FroMan's Journal: Quickie: I thought only Bush did this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112042,00.html

If you listened to slashbot, only Bush would shuttle any protester away from the scene of a speech, or convention. Reminds me of someone saying, "You can't be a hypocrit, if you don't have any morals to start with."

While I can understand protesters wanting to get the lime light at a convention or speech or other activity, I do not see that as a right. In the US we have the right to freedom of speech, not right to force someone to hear you. I do not care for the "free speech zone" terminology, as it implies that free speech elseware is not allowed. However, I do agree keeping folks orderly and in an unobstructive location for the saftey of the folks attending the convention and the folks protesting and others who might just be in the vicinity. When you have a demonstration in any location at all, causing traffic interference or even fire hazards or the like, then you are infringing on my saftey. Much like the, "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose."

Re: Quickie

[hound3000]

Anybody with money or power these days seems to have the police there to make sure things 'don't get out of hand.' Unfortunately, this increasing seems to be pushing back any protesters off to such distances that the press doesn't have to cover them at all. I can't remember any mainstream press given to people protesting party conventions in 2000. And even during the months leading up to Gulf War 2, we all know that many people openly protested the war, but the coverage on the news typically was downplayed

The funniest part of the article...

[chrisleonard]

The plan would restrict protests to a triangle-shaped site near the FleetCenter (search), which attorneys fear could be obscured from view by buses and television satellite trucks, making demonstrations useless.

That's hilarious ... they assume that the demonstrations, IF SEEN, are actually USEFUL ... ;o)

Re:The funniest part of the article...

[bj8rn]

That's hilarious ... they assume that the demonstrations, IF SEEN, are actually USEFUL ... ;o)

It's really not hilarious at all. The whole point of a demonstration is to be seen. And not by the person(s) protested against, but by the rest of the world (or the rest of the country or the rest of the city... well, you get the point). The demonstrators demonstrate themselves, they show that there are many of them. And the more of them there are, the more just their cause will seem and the more supporters they

Re:The funniest part of the article...

[chrisleonard]

Well, I understand all that - it's pretty obvious, isn't it? In fact, I can't tell for sure from your post if we agree or disagree on this. :oS

Only a culture that is self-absorbed with self-absorption would think that an activity whose primary purpose is to be seen actually is an important thing. Described that way (and the description is accurate, as far as it goes), it is difficult to see the difference between a political demonstration and a Hollywood movie. But I'm sure not going to base my policy o