0
   

For those who hate "Free Speech Zones"

 
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 06:12 am
Bravo! Beautifully put.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 06:51 am
kelticwizard wrote:
If you go for an eye examination, you simply drive up to the doctor'soffice, park your car in the office parking lot or street if the office does not have one, and get your eyes examined. Nobody accosts you, approaches you, bothers you.

Same thing for the dentist.

Same thing for physical therapy, skin treatment, or any outpatient procedure.

And most people feel that these patients are entitled to that-just walk up to the front door at the time of your appointment without anyone bothering you.

But when it comes to abortions, it's a different story. Suddenly it's supposed to be okay to surround the place with placard-wielding, death-mask wearing, slogan-shouting demonstrators throwing insults and accusations at the prospective patients and the people who work there all day long.

And then when laws are made to prevent the harassment, they decide to tone it down a bit and call it "valuable information" they want to give the patient. What a joke.

The whole purpose of this "information" is to harass the patient when she shows up at her appointment, to make an obstacle that she has to get past.

When a patient makes an appointment at an abortion clinic, she should be allowed to do what other outpatients do when they go to the eye doctor, dentist, or physical therapist. Anything else is harassment. You can call it "zones", you can call it whatever you want. The patient going to the abortion patient should have the same rights as the patient who is going to any other type of clinic.


Having a glaucoma test, a cavity filled, or a wart removed is not the same as sucking a living fetus from a mother's womb.

That's how some people feel about abortion. They believe it to be murder.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 06:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
If you go for an eye examination, you simply drive up to the doctor'soffice, park your car in the office parking lot or street if the office does not have one, and get your eyes examined. Nobody accosts you, approaches you, bothers you.

Same thing for the dentist.

Same thing for physical therapy, skin treatment, or any outpatient procedure.

And most people feel that these patients are entitled to that-just walk up to the front door at the time of your appointment without anyone bothering you.

But when it comes to abortions, it's a different story. Suddenly it's supposed to be okay to surround the place with placard-wielding, death-mask wearing, slogan-shouting demonstrators throwing insults and accusations at the prospective patients and the people who work there all day long.

And then when laws are made to prevent the harassment, they decide to tone it down a bit and call it "valuable information" they want to give the patient. What a joke.

The whole purpose of this "information" is to harass the patient when she shows up at her appointment, to make an obstacle that she has to get past.

When a patient makes an appointment at an abortion clinic, she should be allowed to do what other outpatients do when they go to the eye doctor, dentist, or physical therapist. Anything else is harassment. You can call it "zones", you can call it whatever you want. The patient going to the abortion patient should have the same rights as the patient who is going to any other type of clinic.


Having a glaucoma test, a cavity filled, or a wart removed is not the same as sucking a living fetus from a mother's womb.

That's how some people feel about abortion. They believe it to be murder.


I don't know man. Have you ever had a root canal? they can be quite painful.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
If you go for an eye examination, you simply drive up to the doctor'soffice, park your car in the office parking lot or street if the office does not have one, and get your eyes examined. Nobody accosts you, approaches you, bothers you.

Same thing for the dentist.

Same thing for physical therapy, skin treatment, or any outpatient procedure.

And most people feel that these patients are entitled to that-just walk up to the front door at the time of your appointment without anyone bothering you.

But when it comes to abortions, it's a different story. Suddenly it's supposed to be okay to surround the place with placard-wielding, death-mask wearing, slogan-shouting demonstrators throwing insults and accusations at the prospective patients and the people who work there all day long.

And then when laws are made to prevent the harassment, they decide to tone it down a bit and call it "valuable information" they want to give the patient. What a joke.

The whole purpose of this "information" is to harass the patient when she shows up at her appointment, to make an obstacle that she has to get past.

When a patient makes an appointment at an abortion clinic, she should be allowed to do what other outpatients do when they go to the eye doctor, dentist, or physical therapist. Anything else is harassment. You can call it "zones", you can call it whatever you want. The patient going to the abortion patient should have the same rights as the patient who is going to any other type of clinic.


Having a glaucoma test, a cavity filled, or a wart removed is not the same as sucking a living fetus from a mother's womb.

That's how some people feel about abortion. They believe it to be murder.


Oh and did we miss the point of the post? Yes we did. Jeepers you reactionaries are so boring, you don't get it. No wonder you're all on the way out. Get back into the dark ages you denizens of the deep, bewail the enlightenment, stay with your superstitions, comfort yourselves with spreading fear among your like, creep back to the caves where you belong. The light will expose you.

