And 17th, and 18th, and 19th..."

Joe, this is the 21st. Lots of ways to get your voice heard. Like this spot, for instance.

[JD]

There is a guy on my ISP who's in favor of these things AND the non-content-neutral aspect of them. He argues that it's reasonable for the SS to assume a greater threat to the presiden from anti-Bush demonstrators than pro-Bush demonstrators. While that seems almost reasonable on the face of it, it just means that anybody with the serious desire to do harm to the president will just join the pro-Bush contingent to get closer (or maybe just carry _no_ sign and avoid the "free speech zones"). The lefties on the boards rightly argue against him, but the way they proclaim that Bush = Hitler kind of makes one wonder about their insistence that they're totally nonviolent and pose no threat...

[Russ D]

thoreau, I'd say protesters soon realized that the most exposure occurred when their brand of protest made a good story. When the news can cover a large peaceable protest and a concurrent tiny riot, the riot gets more coverage.

[thoreau]

If I wanted to harm somebody I'd pose as a supporter, not an adversary. Greases the wheels of security.

On 24 the would-be assassin got plastic surgery to look like a photographer who was scheduled to meet the candidate. He sent a hot bisexual assassin named Mandy to steal the photographer's ID and kill him. Let this be a lesson to those who contemplate sex with hot bisexual chicks in airplane restrooms. If her hands are in your pants, it could just be that she's searching for your ID.

[BigPhil]

Nobody:

Do you think Bush & Co. really reads this site?

[Steve in CO]

Thoreau,

You really have "thing," for 24, huh?

Steve

PS I think it has jumped the shark this season, and I am thankful that Jack's daughter's role has been significantly reduced. At least, it has so far.

[thoreau]

Steve-

At any given point I have one TV show that I really like. I watch that one show, plus the Daily Show and occasional Seinfeld reruns. Otherwise TV is just background noise while I'm doing something else.

I'm searching for a replacement for 24, but until then 24 remains my one TV show. It really has gone downhill this season, but I haven't searched very hard for a replacement. I got turned off when Jack turned out to be undercover. It would have been better if Jack had just broken Salazar out of prison to stop the virus, with full knowledge that he would pay a price for it.

[Jennifer]

Kind of ironic--when I saw "free speech zone" in the headline I thought it would be another story about the "free speech zones" set up by some extreme left-wing public college campuses. A lot of the professors and students supported them, saying in effect that free speech is okay only if nobody else is offended.

Now the right-wing extremists are using not only the same tactic but the exact same name. It's a good bet that the left-wing professors hate Bush almost as much as I do; wonder what the profs are thinking about Bush's FS zones?

Here's a stealth protest approach for those who can't think of their own: pose as a Bush supporter, carrying a placard that says "Hail to the Chief!" in a colorful, attractive font. Then, just before the presidential limousine arrives, put a "T" over the "C."

If you could get a few hundred folks to do this at once, it would be pretty cool, assuming the President even noticed.

[SteveInClearwater]

It's not that "Bush is too chickenshit to stare at a guy holding a negative sign..." but rather that he does not want to be SEEN in the same camera lens with someone who disagrees.

This allows him to perpetuate the illusion that he's always surrounded by enthusiastic support.

Such tactics are becoming less and less useful given that those who disagree are able to get their message out thru so many other mediums.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

I think if Bush ever comes to town I'll put on my nicest suit and some Bush 2004 buttons, and I'll carry a big sign that says "I support my President!" But I'll have in my jacket pocket a folded piece of paper with "Legalize Marijuana!" written on it, and a roll of double-stick tape. Once I'm past the Secret Service Loyalty Checkpoint (SSLC) I'll just tape over the "Legalize Marijuana!" sign.

If they ask why, I'll just say that I changed my mind about my original statement, and decided I'd rather make a different statement. If they tell me I need to be in a free speech zone to say that, I'll say that I'm proud to be a citizen of the world's largest free speech zone, and that I'm quite comfortable in my current location, thank-you very much.

And as they drag me away I'll scream "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

[Jennifer]

Thoreau--
"Legalize marijuana"? Too much of a cliche. How about, "YOU DID COCAINE; WHY CAN'T WE?" Also, the iambic rhythm will sound MUCH better when chanted in unison.

[dj of raleigh]

> So much for the First Amendment's declaration that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

[thoreau]

How about just "Free the weed!" with a nice picture of a pot leaf?

[late for the boom]

I dont know how many of you have had experiance with 'free speech zones', but Ill tell you about mine.

On November 24th of last year, Bush visited Fort Carson here in Colorado Springs. A protest was planned to be carried out on the last leg of his route to Ft. Carson, on a street we call B-street, which is the main entrance to the base.

His motorcade was scheduled to drive by the agreed protest location just a bit after noon on that day. Starting at about 9 AM people started gathering at the site. The local news was there to cover the protest and thier vans showed up at about 9:15 that morning. The reporters reported on the protest, packed up and left at around 9:45.

At around 10 AM South Acadamy Blvd was filled with local police cars, who lined themselves up on both sides of the road blocking any spot for a protest to gather. Soon, Secret Service agents showed up and began to tell us that we were not allowed to congregate anywhere near the entrance to the post.

When we told the SS agents that we were there to excersise our right to protest we were told that a 'free speech zone' was set up downtown at Acacia Park we were free to protest there, but were not to be in the vicinity of Ft. Carson under penalty of arrest.

