 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Democrats for Bush | Main | Site Improvements ... and a Thank You » January 8, 2004The First Amendment vs. Presidential SecuritySome folks who, not coincidentally, don't like President Bush, are whining about security provisions during Bush's travels which keep protestors at some distance from him. They claim the protestors' First Amendment right to free speech is being violated, though the protestors are being allowed to speak/yell/scream/protest/speechify/rant 'n' rave to their hearts' content. There's no First Amendment problem. You have a right to your opinions and to express them, but you do NOT not have a right to stand in a public place two inches from my face and scream your opinions through a bullhorn at me, even though you DO have a First Amendment right to have and express those opinions. Nor do you have a First Amendment right to express your opinion at any proximity to the president that you desire. All this whining about the security precautions taken for the president at a time of war are simply the whining of people who hate the president and would prefer that people who hate the president be able to get within inches of him while expressing their hatred and hostility. Posted in Campaign Season
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
They do, however, have a right to peacably assemble on public property. Posted by: SayUncle at January 8, 2004 02:39 PMSorry, Bill, I gotta part with you on this one. I blogged about it a few days ago. The Secret Service directs that "free speech zones" be established - out of sight of ush - and that anyone the service thinks has a sign critical of Bush be directed to go there. Pro-Bush-sign carriers can go where they want. The idea that such edicts are necessary for security is just ridiculous. I have no issue with removing people from the scene once they become disruptive, but prior censorship - which is what the Secret Service is doing - very definitely violates the 1st Amendment. This didn't start with Bush or even Clinton (although Clinton's administration turned it into a high art form), but that is beside the point. It tramples our rights, and it has to stop. However, we already know that George W. Bush has no concern for 1st Amendment rights; he signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, after all.
Sorry, Donald, but I don't see the censorship. Are the protestors prevented from saying certain things? Are their signs edited? No. They are not censored. Sure, the administration is trying to control the media pictures by moving anti-Bushies away from the President. But they aren't censoring the media or preventing them from photographing or videotaping the protestors and airing the footage. There's no censorship at all. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 8, 2004 03:17 PMSetting up a "free speech zone" and requiring only select categories of speech to go there isn't censorship? Bill, what is the government decided that you could write whatever you wanted, but you just could not post it on the internet. Instead, they told you there was a "free speech bulletin board" where you could tack up any posting you wanted. By your reasoning, that would not be censorship. Come on, Bill, think this through! Certain people are being denied access to a presidential appearance purely because of speech they might make! If that's not censorship then nothing is. Posted by: Donald Sensing at January 8, 2004 03:47 PMGentlemen, if I might offer an observation? I am a frequent reader of both of your blogs and I must ask you both to consider the merits of each other's argument. I believe the good Reverend is correct up to a point Bill. I am truly uncomfortable with the concept of "free speech zones" for their very existence indicates that there are areas where our first amendment rights have been suspended without due process, the consent of Congress or review by the SCOTUS. I am also bothered by the Secret Service's role in this. More and more the Secret Service has come to resemble a praetorian guard, especially since the attempt on Reagan's life. These "free speech zones" smack of an overreaching Secret Service that is taking advantage of the WoT to further restrict the people's access to the President. And good Reverend, might I point out that getting snarky doesn't so much to aide your position, and Bill has several good points as well. Not the least among them is that we are, in point of fact, at war. Also, given some of the hate filled, 'round the bend rantings that are frequently posted by members of the principled opposition as found in the DemocraticUnderground, Democrats.com, and BlogforAmerica, is it really a stretch to think that some of these people might just be capable of acting on their rants? We're talking about American citizens whose irrational hatred of the President leads them to openly advocate assassination and armed resistance to the Government. How can they not be thought of as a threat? Also consider that protestors will want to carry signs and/or props. Weapons or