0
   

The Oppression of Free Speech

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:23 am
Huckster
Your reference and mine regarding the label that should be put on the area of the nation where the rednecks and Evangelists roam is indeed the same area.

Paid! Now I understand your posts. You are a paid agent of the RNC and so I guess are some of your fellow hucksters.

When I spell checked this post. Chuckster was changed to huckster. Since you are being paid I thought it was appropriate.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:30 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No one was trying to keep anyone from saying anything. The only thing happening was the authorities trying to keep a situation from getting out of hand. there is nothing wrong with setting up designated areas for protests. It let's the protestors get the media attention they want and it allows the rest of the civilized world move on about it's business.


Did you read the whole thing? It was the secret service that insisted on these 'zones' and they were limiting media access to them. What if the designated areas were so far from the event being protested that it rendered them useless? What if they started setting up designated areas for abortion protesters -- a third of a mile from the clinic?


That was already done during the Clinton admin. They made it illegal to protest within certain footage of abortion clinics. But I guess your almighty leader; the royalty of the DNC can make no mistakes. I guess him doing this wasn't infringing on protestors free speech.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:31 am
McG, the article was about several incidents in different vicinities. I live in one of the areas mentioned and this is only the second thing I have read on it. Also, I wouldn't call this discussion 'media coverage'.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:47 am
Quote:
They made it illegal to protest within certain footage of abortion clinics.


That's because nutjob anti-abortionists were assualting women on their way in to the clinics, no matter what they were there for. It was a dangerous situation where people were ending up dead on both sides due to high feelings on the issue.

Not the same as censoring protest at an event. Hell, you're not even allowed to enter a republican rally without signing a goddamn LOYALTY OATH. What the hell is that all about?!?!?!?!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:47 am
But we are discussing BECAUSE of media attention.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:50 am
Baldimo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:

Did you read the whole thing? It was the secret service that insisted on these 'zones' and they were limiting media access to them. What if the designated areas were so far from the event being protested that it rendered them useless? What if they started setting up designated areas for abortion protesters -- a third of a mile from the clinic?


That was already done during the Clinton admin. They made it illegal to protest within certain footage of abortion clinics. But I guess your almighty leader; the royalty of the DNC can make no mistakes. I guess him doing this wasn't infringing on protestors free speech.


The point is what is the distance they must be from the clinic door? Do you know? It is certainly not so far as to be out of sight and out of hearing range from the people they are trying to get their message to. If the distance were so far as to render the protest meaningless then I would agree that this infringed on their right to free speech, but we all know it isn't that far.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:52 am
I think that after getting spit upon, they moved the distance back to protect the women entering the clinics.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 09:55 am
Cycloptichorn

Signing a loyalty pledge. I may be mistaken but Isn't that similar to something they had to do in NAZI Germany when Hitler came to power?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:08 am
Does it bother you so much that you feel the need to compare it to the Nazis? If I didn't know better, you're listening to sound bites instead of the facts.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:14 am
Um, no, McG, you should be able to go see a political speech without having to sign a loyalty oath. It is anti-American in the extreme.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:18 am
McGentrix wrote:
But we are discussing BECAUSE of media attention.


One article.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, no, McG, you should be able to go see a political speech without having to sign a loyalty oath. It is anti-American in the extreme.

Cycloptichorn


Care to post some facts as to this "loyalty oath"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:28 am
Sure.

From Boston.com:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/09/bush_backers_only_policy_riles_voters_at_rnc_rallies/

Quote:

RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.

ADVERTISEMENT

When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney.

''Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. ''I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath."

Nick Lucy, a 64-year-old veteran and Democrat, said he was turned away from a May 7 rally in Dubuque, Iowa, at which President Bush spoke even though he had a ticket given to him by a local Republican leader. Lucy, who was not asked to sign a form, said he has seen every president since Ronald Reagan, but he was denied access because he is not a registered Republican. He is a Democrat and a past commander of the American Legion in Dubuque who plays taps at veterans' funerals.

