This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
He said, she said, Clinton did it, Nixon did it, you started it, you hit me first, did not, did to, yadayadayada....:barf: This is the kind of stupid, childish,bull sh** that keeps us from ever getting anything accomplished in America. It doesn't matter who started it.
The fact is IT IS GOING ON NOW! When it started is not important. When it stops is what matters. To me,this seems like a clear violation of our rights to assembly, free speech, and to petition the government. As a matter of fact, I think I'll exercise one of my rights and send a letter to my elected representatives about this situation. If enough of us will do this, it will accomplish a lot more than pointing fingers and calling names.
 
Correction - this has been going on since at least 1968 that I know of.
Correct.

The term is "Designated Protest Zone", and has been going on for quite sometime, ever since some wako decided to kill the President.

In my humble area we've had multiple visits from VIP's, Billy Clinton, Hillary Clinton, G.W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, etc.

Here's my observations. When Billy & Co. were in power, no whining was heard about the "Designated Protest Zones". The protesters showed up and did their thing, quite well I might add, nicely organzied.
Now that the Democrats are out of power this is just one more thing for them to whine about.
When a Republican visted the protesters who showed up were quite a different breed. It seemed that getting their message across was not the goal. They wanted to interupt the event and to get in the persons face and confront them. These actions brought them into conflict with the Designated Protest Zone. That is why they are whining.
In short, I'm sure there were some problem protesters when the Democrats were in Office, but through my own experiance I didn't see them, and now they abound.

2 cents
 
you didn't see the protestors against Clinton? well, they may not have marched in the streets but they used the system to attempt impeachment.


well said Ky Larry.
 
you didn't see the protestors against Clinton? well, they may not have marched in the streets but they used the system to attempt impeachment.
You misunderstand Sir. I saw plenty of protesters against Clinton, but they did it in an orderly fashion, didn't flaunt the rules, and didn't try to intrupt the event and get in the face of the person to confront them in an intimidating manner.

Also, Bill Clinton was impeached.
 
Speaking for myself only, I find these so called Free Speech Zones to be anathma to Free Speech.

Other than that, with respect to comment regarding Clinton using the IRS against individsuals, Nixon did pretty much the same thing, no?
 
Why is it...?

"'There has to be a consequence when people ignore the directions of the Secret Service when they’re protecting the president of the United States,' the prosecutor said.

Bursey has a history of civil disobedience dating to the late 1960s. He served nearly two years in state prison for defacing a military draft office in Columbia in 1971 and has been arrested several times since during antinuclear and other protests.

Reach LeBlanc at (803) 771-8664 or [email protected] ."

...that those most likely to have to face these consequences and know it in advance (such as Bursey, the guy with a history of civil disobedience and a police record) are the first to break the rules and then scream and yell "Unfair! It's a violation of my civil rights!" the minute they have to face said consequences? Plus doesn't serving two years in a state prison constitute a felony conviction, in which case that would make him a felon and I thought felons waived certain rights due to their actions such as gun ownership, voting, etc.? I don't get it.

As to the free speach zone? I don't know about that either. No one is being prevented from protesting and they can say and do as they please within the law, it's just a matter of the proximity in which they can do it. I'm not really seeing it as a free speach violation especially when you can have a person removed from a movie theatre for talking and disturbing during a movie. Those people are just exercising their right to free speach aren't they? But then I could just be an idiot :)

Take care everyone,

DRC
 
Free speech is dead. For now, we can consider ourselves that at least our 'thoughts' are still free.

There is a German song, 'Die Gedanken sind Frei..". First heard of it / saw it in some american WWII POW movie, with Doug McClure as an OSS officer and Richard Basehard as the POW Kommandant, years ago.

http://lieder.aus-germanien.de/gedanken.htm

It's in German, starts out ; Die gedanken sind frei, niemand kann sie erraten..

Further on down is a translated version I found.

link: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1185.html

"Thoughts are free, no one can discover them...."