explosives could be concealed within them so it's reasonable to expect the Secret Service to deny the protestor's access to them. Check all the signs? Sure, good idea. So how do you restrict those without being guilty of censorship? And have you noticed that at events where they do try to restrict signs, someone always manages to sneak one in? I am left with only one option: While I would favour that all people be allowed near unfettered access to Presidential appearances, it is apparent given the danger and opportunity for mischief, that it is neither a realistic nor prudent course of action. So while I decry the concept of "free speech zones" or cordoning off the public from the President, I'll err on the side of caution and prudence. Props to Rev Sensing since this is actual government action, and not the usual complaint from those on the left that the government refuses to subside the hate they spew or that somebody stood up and disagreed with them. This does get really close to the censorship line but I think it's staying just this side of it. 1) I don't see, from this report, that any one protesting is subjected to harassment beyond being directed into a specific location at the time the president was in town, if you want to consider that harassment. 2) I don't see any signs being confiscated and people being turned away from the event specifically because they are anti-Bush. 3) I don't see any effort to hide the fact that these areas exist, or prevent news media from reporting on them and what is being said there. I assume instances of these actions would be reported, since the existence of the policy seems to be pretty well known. Does it look good? No. Is it prudent? Probably. I really don't see that these folks are being denied anything other than the pleasure of flinging spittle while they scream at President Bush when he is actually in their line of sight. To contend that he is completely unaware of their protest because they can't make eye contact really seems to be a stretch. I certainly disagree that the policy should be wait until a disruption occurs. That is probably exactly what the anti-Bush crowd wants, and would then endeavor to make each of his appearances resemble Chicago in '68. In a perfect world, Mr. Bush would have vetoed McCain-Feingold, but in the same perfect world that travesty would never have even been proposed. The Dems and their RINO allies could have passed similar legislation any day of the preceding eight years but knew that Clinton would have been obligated to sign it because of his previous statements. They tried to play a little political Texas hold'em with Bush, assuming he would veto it and give them a campaign issue, but they got burned bad. I expect that within a year or two there are going to be some changes made to the rules but very very quietly. I recommend visiting The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/) and NRO (www.nationalreview.com) and checking out Eugene's take on the history of First Amendment protections. His article was published on January 5th. Posted by: Chris at January 8, 2004 08:03 PMA hypothetical scenario: Two Jewish families make arrangements with the city for permission to hold a wedding in a part of the city park used for special events. The wedding includes a DJ. A Christian evangelist rounds up a few friends and comes to the wedding, shouting religious slogans and blasting Pat Robertson speeches on boom boxes. Now, in my opinion, it should be legal for the police to arrest the evangelist and his flunkies. What I'm hearing from the anti-"free speech zone" crowd is that the folks at the Jewish wedding just have to accept what's happening, and have no recourse. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights does not contain a right to interrupt other peoples' speeches, and disrupt other peoples' peaceful assemblies. Since that is the only thing these "protesters" are trying to do, I do not think they have a right to do it. If this was about their right to free speech, their proximity to the President of the United States would not be an issue. The fact that it's apparently vitally important that they be right up in the President's face is an indication that they're more vastly more interested in fucking up the transmission of the President's ideas than they are in communicating any ideas of their own. Posted by: Dan at January 8, 2004 08:20 PMI see that previous posts have argued about whether or not the Secret Service-imposed free speech zones "cross the line". Can most of us agree that, even if we have not yet "crossed the line", we are probably "on the slippery slope"? Most of us will agree to some limits on speech (don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, don't blast your political beliefs through a bull-horn at my house at 2 in the morning, etc.). Most of us will also agree that at some point restrictions on speech become too great. And as we approach "the line", we need to tread carefully, lest we cross over it without intending to. Personally, my view toward Secret Service "free speech zones" is similar to my view of college "free speech zones". I can understand the arguments of those who set them up, but I am at the very least "uncomfortable" with them. To me, it feels too much like we're walking "on a slippery slope" with this sort of thing (no matter who imposes them). Although there are sometimes reasons to tread on slippery slopes, I don't want to do so very often, or for very long... Posted by: Siergen at January 8, 2004 08:26 PMWhat's the deal here? Several people posting intelligent, thoughtful, and *gasp!