Journal Uma Thurman's Journal: GW Bush hates free speech 47
Quarantining dissent
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
James Bovard Sunday, January 4, 2004
When President 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 went 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, but
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."
Bush supporters are so lame (Score:2)
On the upside I did drag in your old buddy chunkwhite86 [slashdot.org] into the fray and let me tell you, he's a fun one. Ready and willing to display his utter ignorance and narrow mindedness to the bitter end.
But what really amazes me is that noone actually proved me wrong. All the responses I got were either that "Bush is the lesser of x evils", or that
Re:Bush supporters are so lame (Score:1)
Chunkwhite86 decodes to:
chunk: body type
white: underwear color
86: his intelligence
Re:Bush supporters are so lame (Score:1)
Devil's advocate here: I don't hold this opinion.
GWB and friends might think that they're doing themselves and the country a favour by ensuring a sure supply of oil in the next 20 years or so, given that 11/9/01 was likely to have happened with the knowledge of some of the Saudi royals, and they may not be able to count the Saudis as friends for too much longer.
All the proto-fascist stuff, like the story above, which I'd seen before, is
Gettting around it. (Score:2)
Here's what I've heard of people doing:
Make a sing that says "Impeach Bush". Over the impeach you put tape that is the same color as the background. Over that you write "Reelect". So when you are past the police, you remove the tape. Have a friend with a pro bush sign. Have him video you and the crowd. If you get your skull cracked you have proof that you were peacefully protesting as protected under the constitution.
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
While there we were asked by the secret service to move to a different location, it was not censorship these guys are charged with protecting and maybe dying for the president. We did so with a smile even though we were in our place well before the pro-Clinton people where there and
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:1)
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:1)
If an officer ORDERS you to move, you must comply. If he arrests you, you probably should comply there too.
So, were you asked or ordered?
A man with a sign should not be arrested for standing in a public place. End of story. Jerk.
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
If he was ordered (which he was) by the SS (who can legally order you to move) and he did not move he needs to live with the consequences (I know that concept is hard for some on the left to understand) of his actions.
If I had refused the request (which some people did), I would have been ordered (which some people were) to move. If I then re
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:1)
You're an idiot. Liberalism is all about people living with the consequences of their actions. Under conservatives, the rich get and stay rich no matter how screwed up they are. The poor stay poor no matter how good they are.
Liberalism is the concept that people should benefit from their a
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:2)
Yea thats why Liberals are so big on welfare, abortion (tax payer funded), and big government because they think people should reap benefits from thier own actions...
The whole point of it is that GW Bush hates free speech
Maybe he does, I am not voiting for him in the next election at any rate because he is not a conservative. But if he does hate free speech he hates it just as much as the Clintons do.. Face it youre the o
Re:Gettting around it. (Score:1)
Somewhat understandable...mostly idiotic (Score:1)
Either way though, arresting that guy for no
Re:Somewhat understandable...mostly idiotic (Score:2)
Only if we assume that assissans have the IQ of mayonase :) Anyone wanting to suicide bomb/assinate/etc Mr. Bush would probably have the intelligence to hold a PRO-Bush sign so as to avoid attracting attention. Just like I would assume that any
Re:Somewhat understandable...mostly idiotic (Score:2)
Moving along, sure, the Clinton administration had a lot of smoke and mirrors but to say he did "nothing?" If I remember correctly, the national debt improved. That's atleast one positive note...
Re:Somewhat understandable...mostly idiotic (Score:2)
No, it didnt. Not in real numbers, anyway.
Look at the National Debt as a credit card.
The debt was X amount under Clinton. he announced he was going to balance the budget! WOOHOOO! we all thought. The way he balanced the budget, was he looked at his income, and the projected balance on the "credit card" (which is
free speech "zones" (Score:2)
The right to freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to scream under someones window at 3:00 in the morning. Nor do you have that right on private property.