Deutsch:

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
Sie fliehen vorbei, wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen,
mit Pulver und Blei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich denke, was ich will, und was mich beglücket.
Doch alles in der Still und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren.
es bleibt dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich liebe den Wein, mein Mädchen vor allen.
Sie tut mir allein am besten gefallen.
Ich bin nicht alleine bei meinem Glas Weine.
mein Mädchen dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei. die Gedanken sind frei.

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen absagen,
Und will mich auch nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen
Und denken dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

English:

Die Gedanken Sind Frei (Our Thoughts Are Free)

Die Gedanken sind frei
My thoughts freely flower,
Die Gedanken sind frei
My thoughts give me power.
No scholar can map them,
No hunter can trap them,
No man can deny:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure,
My conscience decrees,
This right I must treasure;
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator,
No man can deny--
Die Gedanken sind frei!

And if tyrants take me
And throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst free,
Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble,
The structure will tumble,
And free men will cry:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Neither trouble or pain
Will ever touch me again.
No good comes of fretting,
My hope's in forgetting.
Within myself still
I can think as I will,
But I laugh, do not cry:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

-- Traditional
 
DRC

No one is being prevented from protesting and they can say and do as they please within the law, it's just a matter of the proximity in which they can do it.
Did you miss this part of the article?
Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "
Whether you like it or not, that would qualify as a mass arrest of political dissenters. The fact that they were later allowed to go home without being booked does not negate the fact that while they were in that area they were technically under arrest.
 
Free speech is dead. For now, we can consider ourselves that at least our 'thoughts' are still free.

The fact that you felt free to post that proves that the statement is without merit.
 
Geez, anyone that can argue in favor of the President or his clan acting in this way probably needs to be reminded of history and/or the frog over the flame experiment.

J
 
Mr. peel...

"'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

And this means what exactly to you? I know what it means to me and by your post our interpretations are diametrically opposed. An area that CAN BE SECURED is not the same as a prison or prison camp and if protests got out of hand I would hope it would be in an area that the police or Secret Service could easily secure to protect the innocent. What's your take?

"Whether you like it or not, that would qualify as a mass arrest of political dissenters. The fact that they were later allowed to go home without being booked does not negate the fact that while they were in that area they were technically under arrest."

Please forgive me for pointing out the painfully obvious when the merely obvious would do but your comment is completely obsurd and without merrit. These people are given an area they can protest in so could you please prove that they are placed there and locked up while there?
Mr Jitsuguy,

perhaps you need to stop reading into a situation what isn't there. History (the unskewed version of course) shows more than just abuses of power and the taking away of civil rights. If you would be so kind as to qualify your statement I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

DRC
 
Pardon me for what might be a dumb question, but given that you were, I assume, stating the facts of the matter, or had made an discerning observation, exactly how does one spell "tense"?
Not sure I understand what you're asking here.

The agent in this incident looked like she was surprised that someone had "made" her, and didn't look too pleased about it. That's why I meant by "tense".

But that's sort of off-topic for this discussion.

I've been to a couple of protests where we were confined to a specific area. Didn't like it one bit. Public space is public space, in my opinion, and one group has just as much right to it as another. If you're going to allow supporters within a few feet of a V.I.P., then those who have dissenting opinions ought to be allowed in similar proximity.

Private locations are another thing, obviously, but that's not what's being discussed here.
 
DRC

"'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

And this means what exactly to you?
That they could, without notice, ensnare the people within the confines of the "place that is able to be secured" and not allow them to leave. They could effect a mass arrest of everyone there for whatever reason they wished -- lawful or not.
I know what it means to me and by your post our interpretations are diametrically opposed. An area that CAN BE SECURED is not the same as a prison or prison camp and if protests got out of hand I would hope it would be in an area that the police or Secret Service could easily secure to protect the innocent. What's your take?
The point is that they could secure the area for any reason they wished -- even if there were no disturbances; or the protestors did not get "out of hand". The area is, as you stated, "not the same as a prison or prison camp" but could become one at a moment's notice.