* polite arguments about a controversial issue? I didn't think that was allowed any more. I've seen two sets of reports about this... one set that says everyone carrying signs has had to go to a free-speech zone and the other says that only anti-Bush protesters have to go there. I don't know which is correct, but if it's the latter that is very troubling and makes it hard to justify this as a security measure ("Hi. I'm a terrorist. If I hide my explosives in a Bush '04 sign I can detonate close to the president.") These stories have been in the news for a while now, but are just now getting attention from the Blogosphere (at least from the blogs I read). How come? And how come I'm just now finding out that this wasn't a Bush Directive but has been going on since the Reagan incident? Why no protests about "free speech zones" during the Clinton administration? Does anyone here know what the actual facts are or is this just an intellectual circle-jerk? "there are areas where our first amendment rights have been suspended without due process, the consent of Congress or review by the SCOTUS" Um, what does due process, consent of congress, SCOTUS, et. al. have to do with the free exercise of a right? The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it prevents the aforementioned legislative body from abridging rights that I possess by nature of my being. SCOTUS can apply all the due process they want, but if Federal law abridges my right it still abridges my right. That said, the transformation of the secret service into a pratorean guard began long before Bush and was only accelerated by Clinton (remeber the protective priviledge claims...) Yes, I wish they would stop this foolish charade of choosing which standard bearers get proximity to POTUS but in such a politically divisive time I don't find the howls of the oppressed too compelling either. Posted by: Thomas Dahlgren at January 8, 2004 08:56 PMA reminder to anyone using the written word Please re-read what you've written in the morning. Posted by: Boris A.Kupershmidt at January 8, 2004 09:07 PMIt's a damn shame that such actions are deemed necessary by the Secret Service. But the fault lies with the precedence that has been set by other protestors who carried their 'right' so far as to infringe upon the rights of others. You know, torching buildings, blocking traffic, overturning cars, fighting the cops, intimidating citizens, and drowning out all contrary opinions. You got a problem with this policy? Thank those asses. Sad, but true. Posted by: Randall at January 8, 2004 09:37 PMDan, here's a better scenario: A group of evangelical Christians and a group of ultra-Orthodox Jews are both disrupting your hypothetical wedding. If you arrest members of both groups, then you are enforcing a speech-neutral public disturbance law, which the First Amendment has no trouble with. If you arrest one group but not the other, then you are enforcing a restriction based on the content of speech, and the ACLU would like a word. Unless you can establish that one of these speeches will lead to imminent bodily harm, you're violating the First. If you arrest neither group, then you're not very good at law enforcement and will probably get sued for misconduct -- but that's not a First Amendment issue. This whole debate started when a peaceful steelworker holding an anti-Bush sign was arrested, while standing in the middle of a peaceful crowd holding pro-Bush signs -- so we aren't even approaching the threshold for a public disturbance here. We're talking about an incident where a person was arrested solely for the crime of speaking against Bush, while others who spoke in favor of Bush, in the same place and at the same volume, were permitted to do so. Posted by: Scott Forbes at January 8, 2004 09:43 PMWith due respect to Rev Sensing, I don't recall that the people who shot Lincoln, Kennedy or Reagan conveniently "became disruptive" before they started shooting. If I have to become disruptive before the Secret Service can remove me from the vicinity of the President then I and anyone else has a right to approach the President and be disruptive. As George Orwell once said, "you have to be an intellectual to believe an absurdity like this". Posted by: JK at January 8, 2004 10:04 PMIf the lefties want to get within molotov cocktail throwing distance maybe they shouldn't be embracing the Bush=Hitler reactionary hate-speech so enthusiastically. Here in Portland we saw the 'real' intent of protestors trying to force their way into a fund raising dinner 'violently'. If the lefties