Maeryk
reminder to reply to this (Score:1)
Re:free speech "zones" (Score:2)
Re:free speech "zones" (Score:1)
Game on. (Score:2)
* Few conservatives have a "money-grubbing obsession". We just want to keep what we have earned. There are greedy people on both sides of the aisle though. It's just that liberals grub other people's money.
* Conservatives are not the ones trying to create "thought crime"... er.. "hate speech". With the exception of the zones set up at recent Bush events (which I'm extremely disappointed about), we don't normally set up "free speech zones" which are really just islands in "non-free
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
All of my arguments boil down to "right wingers are {slur}". I was just saving time.
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
If you continue to make up your own definitions of words, then you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Stop saying that you don't like liberals, when you are in fact a liberal yourself. Don't you have the strength of character and intellect to know who you are?
I might call myself a "Classical Liberal". Unfortuantely, in the last 140+ years, the term "liber
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
You must be a retard. The changable definition of liberal that you are referring to was invented by the enemies of liberalism, and the fact that you and so many others bought into it is a sign of how completely mislead you are.
Contemporary Liberalism (as defined by personal freedom with others' belongings)
Yep, you are a moron. That definition you gave is the Republic
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
If you think Ann Coulter is the one who started the corruption of the term, you're more than a bit off. Like I said, it's 140+ years going...
Liberalism is not a party. Liberalism and Democrat are not synonymous, but many current Democrats are Contemporary Liberals.
Yep, you are a moron. That definition you gave is the Republican party (which is liberal, like it or not) definition that they use to get a leg up on their opponents.
Well, by your definition, since the only definition of Liberal that counts
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
Wow.
You degenerated into name calling on your first response...
You *have* to have something better than this, right?
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
You're also a traitorous liar.
Go ahead and spend 20 minutes writing something so I can call you more names.
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
Thanks and with that I'll declare you yet another Liberal who's beliefs seem to be based on hatred and emotions instead of a single coherent thought.
I take it that you're a DUer and a member of ANSWER?
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
My apologies, I guess my expectations of a discussion were just too high to be met.
Classical Liberalism is great. Unfortuantely, I can't figure out what today's liberals stand for.
* They're for global intergration of governments & laws (ICC & UN), but not of trade (anti-NAFTA, WTO).
* They're for the 1st Amendment (ACLU), but are against against the 1st Amendment (ACLU v. Boy Scouts).
* They're for tolerance (CAIR), but many seem to hate Christians.
* They don't want morals "pushed on them",
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
Only the illiterate right-wingers such as yourself are out there saying to themselves "I can't tell if Uma Thurman likes me or not." Everyone else understands the message.
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
This is also the home of McCain-Feingold and where the US Surpreme Court found that political speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The grevious trampling of the 10th Amendment is a bit too numerous to mention here.
The 5th Amendment was pretty well trampled by the
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
If you think that gun control is strictly a liberal position, then you're a tool of the far right who want you to think a certain way. Amazingly, for a person with an intelligence as low as your own, you're correctly saying that liberalism/conservatism doesn't really match up in any
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
What does Liberalism stand for today?
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
It stands against tyranny. Liberalism is the opposite of fascism. It's free speech, and freedom of religion. It's the United States Constitution. It's the Bill of Rights in particular. It's even open source software.
Liberalism today stands for exactly the same things as it always has.
And what do you stand for, you hypocrite? Are you so sure that you really aren't a liberal? Or, are you so attached to a mere political party that you like to trash talk liberalism because it's fa
Re:Game on. (Score:2)
I stand for those things too.
Unfortunately, one party openly admits and drives us there while the other one is taking its time.
Those who claim to be "Liberals" do not espouse those things. There is a reason that the Constitution Party is considered a "right-wing" organization...
Re:Game on. (Score:1)
If you continue to make up your own definitions of words, then you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Stop saying that you don't like liberals, when you are in fact a liberal yourself. Don't you have the strength of character and intellect to know who you are?
Re:THE DEMOCRATS' IDEA OF A GENERAL (Score:1)
Re:THE DEMOCRATS' IDEA OF A GENERAL (Score:1)
Really? Ask the Croats and the Muslims about that.