North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Your post makes no sense whatsoever. If Bush should not be muzzled, then there goes your argument for muzzling protesters. You can't have it both ways.
Bush Admin restricts freedom of speech...
- Thread starter GenMarshall
- Start date
The people have freedom of assembly, meaning they CAN gather together and protest. If it is on a route the president is passing by, he has no right to bar them (since they aren't dangerous).
Additionally, democracy is a PUBLIC endeavor that requires people to communicate ideas with each other. Denying protesters the right to attend a speech is harmful to our democracy, because it denies the other attendees other points of view (and it denies the speaker the ability to see that there are people that disagree) -- this cuts part of the free flow of information that is vital to a functioning democracy. It's especially invalid when a speech is open to the public. As long as the protesters are not overly loud or belligerent, then they pose no disruption to a speech. However, I certainly see nothing wrong with protesters chanting whatever they want when other people are applauding.
-Drachasor
Mandeville
Prince
americans should use what little freedom they actually have left and vote in someone else for this! oh wait you only have two parties to choose from. i guess thats why you guys are so complacent with what rivals the third world in terms of corruption in politics.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
This is a pretty stupid article. Every President in modern history has done the very same thing...every convention in modern history has done the same thing too. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is common in politics today.
I remember the 1996 GOP Convention in San Diego where they placed all PETA protestors in a little fenced area by the dumpsters behind the Spaghetti Factory. It was great to see the PETA people dressed up like dogs and chickens while uneaten meatballs were rotting away 20 feet from them...
To somehow lambast Bush as some vicious promoter of the prevention of free speech because of this article isn't very honest.
~Chris
I remember the 1996 GOP Convention in San Diego where they placed all PETA protestors in a little fenced area by the dumpsters behind the Spaghetti Factory. It was great to see the PETA people dressed up like dogs and chickens while uneaten meatballs were rotting away 20 feet from them...
To somehow lambast Bush as some vicious promoter of the prevention of free speech because of this article isn't very honest.
~Chris
I would have thought the freedom of assembly, and the fact that the representatives must listen to his constitutients, would account for that.
Can I assemble a protest on the Senate floor? Can we have a Fourth of July fireworks show inside an airport terminal? Of course not - no right is absolute, and the right to assemble to protest doesn't mean you can protest anywhere you like.
Same thing with the petition of grievances. If your elected representative won't listen, then vote him out of office the next go around - but he doesn't have to listen to everyone, or to people he doesn't want to listen to. He should, but he doesn't have to - there's no rule saying that politicians can't be foolish.
They are assembling in areas open to the public, and they aren't exploding anything. You can't possible think your examples are equivalent scenarios.
QuoVadisNation
keeping your angel alive
I agree with your point that the executive shouldn't have the powers or even abuse the powers that legislative have to designate areas and time to assembly. But I'm much more interested in the section that's quoted above. It is definitely a poignant argument, but regarding the claim that people need to hear other points of view at a rally or speech.. is that the official ruling and law, or just how you feel it should be? If it's the latter, I think an American version of democracy, rule by the people, and the First Amendment would still run just fine without the great potential of disrupting everyone's right to an unfettered assembly for the purpose of addressing specific politics, religion, or whatever by having two hostile assemblies in the same time and place. How people are "informed" is irrelevant, it's about their rights and their right to address things without being shut down by belligerent or nonbelligerent naysayers. So yeah, allowing a mini-protest to occur in the middle of someone else's assembly is a problem.
Would you consider it disruptive If I went to a presidential rally with a shirt and sign that says any of the following slogans: 'I love Bush!", "Go Bush!", "God Bless Bush & America"? Why or why not?
Narz
keeping it real
You're so cute when you pwn Mobby, Genny!Wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt when youre just their minding your own business is disruptive? Or even holding a book that criticizes the Bush administration and not reading it outloud disruptive?
Please
The courts have almost uniformly ruled that Bush can't do what he is doing. He ignores them (just like he ignores laws or parts of laws he doesn't like, even laws he signs).
Having protesters at a rally or at a speech doesn't mean they will drown it out. If they interfere too much, then I believe they can be removed (disorderly conduct or some such, I am not sure). Holding signs up and shouting/chanting when the speaker isn't talking should certainly be fine. Beyond that there is a bit of a gray area between protesting and too much interference.
Protests are important because a lot of people get their news on the television, so being able to see protesters and their point of view at an event really does matter. How people are informed does matter, because they have to be effectively informed.