are worried about 'free speech' I fail to see why they should bring fire-bombs, bricks and wear helmets to express their right to free assembly. In spite of this indulgence immediately after the Bush visit EVERY SINGLE LEFTY SUED... So pardon me if I'm bored to tears with the self proclaimed 'martyrs' to free speech. Posted by: DANEgerus at January 8, 2004 10:06 PMRandall, you're suggesting that Bill Neel, a retired steelworker peacefully holding a sign -- and, to make his point crystal clear, standing next to the chain-link fence that surrounded the "free speech zone" -- should be subject to arrest because an unrelated person at a different time and place created a public disturbance? We should be applauding his willingness to stand up for our rights, not tarring him with the same brush we use for car-burning mobs. Neel's a patriot. Posted by: Scott Forbes at January 8, 2004 10:10 PMRev. Sensing is spot on here. If the Pres' security is the a problem, then *all* people would be moved to the "free speech zone", not just those with negative signs. Like a potential assassin is going to be carrying a negative sign. Give me a break. Segregating people based on their viewpoint while they're on public property is likely unconstitutional. In any case, it's very bad taste. The whole point is to make everything look all positive for the media... Posted by: Michael Chaney at January 8, 2004 10:29 PMI'm afraid that reactionary hate speech with comparisons to Hitler isn't unique to the Left. See, for example, Ralph Peters in this week's New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm Anyone who compares any American to Hitler is in dire need of a history lesson - and anyone who thinks Bill Neel is a hate-spewing radical (or a bomb-throwing anarchist) needs to read up on the facts of this case. http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13693&c=86 Posted by: Scott Forbes at January 8, 2004 10:31 PMTo say that one's right to speak is limited because another is not compelled to be in the presence of such 'speech' is nonsense. The Bill of Rights gives the right to speak, but grants neither the right to be in earshot of any other person nor their obligation to be forced to listen. A right to speak does not imply any right whatsoever to coerce, intimidate, threaten or harass another. That others may choose who they listen to is their right. And that restricted access to the President may be invoked in a manner chosen by the Secret Service for security reasons is obvious. So, speak on. Nobody is stopping you from just speaking. And as you would not tolerate being forced to listen to every single person who wants to talk, you should not expect the opposite. I'm with Hobbs. I think that there's a big difference between free speech and a right to disrupt peace and order or force your free speech on those who don't want to hear it. You have the right to speak, but the government doesn't have to guarantee you an audience, especially when what you're trying to do is interfere with the free speech of others. We have more ways to communicate today than at any other time in history. I believe in enforceing nuisance laws, except where a minority has been oppressed and has no other way to dramatise the wrongs against them. Posted by: AST at January 8, 2004 11:47 PMAnd as you would not tolerate being forced to listen to every single person who wants to talk, you should not expect the opposite.Dead wrong, and in public, too. "You" in this case is a private person. Bush is the titular head of the government of the United States. He is, in himself, one entire branch of that government, and part of his job is to listen when the citizenry tries "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You don't want to put up with protesters, don't run for the office. Simple.
Yes, but the First Amendment also protects the right of the people to assemble peacefully, as well as the right to free speech. What we have here is a speech-content-based restriction on access to public property. I certainly share the Secret Service's concern for the President's safety, but as noted above, the security argument in this case is bogus. An assassin would not carry a "Bush=Hitler" sign; he'd carry a "Bush 2004" sign. By all means, screen sign-carrying people in the President's vicinity for security reasons, but don't give people with pro-Bush signs a free pass--that's just dumb. Posted by: Sam Barnes at January 9, 2004 12:01 AMSKB blog has pictures posted of the recent demonstration in Knoxville. Included in the crowd held at the free speech zone was one Bush supporter. He was segregated right along with the left wing group. Since someone was asking. Posted by: jane m at January 9, 2004 12:04 AMThose carrying pro-Bush signs are probably not there to disrupt his attempts to communicate with his audience and electorate. Those carrying anti-Bush placards most probably are. (You don't really buy the notion that they are there simply to present him with a list of grievances, do you?) Removal of those with pro-Bush sentiments would have no effect on