What would your opinion be if the authorities did ensnare the assemblage and not allow them out? What if they started demanding ID, mugshots, and fingerprints from everyone within the enclosure prior to allowing them to leave, including minor children? What if they jailed anyone who failed to produce ID or refused to have their fingerprints taken? Would our opinions still be diametrically opposed after this eventuality? What level of government abrogation will it take for you to be in my camp?
 
I've seen this happen in Arizona, and it definitely occurred during the Clinton years. It is indeed an outrage, by either party.

Regards from TX
 
TheBadOne:
but they did it in an orderly fashion, didn't flaunt the rules,
You mean flaunting the rules, like, the First Amendment? Rules are way down the list of Supreme Laws of the Land.

As for happening in Arizona Ernie Hancock was arrested in 1994 in Phoenix because he held a sign that said, "Legalized Freedom. Vote Libertarian." He was put in Madison Street Jail just long enough for Janet Reno's motorcade to enter the basement parking garage where she was speaking.

I guess she couldn't take dissenting opinions either.

Rick
 
What it seems we have here is just a replay of the ever occurring I LOVE BUSH-I HATE BUSH battle. Nothing ever changes and the players on either side remain the same.

Love him or hate him, he is the President and the SS has the duty to protect him from harm. A protester with a stick (poster) in his hands is I guess a potential weapon, and a possible threat. IMO better to err on the side of caution than to have another shot Prez ala Reagan.
 
an attempt to stifle dissent.

Maybe they go overboard with their notions of public safety and public order (I have no problem with it...) When they shut down this board because you're criticising POTUS or they forbid any street demonstration far from POTUS's person, then I'll believe this tripe...
 
romulus

When they shut down this board because you're criticising POTUS or they forbid any street demonstration far from POTUS's person, then I'll believe this tripe...
So all of those things that will come before are acceptable? They can do as they will and until you see those things the rest is tripe?

By the way, which one is you; the one in the front or the one in the back? :evil:

romulus2.jpg

Bronze replica of original Romulus and Remus sculpture at the
Pallazio Del Conservatori in Rome, Italy.
 
No, not all things that will come before are acceptable. On the other hand, the things that have been described in this thread I have no objection to.

Regards,
The baby on the right
 
The problem with the argument that the "free speech zone" is nessecary to keep the president safe is that here in SC, ONLY THE DISSENTERS WERE SENT TO THE FREE SPEECH ZONE!
 
corncob

That's right. Abdul Mohammed Bin Laden, who snuck into the U.S. from Canada, carrying a red, white, and blue "I love Bush!" sign, and three grenades strapped to his body, would be able to stay in the presence of the President; while patriotic Americans, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, would be ostracised.
 
The problem with the argument that the "free speech zone" is nessecary to keep the president safe is that here in SC, ONLY THE DISSENTERS WERE SENT TO THE FREE SPEECH ZONE!
I can't imagine his supporters presenting a potential threat to the Prez's life...

I doubt they let the guys with the "I love Bush sign" in and leave it at that. The "dissenters" are kept at a distance so the the threat near the Prez is more manageable...
 
I can't imagine his supporters presenting a potential threat to the Prez's life...

I doubt they let the guys with the "I love Bush sign" in and leave it at that. The "dissenters" are kept at a distance so the the threat near the Prez is more manageable...


Oh, for pity's sake.

Does anyone really think that a mad bomber would carry a "Bush Sucks!" sign?

db
 
You never know, just as you can't assume that someone with an "I love bush sign" will NOT carry one. I think we're saying the same thing. It's just about lowering risks by making the crowd's numbers more manageable...
 
You don't think having a bunch of confusion, from mixing the two groups, makes the secret service agents job more difficult???

I do...

And for the last time...nobody is limiting your speech...just telling you where to go do it.

Want to get your point out....schedule your own event.

I have a lot of things I would like to say to the world at large....but I still gotta pay for the TV slot:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top