Dems build cages for protesters...

Yeah, real democratic, huh?
keep in mind, this is not the first time, though.

If protestors could contain themselves to non-violence, these things wouldn't be neccessary.

Damn protestors! I say hang them all.

Hey! How ya' doin', McGentrix?

Wanna go burn some Democrats?

Now thats just sad.

If it's the DNC, who will the protestors be?

Real world problems transcend party lines, McG. many of the protestors will be democrats who want to be heard.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/22/judge_inspects_protest_zone/

Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe:

This is how democrats would treat a republican Michael Moore.



Razor wire... Didn't say anything about machinegun towers or pillboxes, probably didn't want to scare anybody too badly.

To be fair, this is the city's doing. I suspect that if the Republican convention were in town, the "Free Speech Zone" would be just the same.

only acceptable when bush does it right?

The protestors are probably those protesting corporate power, which, alas is a problem affecting Democrats as well as the GOP.

As for the GOP, one need only look at all the trouble United For Peace And Justice had trying to stage an anti-war/empire march and rally a few weeks BEFORE the Sheep gather.

"The protestors are probably those protesting corporate power, which, alas is a problem affecting Democrats as well as the GOP."

Right. It's an outrage that crosses party lines. Nobody should be allowed to do that to people who are engaged in civil disobedience. It almost defeats the whole purpose of free speech.

Yeah, speech is free. Speech where someone might hear it is a different story.

Hey, suzy are on the same side on a political topic.

If they were non-violent and had some self-imposed parameters, these things wouldn't be necessary, IMO. Some of these wackos are dangerous.

Oh my god. We're doomed.

LOL

None of you are on the right track, the cages are to protect the protestors!

Have you seen Ted, Dean or Gore lately, all three on the verge of snapping......totally unsafe.

swolf's continuing crusade against all things Democratic aside, the Bushies are the ones who came up with the idea of "free speech zones" (as if there were actually someplace in the USA that was NOT a free speech zone).

So let me observe that roger and I are in rare agreement again.

I'm not a fan of the measures being taken against protesters at the convention.

Having said that, I think that protesting conventions is rather silly (either the RNC or the DNC). Note that I'm not questioning anyone's right to do so. But both in terms of what protesters hope to achieve and what the message of protesting itself I really don't understand why the conventions are appropriate targets.

Conventions, though largely for show, are still a piece of the electoral process in this country. Protesting them is a bit like protesting polling places. No, they're not the same thing, but still conventions seem like an odd target for protests.

So, am I saying there should never be protests? Of course not. Protests serve a few purposes: to rally people around a cause and educate them, to bring attention to an issue, and, ultimately, to perhaps affect some sort of change. I thought the anti-war protests were highly appropriate precisely because there was a huge disconnect between public opinion before the war (with support for Bush's war, at best, garnering a slim majority of support), and the range of viewpoints presented by the media on the subject. The "anti-this-war" view, despite having broad support in the country, had been marginalized by the mainstream media. Mass protest was, therefore, a last resort way of getting the message out, of trying to remind the country and the media that the war did not actually have the universal support they were pretending it did.

But having said all of that, the right to stand on a public street corner and hold up a sign should be a right given far more respect and protection than it currently is. Security efforts which are there to discourage people from doing so are incredibly un-American. And therefore, perhaps protesting in these cases serves another purpose -- to reassert the right of protest itself.

It is a Bush concoction, or rather, Ashcroft, probably, but I can't recall the specifics.
But they're not protesting the convention itself, so far as I know, but just the usual issues, and the convention is the perfect "stage" for such.