Sorry, Rob, nice try, but ... you are totally obfuscating here.
1) Your assumption that any opposition is “disruptive” is downright false. Wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign is not a disruption - except of Bush’s fantasy that he’s king. It’s protected free speech.
2)Of course it is free speech violation (not to mention violating the right to assembly) when protesters are caged in areas far away from public events, and when events PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS are sanitized of any opposition through an organized Gestapo-like policing of the attendees.
People like you who make excuses for these questionable practices BY our government AGAINST American citizens are the Germans before WWII ... “as long as it isn’t ME whose rights are being violated, I’m okay with it.”
No, free speech isn’t absolute. Like the shouting “Fire” in a theater thing. But the President WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE, not vice versa. He should allow peacable access by all the people, even his opponents. Maybe ESPECIALLY his opponents, because we are a country of laws, not kings.
This smacks of imperialism ... which is to be expected from an imperial Executive. ONE MORE REASON WE NEED TO IMPEACH THIS IDIOT AND HIS CRONIES.
Gogi - 12:08pm on 08/22/2007
when events PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS are sanitized of any opposition through an organized Gestapo-like policing of the attendees.
Hi! I was born yesterday! And I totally don’t remember Clintonever doing anything like this (except for those times when he did!) I, too, am totally outraged! /sarcasm
Proof - 12:08pm on 08/22/2007
THe President is a public servant. He works for us. Anyone has a Right to take advantage of a public event to meet their president and try to tell them their opinions.
They do not have the right to disrupt the president’s speech, unless they are being suppressed in getting their opinion out.
Clearly this is a manual to suppress not only presenting the president with non-approved opinions and wishes, but also blocking those opinions from contacting any media covering the event.
Collusion between the police and the Whitehouse was also promoted to crush dissent. And many locals took the crushing far beyond the manual ... an activity clearly promoted b the manual.
This sort of activity isn’t limited to the Republicans. Just last week in Arizona a similar screening and tossing out of many Democratic activists including former party chairmen were blocked from entering a public, Democratic Party meeting. The guest? Secret Service protected Nancy Pelosi. THe objective? Same as the Whitehouse: Keep the Speaker from any contact with dissenters on the war and domestic spying. Under threat of arrest.
Fascist Nation - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
In this country all have the right to speak. I am not aware of anyone with greater speech rights than another.
Who’s your daddy?
WOOF - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
1) Your assumption that any opposition is “disruptive” is downright false. Wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign is not a disruption - except of Bush’s fantasy that he’s king. It’s protected free speech.
I wasn’t talking about t-shirts. I actually posted about the t-shirt case the other day and said that removing people from events because of a non-obscene political statement on a t-shirt is unacceptable.
What I am talking about is going to an event with the intent to disrupt. That is not protected speech. Never has been, never will be. People are removed from events, both public and private, for disrupting all the time.
2)Of course it is free speech violation (not to mention violating the right to assembly) when protesters are caged in areas far away from public events, and when events PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS are sanitized of any opposition through an organized Gestapo-like policing of the attendees.
Time and place limitations on free speech have long been upheld by the courts. It doesn’t matter if an event is paid for by the taxpayers or not, you do not have the right to disrupt it.
Poodle,
In this country all have the right to speak. I am not aware of anyone with greater speech rights than another.
That’s the kind of vapid, shallow analysis you liberals are famous for. Nobody’s free speech is greater than anybody else’s. But they are equal, and yours can’t trump mine either. Or the President’s.
If the President is giving a speech, you don’t have the right to go into his venue and disrupt it. Just as I wouldn’t have the right to go into a Hillary Clinton speech and disrupt that.
It’s just common sense. But hey, when it comes to hating Bush I guess that doesn’t apply.
Rob - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
If the President is giving a speech, you don’t have the right to go into his venue and disrupt it.
Yes I do.
America is about speaking up.
Presidents are not Kings and
they ain’t your daddy.
WOOF - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
Yes I do.
No, you don’t moron. Which is why the drag idiots like you out of the audience.
You want to make a speech? Put out a press release, get yourself a podium and make one. You can even say anything you want. But “free speech” does not mean shouting down the free speech of others.
Rob - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
THe President is a public servant. He works for us. Anyone has a Right to take advantage of a public event to meet their president and try to tell them their opinions.
Right! You also have the Right to bear arms! (That’s written in the Constitution!)Be sure to take your Constitutionally protected firearm with you when you go to see the President! Let me know how that works out for you!
Proof - 01:08pm on 08/22/2007
Woof: From Washington to Lincoln and perhaps a bit beyond, people could go in the White House unmolested and gripe to the President. But, the world has turned over many times since then and I regret to say it has become very much more violent, and as a result we simply cannot afford to expose our President to any more risk of life and limb than is absolutely necessary. When people say or do things that are inappropriate and appear to be emotionally unstable people, the Secret Service must remove them and find out what their intentions are or the nation will pay the price if they are complacent.