''They asked the police to escort me out of there," Lucy said. ''I wasn't going to disrupt anything, but I probably wasn't going to clap a lot, either. Every rally the president goes to everyone is cheering for him because they're handpicked."

Republicans contend they foiled a plot by America Coming Together, a 527 organization that supports the Democratic Party, to disrupt the New Mexico rally. The 527 groups are so named for the provision in the tax code that applies to tax-exempt political organizations that operate outside party and candidate organizations.

RNC spokesman Yier Shi said RNC campaign rallies are not official visits, but party events designed to energize the Republican base . He said everyone is welcome at the rallies as long as they support President Bush.

Shi said similar forms are used at other reelection and fund-raising rallies sponsored by the RNC.

He added that the decision was made to use the forms at the New Mexico rally after the local RNC office received ''suspicious calls" about the event before it was advertised. He said the caller identification indicated some numbers were from cellphones of members of America Coming Together.

''I think the Democrats are just disappointed we thwarted their plans to disrupt our event," he said.

Geri Prado, New Mexico coordinator for America Coming Together, denies her group planned to disrupt Cheney's speech.

The form Wade was asked to sign had a disclaimer saying no public funds were used to produce it.

Wade said he filled out the form, was given two tickets, but had second thoughts about signing an endorsement he didn't believe in. Wade said he explained his misgivings to a supervisor, and the form was quickly located. The supervisor wrote ''Do Not Use" on the form, but Wade insisted it be given to him. In the end, Wade said, he offered to give back his tickets in exchange for the endorsement, which he did.

''Sure I'm a Democrat and I'll go head to head with you one on one, but I would never disrupt a speech by the vice president," Wade says.

Bush-Cheney spokesman Danny Diaz said that RNC rallies are separate from Bush-Cheney events and that he does not know of any endorsement forms being requested of people attending Bush-Cheney-sponsored events. But he says said he understands why the RNC would require such forms at the campaign events.

''They want to make sure people can hear the president and vice president's vision for the next four years," he said. ''There are thousands of volunteers who sacrifice and work hard on the campaign and who deserve to see and hear their president without being disrupted and disrespected."

The campaign of John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has had to deal with Republican hecklers at events. The Kerry-Edwards communications director for New Mexico, Ruben Pulido, said that when Kerry visited New Mexico on July 10, several Bush supporters shouted ''Viva Bush" and waved flip-flops.


For those too lazy to read, It's RNC policy, apparently, to not allow anyone into the speeches without signing a loyalty oath, or pledge to support/vote for Bush/Cheney in '04. This is patently unAmerican and should not be tolerated.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 10:32 am
Something that's often missed about the 'loyalty oath' topic is that he is our sitting president. Whether I like him or not, I have the right to hear him speak without endorsing him.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:12 am
Not at a privately funded gathering you don't.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:20 am
merely shallow thinking on the partof democrats here in albuquerque. What they should have done is sign the damn oath, seen/heard the president and then state" we were for Bush but we just heard him speak and now we are not"
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:25 am
McGentrix wrote:
Not at a privately funded gathering you don't.


These people had tickets.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:25 am
Why are presidential election campaigns considered to be 'privately funded gatherings?'

Doesn't everyone have a right to hear what he says?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:27 am
The president works for the taxpayers. Since we are paying him while he campaigns, we have the right to hear him.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2004 11:28 am
An RNC sponsored event is different than a Bush-Cheney event. Just like a fund raising dinner is seperate from a bus stop.

Quote:
Bush-Cheney spokesman Danny Diaz said that RNC rallies are separate from Bush-Cheney events and that he does not know of any endorsement forms being requested of people attending Bush-Cheney-sponsored events. But he says said he understands why the RNC would require such forms at the campaign events.

''They want to make sure people can hear the president and vice president's vision for the next four years," he said. ''There are thousands of volunteers who sacrifice and work hard on the campaign and who deserve to see and hear their president without being disrupted and disrespected."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 02:15:47