communication, as they aren't trying to disrupt it in the first place. So removing one group makes a difference, removing the other doesn't. And the difference it makes is that the President has First Amendment rights, too. As the main purpose of the protests, paper-mache puppets, chants while walking in circles, etc. is to present an audio-visual spectacle likely to attract TV airtime, those things can still be done at a distance, and if TV is interested, they can film them without any of those pesky Secret Service guys getting in the way. If TV isn't interested in covering a bunch of clowns on the next block, is that really Bush's fault? The right of the people to assemble doesn't trump reasonable efforts at traffic control. No random group has the right to assemble, anytime they please, right in the middle of traffic, say. We would expect the duly appointed officers of the law to move them somewhere else, and there'd be no talk of "slippery slopes" when they did so. Posted by: W Whitelaw at January 9, 2004 12:48 AMFrankly, any support of the concept of a 'free speech zone' for certain sign-holders (as opposed to a 'nobody allowed' or 'no speech allowed' zone) is strictly un-American. Please read the constituion and state if you are for or against it. Posted by: scared thus anonymous at January 9, 2004 01:43 AMOn a gut level, these "free speech zones" make me uncomfortable. But, the more I think about them, the more I think there just isn't a better solution to this problem. First, I think its a little presumptious of us to criticize the Secret Service when there is almost certainly a long list of persons both foreign and domestic who would want Bush dead. Second, from the political side of things, is it really to Bush's benefit to have these people separated off and out of sight? I think voters make political decisions not just on what policies support but also based on who your friends and enemies are. Think back to the `68 Democratic Convention in Chicago and how the inadvertant beneficiary of the street chaos was Nixon, not the anti-Vietnam protesters. Similarly, with the travelling freak show that is the anti-global/war/Bush I'm not certain it wouldn't be better for Bush to be seen as having these people against him and in his face with certain key groups, like oldster voters. Finally, is it really censorship to censor those whose purpose it is to shout down speech and stop debate. Some of the protesters are peaceful and civilized; clearly many are not. Its not like the later are interested in holding Lincoln-Douglas debates with Bush, they want to scream and throw their feces. How can you tell which will be which before the fact? Posted by: AML at January 9, 2004 01:50 AMSorry, but BQ is off the base path. The Pres. could not, in any way, listen to private positions of 280 million people. That's why we have State Legislatures and the Congress; they listen to the citizenry and report what they understand of it upwards. We have no right to expect the President to listen to us, as individuals. The government would rapidly sink into quicksand if such were the case. Security today is an over-riding issue, one that we are all well aware of, and if we lose a President our nation is momentarily brought to a standstill and suffers greatly because of it. Protestors can do as they wish a half a mile away the same thing they want to do up close, and the same message will be delivered to the President, only via TV. Isn't that what they want anyway, the TV publicity? The Protection is not solely for Pres. Bush, but for each one of us in the U.S. Posted by: Howard e. at January 9, 2004 02:40 AMDoes it mean that I can take a shot at the Prez as long as I have an "I Love Dubya" sign? Posted by: khlestakov at January 9, 2004 03:36 AMEvery once in a while, Donald Sensing has something intelligent to add. Then, he neutralizes it with comments like, "However, we already know that George W. Bush has no concern for 1st Amendment rights; he signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, after all." Posted by: Rick the Lawyer at January 9, 2004 07:28 AMThe Bill of Rights gives the right to speak This is a common misconception about the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments do not grant any rights to anybody. Instead, our founding fathers had the good sense to create a set of limitations on government. It's a given (read the Declaration of Independence) that we already have the right to free speech, assembly, religion, etc. As for the topic at hand, I have to ask my usual question, Bill. If this were Bill Clinton still in office, would you be writing the same story? Didn't think so.... Posted by: Michael Chaney at January 9, 2004 07:52 AMThis is just another lame attempt to prove GWB has it out for the little guy. Bret Bursey, the guy who was arrested here in Columbia served time for trashing a draft office in the 60's. Yeah, he's not prone to violent outbursts... Bottom line is: He was politely asked to move along by police officers; he refused. I'm tired of the Me-first generation throwing a fit because they