The Oppression of Free Speech

They want to make sure people can hear. That, my friends, is some Bullsh*t if there ever was some.

You can hear the democratic speakers just fine at their rallies. It's never been a problem before. Bush just wants the screen to be full of supporters is all.

When you are the leader of your party, and your party runs events, you are responsible for them, no matter who you say is 'sponsoring' them. The loyalty oath is patently unAmerican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

debra

Thanks for this article.

McG

You are smart enough to leave off defending the indefensible. Clearly, this is not about safety as folks carrying pro-Bush signs are allowed to remain where they wish, and are not relegated to the 'free speech area'. The earlier 'soap box' or 'speakers corner' analogy doesn't apply as it isn't the case that speaking elsewhere is prohibited.

One of the very nasty consequences of this level of divisive partisanship evident in the US presently is that folks whom one might assume would fight tooth and nail against incursions into such a fundamental right as free speech (ie McG) end up supporting the curtailment of that right.

Here in Canada, a similar curtailment (under the previous liberal PM) occured here in Vancouver during a trade summit (protesters were shunted out of view, pepper sprayed, arrested). An investigation took years and came to correct conclusions, but that was far too late.

Supporting free speech means supporting speech you don't like. Any other definition is meaningless. And forgetting who it ALWAYS is that seeks to curtail free speech (undemocratic leaders) is foolhardy for those who love liberty.

0 Replies

What about the rights of people that don't want to be bothered by people yelling at them about subjects they care about?

Free speech zones are an excellent method of allowing the protesters a place for their thing while those that aren't protesting can be allowed to do their thing.

That goes for either side.

0 Replies

What about the right to assemble? One of our fundamental rights, if memory serves. And not just in pre-arranged cages...

0 Replies

What about the rights of people that don't want to be bothered by people yelling at them about subjects they care about?<--- McG

That's a right? I don't remember that one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yes, it is rather hard to imagine "the people, peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of greivances" if they have to go stand in the corner in order to accomplish that end . . .

"And you're not coming out, young man, until you can show you've learned your lesson . . . "

0 Replies

how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!

0 Replies

If my memory serves me correctly...yesterday, 250,000 people showed up in the streets of NYC and nobody stopped them from expressing their views.

Clinton used "free speach zones".
Bush uses"free speech zones".
Kerry uses "free speech zones".

People still show up. People still protest.

0 Replies

Holy Sh*t, I'm listening to that song right now Dys!

How did you do that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What about the rights of people that don't want to be bothered by people yelling at them about subjects they care about?

Free speech zones are an excellent method of allowing the protesters a place for their thing while those that aren't protesting can be allowed to do their thing.

That goes for either side.

The constitution didn't set out to protect people from hearing what they didn't want to hear or from seeing what they didn't want to see. You have this backwards. And in switching it backwards, you allow the effective repeal of what the constitution DID set out to protect. Do you truly not get that?

Your formulation in the first sentence has as a consequence the public appearance only of speech one agrees with.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What about the rights of people that don't want to be bothered by people yelling at them about subjects they care about?

Does the constitution provide that option?

0 Replies

gosh, that's true. People do still protest and people are still dying in Iraq including not only Iraqi's but US and Coalition forces even though the defacto government is an Islamic Mullah appointed by Allah. Perhaps that's what Rumsfeld had in mind all along. (he should have let Bush in on the plan)

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Clinton used "free speach zones".
Bush uses"free speech zones".
Kerry uses "free speech zones".

People still show up. People still protest.

It doesn't matter to me who uses them, my feelings for them are the same. And I'm sure people do still show up and protest -- but the people and events they are protesting are sometimes completely unaware of them. This is why I think they are a violation of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It doesn't matter to me who uses them, my feelings for them are the same. And I'm sure people do still show up and protest -- but the people and events they are protesting are sometimes completely unaware of them. This is why I think they are a violation of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.

I may be wrong but isn't it a "freedom of speech" not a "right to be heard."

The difference being you are allowed to say what ever you want to say...but you do not have to be listened to. It is not a "right" to be able to say face to face that you disagree.

For example, if we used your argument the protestors should be able to march inside the Garden during the RNC becasue otherwise some of the people inside might not know they were there.

0 Replies

Mcg wrote

Quote:

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.

Yes, it bothers me that in this once free nation one would have to sign a loyalty pledge to listen to OUR president give a speech.
In addition I find it strange since in an election campaign the purpose being I suppose to sway the undecided to your side. Why restrict your audience to those who are already solidly on your side. Could it be that the handlers know that the only way to keep Bush from making a fool of himself is keep the audience from asking questions. I have read that the only questions allowed are those scripted and put into the hands, and mouths of loyal lemmings. Under the aforementioned procedures one is lead to wonder why is he making these trips and speeches at all. Is it to keep him out of the way as you would a child who likes to touch things. Give him some money and send him to the movies.

0 Replies

Noone is arguing the protestors should be allowed to march on the floor of the RNC. But they shouldn't be stuck in a pen, away from the news media, whose access to the PROTESTORS is limited as well.

Why limit the media's access to the protestors? What possible purpose could that serve other than to silence their voices?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But your acting as though it's a common occurrance when it's not. To me, it's an over-reaction.

You are doing nothing more than using it as a lever for your side which is understandable. If I had Kerry as a candidate I would try to find and use whatever I could as well.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

I may be wrong but isn't it a "freedom of speech" not a "right to be heard."

No, but once you decide that it's okay for some people to speak in public, but not others, based on their message, you are infringing on the right to free speech. But notice I also said the right to assemble.

Quote:

For example, if we used your argument the protestors should be able to march inside the Garden during the RNC becasue otherwise some of the people inside might not know they were there.

That's quite false. What I'm saying is that if supporters of a cause are allowed to assemble and speak in a public place during an event then you cannot prohibit other peaceably assembled folks from also gathering simply because their message is one you don't like. We are talking about public places.

0 Replies

I don't want a lever.

I wouldn't want anyone to be treated this way. Everything isn't partisan, yaknow - my beliefs in the freedoms afforded by our Constitution go much deeper than my party affiliation.

If the Democrats pulled the same crap, I'd harp on them for it, too. Your side just HAPPENS to be the one, yaknow, skirting a violation of our first amendment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You people are twisting the free speech issue. Free speech is guaranteed by the govt, not by private gatherings. If the president is attending a private gathering then the people hosting that gathering can tell you whether you are allowed to enter or not. You can't stand in my yard protest with out my permission, I can have you thrown off my land because you are in violation of my property rights.

The RNC isn't a govt agency and there for can let who they want into a meeting or even into a dinner. It is their right to limit entry in to meetings regardless of who is there or what they are doing.

I support any private group that wants to limit people's access to their private meetings.

0 Replies

The Oppression of Free Speech

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know