These people do have Free political Speech Rights and that means at a safe distance from the President they can express their views, no matter how uncivil and fight to change the system. It is only when they present a possible risk to the President, and I admit that is often a judgment call, they must surrender those Free Speech right temporarily until a more appropriate time and place.
Neiman - 02:08pm on 08/22/2007
When a President appears in the kitchen
he needs to be ready for the heat.
We are not serfs.
The Secret Svc did not stop people from coming to events or remove them, Whitehouse operatives did.
Sorry, Rob, nice try, but ... you are totally obfuscating here.
1) Your assumption that any opposition is “disruptive” is downright false. Wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign is not a disruption - except of Bush’s fantasy that he’s king. It’s protected free speech.
2)Of course it is free speech violation (not to mention violating the right to assembly) when protesters are caged in areas far away from public events, and when events PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS are sanitized of any opposition through an organized Gestapo-like policing of the attendees.
People like you who make excuses for these questionable practices BY our government AGAINST American citizens are the Germans before WWII ... “as long as it isn’t ME whose rights are being violated, I’m okay with it.”
No, free speech isn’t absolute. Like the shouting “Fire” in a theater thing. But the President WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE, not vice versa. He should allow peacable access by all the people, even his opponents. Maybe ESPECIALLY his opponents, because we are a country of laws, not kings.
This smacks of imperialism ... which is to be expected from an imperial Executive. ONE MORE REASON WE NEED TO IMPEACH THIS IDIOT AND HIS CRONIES.
THe President is a public servant. He works for us. Anyone has a Right to take advantage of a public event to meet their president and try to tell them their opinions.
They do not have the right to disrupt the president’s speech, unless they are being suppressed in getting their opinion out.
Clearly this is a manual to suppress not only presenting the president with non-approved opinions and wishes, but also blocking those opinions from contacting any media covering the event.
Collusion between the police and the Whitehouse was also promoted to crush dissent. And many locals took the crushing far beyond the manual ... an activity clearly promoted b the manual.
This sort of activity isn’t limited to the Republicans. Just last week in Arizona a similar screening and tossing out of many Democratic activists including former party chairmen were blocked from entering a public, Democratic Party meeting. The guest? Secret Service protected Nancy Pelosi. THe objective? Same as the Whitehouse: Keep the Speaker from any contact with dissenters on the war and domestic spying. Under threat of arrest.
In this country all have the right to speak. I am not aware of anyone with greater speech rights than another.
Who’s your daddy?
I wasn’t talking about t-shirts. I actually posted about the t-shirt case the other day and said that removing people from events because of a non-obscene political statement on a t-shirt is unacceptable.
What I am talking about is going to an event with the intent to disrupt. That is not protected speech. Never has been, never will be. People are removed from events, both public and private, for disrupting all the time.
Time and place limitations on free speech have long been upheld by the courts. It doesn’t matter if an event is paid for by the taxpayers or not, you do not have the right to disrupt it.
Poodle,
That’s the kind of vapid, shallow analysis you liberals are famous for. Nobody’s free speech is greater than anybody else’s. But they are equal, and yours can’t trump mine either. Or the President’s.
If the President is giving a speech, you don’t have the right to go into his venue and disrupt it. Just as I wouldn’t have the right to go into a Hillary Clinton speech and disrupt that.
It’s just common sense. But hey, when it comes to hating Bush I guess that doesn’t apply.
Yes I do.
America is about speaking up.
Presidents are not Kings and
they ain’t your daddy.
No, you don’t moron. Which is why the drag idiots like you out of the audience.
You want to make a speech? Put out a press release, get yourself a podium and make one. You can even say anything you want. But “free speech” does not mean shouting down the free speech of others.
Right! You also have the Right to bear arms! (That’s written in the Constitution!)Be sure to take your Constitutionally protected firearm with you when you go to see the President! Let me know how that works out for you!
Woof: From Washington to Lincoln and perhaps a bit beyond, people could go in the White House unmolested and gripe to the President. But, the world has turned over many times since then and I regret to say it has become very much more violent, and as a result we simply cannot afford to expose our President to any more risk of life and limb than is absolutely necessary. When people say or do things that are inappropriate and appear to be emotionally unstable people, the Secret Service must remove them and find out what their intentions are or the nation will pay the price if they are complacent.
These people do have Free political Speech Rights and that means at a safe distance from the President they can express their views, no matter how uncivil and fight to change the system. It is only when they present a possible risk to the President, and I admit that is often a judgment call, they must surrender those Free Speech right temporarily until a more appropriate time and place.
When a President appears in the kitchen
he needs to be ready for the heat.
We are not serfs.
The Secret Svc did not stop people from coming to events or remove them, Whitehouse operatives did.