don't get what they want. The laws don't apply to them because they know better. Mr. Bursey had no respect for the officers doing their job. If you get stopped for speeding, the time to argue the fairness of the limit is not on the spot with the officer. In our system you get a chance to make your case before the court. If you lose there, you can always urge the state to change the limit. The Secret service has a job to do. All this carping and theorizing about a pro Bush supporter being an assasin is just wishful thinking. The obvious solution is to remove those who are so transparent in their views and intentions. I didn't bitch about the Secret Service during the Clinton years because I thought removing anti-Clinton protesters a prudent thing to do. I didn't hear a peep from Mr. Bursey during those years... Posted by: Dark Jethro at January 9, 2004 08:32 AMOh, and the sign Mr. Bursey though was so important for the President to see it was worth getting arrested? This peice of prose so poignant it will surely change the Presidents mind even if he only sees it as he speeds by? This powerful verse that will save the world? No Blood For Oil What a maroon! Posted by: Dark Jethro at January 9, 2004 08:59 AMI'll open by saying that I am a staunch Bush supporter. That said. One thing about these "free speech zones" (blantantly Orwellian title if I've ever heard one) that has always rubbed me wrong is the fact that it's only the anti-Bush protestors that get moved to the "corral". They say it's in the name of security. I call B.S. Surely it's possible that someone with a serious intent to harm our president would have enough sense to carry a "I love Bush" sign just to get close to him. This is all about not having Bush show up on the evening news with some clown holding a "Bush = Hitler" sign in the background. Period. Keep in mind, the Secret Service is also in the business of protecting the president's image, as well as his person. I myself have heard tales of the Service doing things including hiding elicit trists, etc. Sorry Clinton, even the Service couldn't protect you from yourself. :-) Posted by: J.G. at January 9, 2004 09:35 AMTo me the most important point is that large signs are inherently disruptive. And the thing they are disrupting is speech. Of course, that is the purpose of protestors of this sort (from any point on the political compass) – to unnerve the speaker and distract attention from the speaker. The purpose is to disrupt – to limit speech. That is made clear by the fact that he didn’t want to move. His purpose was to prevent, rather than engage in, speech. Posted by: Bob Rogers at January 9, 2004 09:57 AM>They say it's in the name of security. I call [that] B.S. Anti-Bush protestors say they are just trying to express their opinions. And I say =that's= B.S. They want to indulge what they think is their right to distrupt the free speech rights of others, destroy property, and endanger lives. In fact, much of the left seems to regard as authentic only demonstrations that include such unlawful and distruptive elements. The Secret Service would be negligent not to corral these people. Posted by: Frew at January 9, 2004 10:08 AMI have spent time over the last two years reading our "loyal opposition's" screeds on sites like Democratic Underground. No way anyone can argue that no small number of those morons are not a threat to the POTUS's life. I am well aware that not everyone on the left is that whacked, but how to tell the "safe" ones from the "not safe" ones? I guess we should use our mind-reading space rays and hope the potential assassin isn't wearing a tinfoil hat. Personally, if the POTUS's security was my responsibility, every "No Blood For Oil" idiot would be so far away as to be almost (not quite, but almost) out of earshot. And yes, I would do the same for Howard Dean - this is not a partisan position I am taking here. The secret service has to have a perfect record...they can't screw up even once. If my family's income depended on that, you can bet your ass I'm taking every precaution to the extreme. No apologies offered. Posted by: JPatterson at January 9, 2004 11:01 AMPersonally, if the POTUS's security was my responsibility, every "No Blood For Oil" idiot would be so far away as to be almost (not quite, but almost) out of earshot. We've been over this, but once more for the slow-learners. This is not a security issue. If it were, they would move *everybody* to the free speech zone. Anybody who would harm the President is simply going to show up with a sign like "I Bush". The Secret Service is smart enough to know that. And while you may think that the means justifies the ends, sorry, the Constitution puts stringent limits on what the Secret Service, and any other government agency can do. (For those wondering, the Supreme Court has ruled that "Congress may make no law..." may be replaced with "any governmental official may not...") On a side note to Bill, "remember personal info?" doesn't work for me. Posted by: Michael Chaney at January 9, 2004 12:31 PMWe can sit and argue about this, using