Now for those of you that dont know Colorado Springs, Acacia park is about 10 miles from Ft. Carson, Bushs motorcade would not be anywhere close to the 'free speech zone' at any time during his visit to the springs.

We were dispersed by 10:30 AM, almost 2 hours before Bush even landed. The local media never picked up on the fact that we were told to leave, not because they were not aware of the fact. There were plenty of phone calls and messages left to all the local channels, so media coverage for this particular incident, near as I can tell was non existant.

Thats how it works pretty much anywhere, near as I can tell from reading of similar accounts pretty much nation wide.

The issue of 'protecting' the president as many others have pointed out is just an excuse.

[thoreau]

Late-

What if you had arrived with signs that say "God Bless Our President!" and "We Support Our Brave Leader"? Would Secret Service have kicked you out anyway?

[late for the boom]

Oh, I wanted to comment on nobodys comment about 'im sure the president hears about it'.

Nobody, Bush has gone on record a number of times about how often he reads or watches the news. NEVER.

I believe his exact quote was "I dont read the paper or watch the news" so... no, Im sure he doesnt hear about it. Just like when he was in England and kept himself walled up in the palace during his entire stay, going so far as to demand that his helicopter land on the palace lawn, just so he could avoid seeing the crowd of thousands gathered to protest his visit.

[late for the boom]

I wouldnt know, I didnt see any 'supporters' gathered that morning. Near as I could tell, they were allowed on base to gather in the assembly hall where GW spoke.

[thoreau]

I wonder how many infiltrators have gotten past SS. Can't be many or I think we'd have heard about it.

If I ever manage to get past SS dressed as a Bush loyalist (Bush 2004 buttons) and then successfully unfurl my "Free the weed!" sign I'll head straight to the Blogosphere and start shouting it from the rooftops.

[joe]

You raise a fascinating philosophical point, thoreau.

They're going to hit you in the head with a piece of wood.

[MALAK]

thoreau, you bloody peasant! Shout it proud brother.

[thoreau]

Supreme Executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical Supreme Court verdict. Why, if I went around claiming I was an emperor just because some Italian judge lobbed a gavel at me they'd put me away!

I propose that we do away with the federal government. We'll take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer will have to be ratified at a biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal measures, and by a two-thirds majority in the case of all measures...

[A Secret Service guy is beating me now]

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[MALAK]

How has this nonsense survived legal challenge?

[SteveInClearwater]

Because it means suing the federal government. A number of groups, notably the ACLU are likely engaged in such cases now, but they are plodding thru the system.

Here in Tampa during 2001, Bush and Co rented Legends Field (NY Yankees local minor league facility which can hold up to 15,000 in stands and on ground) for an event. Three people with anti-Bush signs were turned away despite seeing dozens of pro-Bush sign toters being allowed in. When they raised too much of a fuss, they were arrested by Tampa PD.

The charges, much like the hundreds of such charges in Seattle WTO protests etc, were later dropped.

[MALAK]

Christ, this would actually be a worthy class-action suit, don't you think? As lawsuit happy as you people seem to be, why not?

[Spunky Carmichael]

Berkeley has one of those. Sadly you can do anything but smoke there. Evil smokers...

[rst]

How has this nonsense survived legal challenge?

Because he who has the gold makes the rules. The Constitution lost most of its significance after Marbury v. Madison. It's been a slow, uncomfortable screw ever since.

How do you do an end run around phrases like "...shall not be infringed"? First, hijack the system that established the rule. Then, spend 200 years carefully redefining "shall," "not," and "be infringed" through case law. That way, "shall not be infringed" means whatever a lawyer can reasonably convince a judge it means, by providing some elaborately constructed path through precedent that the judge finds agreeable.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. You might as well burn it for warmth for all it's worth.

[Rick Barton]

thoreau wrote:
"Too bad that our current President fears the sight of a sign criticizing him. The Founders stared down British muskets, and Bush is such a chicken-shit weasel that he can't stare down an idiot in a Che t-shirt carrying a sign."

And the weasel seems to have no compunctions about attacking our rights. The James Bovard piece from The American Conservative, that Ron linked to, is frightening and it makes your blood boil:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

What in the Hell is Bush trying to do to our republic? We have to fight this with every thing we can.

[Stephen Fetchet]

I?m with Katrina Vanden Heuvel on this one ? we need more full throated dissent in this country instead of the police state silence we have now.

Take for example New Zealand. Yesterday, a mob of Maoris attacked the Prime Minister for her coastal use policies, which will have an adverse effect, they believe, on Kiwi-Land?s indigenous peoples.

No, I don?t mean that metaphorically. They mobbed her and tried to beat the crap out of her. Her spokesman is describing it in politically correct terms, saying she was ?badly jostled??

Now that?s what the framers meant by free speech. If we have anything less than that? well, I blame it on Ashcroft.

I know, I'm totally overreacting. The peaceful anti-Bush left would never do anything violent during a protest. And even if they did, hey, leaders of the free world are like eggs, right? You gotta break a few to make a good omelet...

[dhex]

considering the amount of people they get all riled up in one place (and perhaps some increasing desperation due to the dean dreadnought being decapitated) there's been very very very little violence.

not that i'm looking forward to the convention here in the city. that's going to be a humungo pain in the ass.

look for the guy with the "some blood for some oil, with amounts to be specified at a later date" sign.

[dj of raleigh]

> I propose that we do away with the federal government.