Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yankeefan1970
If Bush had forgotten that, the protestors would simply be arrested and carted away. Protestors of any kind don't typically just sit by quietly and allow someone to speak. They are going to get in their face and cause a scene. So, it makes perfect sence to keep them back from the intended purpose of a Presidential visit.
The protestors are allowed to protest and to assemble. I don't see anything wrong with keeping them away from the President. If the media wants to seek out the protestors to get their views, they're free to do so.
There's no real story here.
|
Oh God, you have it so wrong. Even though the First Amendment reads that Congress can make "no law" abridging freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has never interpreted that literally. But, laws and governmental actions based on the content of the speech (esp. when engaged in in a traditional public forum) were always stricken and disallowed unless the government could show a compelling reason why such speech had to be abridged.
Sparing the President's fragile feelings is not such a compelling reason.
The President often tells reporters that he does not read newspapers, and when he watches TV it is Nascar that he watches. Now, protesters are kept away from him. It is like he lives in a cocoon.
BTW, protestors have never been allowed to get into the President's face. Keeping supporters and protestors behind baracades is legitimate; keeping supporters behind baracades and keeping protestors three to five miles away is not.
__________________
If I'd lived in Roman times, I'd have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself. - John Lennon
April 15th, Make it just another day!
The best daily political cartoons can be found here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html