Free Speech Zones - Video Games Forum

Startup · #1 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 01:19 AM

I really couldn't believe this when I read it, but I have confirmed it.

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

"When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”"

Amazing, huh?

Aether · #2 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 07:20 AM

Well, presidential security services try to shield their clients as much as possible in practically every country. Its just that the Americans have managed to make this practice most notorious...

Grisu · #3 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 08:31 AM

It is yet another example on how Bush tramples the american civil and constitutional rights. Frankly it is not surprising.
I am sure there is a lawyer around who will take this to the Supreme Court.

bob_m · #4 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 08:58 AM

this also happened quite some time ago. we had a quite interesting and long thread
on this on sr. it would be so nice to be able to dig up those posts...

Startup · #5 (**permalink**) 03-22-2004, 11:00 PM

Apparently, Bush has forgotten that the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.

Boiler · #6 (**permalink**) 03-23-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Startup

The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path.

May be incidents like this are the reason why some people have to laugh when the United States are described as the land of the free...
However, I don't think this has something to do with the suppression of political opinions (even though in the end its exactly whats happening).

Rather, it has something to do with the mediagenic appearance.

When Bush (or Kerry for that matter) are on TV, it is very important to see cheerful people all around, the picture has to be homogeneous, disturbing elements have to be removed.

From a political point of view there is nothing wrong with that, since Bush/Kerry are expected to deliver a speech in front of a supporting crowd. They are not expected to engage in a discourse with political opponents.

Startup · #7 (**permalink**) 03-23-2004, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boiler

May be incidents like this are the reason why some people have to laugh when the United States are described as the land of the free...

We're still the land of the free, but even when governmental action is patantly unconstitutional (as it is here), it is the people who have to fight back.

The best way to deal with this is to set up a test case: get someone who wants to be involved stand with a adverse sign and refuse to move when ordered. The person will either be arrested or physically removed. If the person is arrested, defense counsel can defend the person's actions on Constitutional grounds. If the person is physically removed, he can sue the city, state, or federal government for violation of civil rights under color of law.

Either way, this ridiculous practice will be stopped. Of course, the Bush admin will call the judges "activists legislating from the bench" like he does when they rightly recognize the right for gays to marry, but the precedent will be set.

I think the problem is that I read that Bush applied to and was rejected from law school. Like Hitler's failed art career, maybe if Bush had been admitted, he would know what the Constitution provides and practices like stiffeling dissent and laws like the Patriot act would not have happened.

Grisu · #8 (**permalink**) 03-23-2004, 03:32 PM

When Bush (or Kerry for that matter) are on TV, it is very important to see cheerful people all around, the picture has to be homogeneous, disturbing elements have to be removed.

Actually, 3 weeks or so ago they had a couple of snipits from a guy that sat in one of Kerry's caucases and was pretty beligerant about him... That guy wasn't removed (on TV).
Since you bring it up though, if you read the European newspapers there is LOTS more information in them as is in the Americans, different views and oppinions are allowed!

Land of the free? Only for very select few!

yankeefan1970 · #9 (**permalink**) 03-24-2004, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Startup

Apparently, Bush has forgotten that the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.

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.

Startup · #10 (**permalink**) 03-24-2004, 10:57 AM

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.