Or you can always get counselling and join the rest of us in the ranks of the well-balance and functioning , it's good, try it :wink:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:08 am
Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.

The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special "free-speech zone" that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not protesting.
Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.

Bill Nettles, Mr Bursey's lawyer, claims that the case is being driven not by the young Mr Thurmond but by higher-ups in Washington, who want a new way to stifle dissent. "This is the type of small-brained decision that could only have been made by bureaucrats inside the Beltway," says the lanky Mr Nettles. Mr Thurmond's office declines to discuss the case. A spokesman says the office is aware of the letter from the 11 congressmen, but "unless we get a directive from Attorney-General Ashcroft's office [telling us to drop or settle the case], we shall proceed."

Mr Bursey's supporters note that Mr Ashcroft's men have decided to test their anti-protester law in a conservative stronghold, where the armed forces tend to be viewed more generously than elderly hippies and where the case will be heard by a judge without a jury. It is easy to see how Mr Ashcroft might not warm to Mr Bursey, who heads a "progressive network" of liberal organisations, used to edit an alternative newspaper, and has organised protests against, among other things, American war policy, nuclear power, racism and the Confederate flag.

In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr Bursey has been arrested dozens of times. Three decades ago he spent nearly two years in prison for spraying anti-war slogans on government property during the Vietnam war. Whether he deserves to go to prison next week for waving a sign is another matter entirely.

source
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:13 am
Free speech zones Very Happy
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:19 am
So, as far as I understood it - whenever the president arrives somewhere, the Secret Service would restrict access to those areas. It's not like a convention, or that the president would give a speech.

And, weird enough, anti-Bush protesters are then sent off to those "Free Speech Zones". While people demonstrating pro-Bush have the right to wave signs right next to the president.

On public places. Public roads. Public cities.

"Free Speech Zones"? Can't get more Orwellian.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:22 am
Jeepers!

Thanks OE I didn't know that. When did this start"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:26 am
During the Clinton regime goodfielder.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:04 am
McGentrix wrote:
During the Clinton regime goodfielder.


Was it for security - or was it just to suppress opposition?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:25 am
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech. Although such zones existed earlier, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration. Civil libertarians claim that they are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal opposition from the public and elected officials. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas - the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who claim that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.

Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations where the president is to pass through or speak at. Officals target those who carry anti-Bush signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officals from displaying on camera or speaking to protestors within the zone. Protestors who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom used federal law was brought up that says that 'entering a restricted area around the President of the United States' is a crime.

The Supreme Court has ruled that picketing and marching in public areas has some degree of protection under the First Amendment, but less than that afforded to pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations for such activities, however, may not target the content of the expression. The Bush administration has justified the zones in several ways. Some have claimed it is needed so that protestors won't be accidentally injured or harmed by passing motorcades. Homeland security along with the Joint Terrorism Taskforce of the FBI however have stated that war demonstators and protestors should be considered by local authorities as possible terrorists. And some have claimed that economic disruption (like the WTO protests in Seattle) are indeed terrorist acts.

This issue was recently called to light in a fictional court case on the television show The Practice.

more...
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:33 am
One word.

Disgusting.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:37 am
Blame the radicals for bringing violence to protests.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:38 am
http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20040803.gif
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 08:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
Blame the radicals for bringing violence to protests.


Yes, definitely. But laws against violence exist already. So why have laws against Freedom of Speech?

Besides, fear of violent protests doesn't explain this:

"The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path... police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views'"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 09:01 am
They have learned from past experieinces that when you get a large group of radicals together around a cause they dislike it won't be long until the riot police are tossing tear gas grenades and rocks are being thrown and cars are on fire.

Better to just head it off from the start.

What's the real issue here? It's not like those people are not being heard. The "free speech zones" get plenty of press coverage. Their right to express themselves is not being infringed, merely the location.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 09:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
Their right to express themselves is not being infringed, merely the location.


Very funny, McG. That's what Free Speech is about. Otherwise you'd be at the point where you'd be arguing that Free Speech is allowed in North Korea - as long as you're alone and in your own cellar while speaking.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 09:09 am
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I (1791)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 09:09 am
I will submit yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as an example...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 09:13 am
McGentrix wrote:
I will submit yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as an example...


... for what? An example of free speech? Okay, I'll play along. What would you do to prevent somebody from doing so?
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:17:51