polite, scholarly positions and justifications, all we want. The fact remains that if I'm ever moved to make a public (and peaceful) protest about something, I'll make it when and where I want, not where some government goon says I can. Yes, the Lefties have poisoned the free-speech well for all of us. Criminals have likewise poisoned the Second Amendment well. Neither justifies this kind of egregious and un-Constitutional restriction. We should not step on people's rights just because of what they MAY do. Posted by: Kim du Toit at January 9, 2004 12:50 PMjane m posted that there's a blog showing pictures of a recent protest--in the 'free speech zone' is a person with a pro-Bush sign. So they're not, at least in this case, segregating based on message. I said 'they'. 'They' is the correct pronoun, as it refers no to Bush, or his administration, but to the Secret Service. This issue cannot be dropped at Bushes' feet--it's a function of the Secret Service and their duty to protect the President at all costs--any President. Bush has ordered nothing. Putting this on his shoulders shows a willingness to beliweve a media that lies, spins and twists facts to support their leftish preconceptions. A fact that all too many of you presumably know. Posted by: jack at January 9, 2004 01:39 PMSigns are disruptive, period. You don't want some jackass standing in the middle of the crowd with a sign causing six people to have no view of the goings on. Put *all* of the sign carriers into the "Free Props Zone".
Were I on the secret service, I'd be much more concerned with peaceful protest degrading into shouting, pushing, fighting and then rioting as the pro and anti sides started exchanging words. There's no way that can be good for the President's image or safety. Should something like that happen, it also begins to endanger a whole host of rights for all those present. I daresay if we had a more polite and civilized constituency in this country we wouldn't need "Obnoxious Political Fanatics" Zones. Posted by: Pete at January 9, 2004 03:44 PMThe Supreme Court has already upheld free speech zones (actually--non-free speech zones): anti-abortion protestors must stay 15 feet away from abortion clinics (even if they are on a public sidewalk). I don't hear any outrage over this form of speech suppression. Are they not similar cases? Posted by: Cathy at January 9, 2004 05:28 PMGotta side with Bill here. Don, you are simply wrong. We already know what kind of wackos are out there, and what the levels of hatred and anger they are pushing. Who is more likely to make an attempt on the President's life? Someone carrying Bush=Hitler signs, or someone carrying sighs supportive of the President? You can feel free to call it censorship all you like, but again you are simply wrong. Whats worse, even if you were right, your ignorance of the security concerns renders your analysis moot. It seems the best compromise possible, between keeping the President completely isolated and safe from nut jobs wanting to kill him, and allowing the public to see the President in person. Bob's right. This whining about not being able to get closer does sound an aweful lot like a complaint that it is harder to kill Bush than any real regard for civil rights. Posted by: Ben at January 10, 2004 06:23 AMProtecting the President's person I can understand but protecting his image? The Secret Services job is not to protect the president's image, it's to protect his security. If I were someone seeking to do harm to him like someone mentioned above I would show up with a pro-Bush sign. When the Secret Service moves all the anti-Bush sign holders away they aren't doing a solitary thing to protect his security. The Supreme Court has already upheld free speech zones (actually--non-free speech zones): anti-abortion protestors must stay 15 feet away from abortion clinics (even if they are on a public sidewalk). I don't hear any outrage over this form of speech suppression. Are they not similar cases? Sorry, no similarity. The abortion protestors were physically blocking entrances, harrassing "patients", etc. They were moved simply so that people could get into the "clinics". Posted by: Michael Chaney at January 10, 2004 04:42 PMFree speech, to the extent that these protesters want it, is prohibited in many types of public gatherings. Movies, theaters, weddings, libraries and churches, to name a few, all allow the ejection of individuals who make scenes at such events. The Bush administration is merely practicing preemptive ejection (surprised?) for those they know WILL make a scene. This is the only reason these individuals want to get close to a President they hold in utter contempt. Why should the administration allow them to spoil an event, important to those who simply want to be there and enjoy the moment? If these individuals are good at anything it is the exhibition of gross discourteous behavior. Their ideology transcends all else, in their “minds”, and warrants such behavior. Posted by: Dorian at January 10, 2004 07:53 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
