Quote:
Originally Posted by F_R_O_G
If this was Clinton then you guys would say that barring the protestors from protesting near the president was legit.
|
What makes you say that? What has anyone here said that would give you the impression that we believe the constitutional violations we complain of are a result of our distaste for Bush?
Quote:
Let me tell you have another example of protestors. A few years ago 20 or so people stood outside an abortion clinic they were peacefully protesting, and they were outside the boundaries set up by the city. They all got taken to jail... so please don't give me this crap that president bush is trying to take our civil rights away.
|
Big difference. First of all, protestors are allowed to protest behind "buffer zones." No one is arrested so long as they stay behind that barrier. Many people DO get arrested at abortion clinics because they harrass the women exercising their legal right to abortion be "getting into the face" of the women, or running into the clinic to harass the women, or by throwing stuff at the workers, or some other conduct that unduly burdens the right of the women exercise their rights.
A President intentionally places himself into the public arena by choosing to run for office. It is understood and reasonable that protest will follow his actions. Conversely, a woman opting for an abortion is in a terribly compromised position and the emotions attendant these women are equally terrible. The protestors take what should be a private medical procedure and make it as public as possible. They block cars, they block the entrance way, hold up disgusting and horrific signs, scream terrible insults, run into the clinics and harass the women in the operating rooms, take their pictures, etc...
And, still, the protestors have a constitutional right to assemble and do what they do. In doing so, they make what is probably the worst day of these women's lives MUCH worse. Too bad they don't have a secret service that will protect their feelings by removing all protest.