Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
The King made a royal visit to Wisconsin last week, and as is common when monarchs travel, individual liberties were suspended.
King George Bush's bus trip across western Wisconsin closed schools and roads, prevented residents from moving freely in their own communities, and prevented citizens from exercising their free speech rights.
All in all, it was a typical George W. Bush visit.
But there's a slight twist.
People in western Wisconsin, who hold to the refreshingly naive notion that they live in a republic as opposed to an imperial realm, are objecting.
"There's a pattern of harassment of free speech here that really concerns me," says Guy Wolf, the student services coordinator at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. "If they're going to call it a presidential visit, then it should be a presidential visit - where we can hear from him and he can hear from us. But that's not what happened here, not at all."
Wolf and other La Crosse area residents who wanted to let the president know their feelings about critical issues came face to face with the reality that, when King George travels, he is not actually interested in a two-way conversation.
Along the route of the Bush bus trip from Dubuque to La Crosse, the Bush team created a "no-free-speech" zone that excluded any expressions of the dissent that is the lifeblood of democracy. In Platteville, peace activist Frank Van Den Bosch was arrested for holding up a sign that was critical of the president. The sign's "dangerous" message, "FUGW," was incomprehensible to children and, no doubt, to many adults. Yet, it was still determined sufficiently unsettling to the royal procession that Van Den Bosch was slapped with a disorderly conduct ticket.
Up the road in La Crosse, the clampdown on civil liberties was even more sweeping. Wolf and hundreds of other Wisconsinites and Minnesotans who sought to express dissents were videotaped by authorities, told they could not make noise, ordered not to display certain signs and forced to stand out of eyesight of Bush and his entourage. Again and again, they were told that if they expressed themselves in ways that were entirely protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they would be "subject to arrest."
"Everyone understood the need for basic security for the president, but none of us could understand why we had to give up our free speech rights," explained Wolf.
La Crosse Mayor John Medinger shares that concern. The Bush-Cheney campaign leased a portion of a local park where the royal rally was held. Yet, Wisconsinites who wanted to protest Bush's visit were told they could not use a sound system in a completely different section of the park.
"I want to find out why the whole park was used when only a portion was leased," Medinger told the La Crosse Tribune. "So when demonstrators were told they couldn't have (sound) systems, the question is why."
The Bush-Cheney campaign paid a $100 fee to use one part of the park, but disrupted much of the city. Medinger is now assessing the full cost of the royal visit and hopes to deliver a bill to the campaign, which State Elections Board attorney George Dunst says the Bush campaign should pay. Other communities, including Prairie du Chien, are looking at following Medinger's lead.
But the challenge should not just be a financial one. The Bush visit attacked First Amendment rights up and down the Mississippi. A lot of people are owed apologies.
In a monarchy, of course, the King never apologizes. But in a democracy, the president is supposed to be accountable to the people.
By pressing demands that the charges against Frank Van Den Bosch be dropped and that the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign apologize for participating in an anti-democratic endeavor, residents of western Wisconsin can, and should, take up the cause of this country's founders. It is time once more to challenge a King named George.
Caption: President Bush waves to crowds from his campaign bus as he passes through Prairie du Chien last Friday. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
I'm not speculating at all, I am being logical. Having been part of the 3AM world when I was younger I've known people that would swear on a stack of Bibles they were just standing on the street corner "doin' nuttin'" when they were arrested... never mind the stereo in their hands and the audible alarm blaring from the house behind them. When a "reporter" clearly has an axe to grind I take his account with many grains of salt.
Whether or not someone should be allowed to do what such thing? Arrest somebody? If they're suspected of committing a crime yes.
I have to step out for a bit. Please feel free to yell at me while I'm gone. I'll answer your flames later today.
The thinking that spawns these types of speech restrictions (i.e. don't criticize the powers-that-be) is the same type that came up with the anti-free speech provisions of McCain & Feingold's campaign finance legislation.
You remember -- the one Congress was going to stop. No, wait. I meant the President. Whoops. I meant the Supreme Court. Hey, wait a second.........
But since you need to cling to that in order to avoid the real question, let's say the guy was a murderer. Go all the way with the fantasy.
Now the real question, do you support the right to hold up rude signs in protest of things or not?
I reserve the right to hold up rude signs about HILLERY CLINTON. Or ABORTION. or GUN CONTROL, etc, etc, etc.
Whatever, as you intentionally go into victim mode, begging for symapthy.
freeeee wrote:
The criteria used for screening is not threat level. It is the content of political speech.
Our government has no legitimate authority to limit dissent to small areas, while allowing supporters access to better venues.
BTTT
No, but I have heard about people being arrested or forced to go to some "free speech zone" a goodly distance away. I expect better of President Bush.
Please adhere to that when Hillary runs for President. Remember, you will only be whining.
When Billy boy was getting windys in the Oval office I'm sure you didn't say anything so you couldn't be accused of whining.
Getting too hot? Don't let the door hit you in the butt!
"YOU remind me of John efFIn Kerry, lots of whining but no real substance. Just a lot of bitching. Whats the matter couldn't get an audience with Hillary?"
"You want "no substance"? FReepers screamed their heads off at the same exact treatment BY HILLARY! Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's all just fine and dandy.
I noticed you're answering. You answered Tiamat's post directly but didn't respond to her assertions. I think most of us get your point but the venomous attitude is off-putting. You're all rabid and unable to see anyone else's point...kinda like a liberal.
Actually, I don't whine.
I write letters. I call my Senators and Congress Critters. I sign Petitions.
I DO sometimes end up SCREAMING at my TV.
But most importantly, I VOTE!
The 1st ammendment does not give protestors license to spray spittle in the Presidents face.
There have always been limits on rights. You can't yell fire in a theater, you can't have a whiney liberals meeting in the middle of Interstate 40.
Get over it.
Okay, I hear that.
What do we know about previous administrations? Say before JFK?
Was it possible for protesters to get close? What about in the late 1890's? Or the early 20th century? It wasn't all sweetness and light THEN either!
Hmmmm.... occurs to me too, and in the interests of fairness I should tell you: Part of my problem is this particular poster, who seems to show up simply to stir the pot and cause trouble.
As far as I am concerned, he would be better off at LP.
So criticizing Bush or government is whining, but criticizing Clinton or liberals is not?
But most importantly, I VOTE!
If Clinton was running against Gore who would you vote for?
The point is not whether the Democrats do it or the Republicans do it, it's the point that it shouldn't be done. Of course from the partisan standpoint ('well they did it too') I've seen on this thread, I imagine that's going to be a hard concept to grasp. freee, thanks for posting. Good article
Please stop whining.
I don't know about those, but I believe from LBJ on there was a greater tolerance of protestors. And I don't remember freeways being shut down by motorcades until Slick was in, but I could be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.