Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
So few? Why back in my day,,,,,,Jefferson, now there was a man...........
:^}
Yes, I do. But while those actions were arrogant, even that was not the same behavior as we have here. No one was allowed access to the runway if they liked Clinton. Everyone was kept out until he was done acting like a spoiled child.
What we have here is supporters being allowed free speech, while others are arrested or threatened with arrest, not on account of saftey, but solely upon the content of their speech.
A little selective memory going on here, methinks.
Considering the volcanic reaction on FR when Clinton did the same exact removal of protesters, that is an understatement.
Actually, I'll bet he did. I have found this poster to be remarkably consistent across the issues and personalities. Not all here would necessarily agree with him on issues, but I find him consistent.
I'm not imagining facts. You're the one ass-u-ming that the person was doing nothing other than standing around holding a sign, I'm recognizing that people that hold protest signs also have the capacity to do other things and those things might be illegal. It is not innately wrong to arrest people who are holding signs, there are reasons for arresting people who are holding signs that have absolutely nothing to do with the first ammendment. And since the article lacks depth I refuse to ass-u-me that this person was in 100% compliance with all of the laws of the city, state and nation he was standing in.
No personal attack at all. People that think they have a right defined in the First Ammendment to stand where they want when they want and yell at the people they want need to take remedial reading lessons because they clearly don't have the reading comprehension necessary to understand the short simple sentences in the First Ammendment. Whether or not that list includes you or anybody else on this thread isn't for me to decide.
Actually they're within their rights when they do something about it. Welcome to the real world, crowd control is LEGAL.
Nonsense, you have no right to "greet" politicians anywhere, in public or private.
"Idolators" BWAHAHZHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hyperbole much?! Welcome to reality. You have a right to express yourself, but you do NOT hve a right to create a public nuisance, you do NOT have a right to be published, you do NOT have a right to obstruct a public throughway, you do NOT have a right to violate community decency standards, you do NOT in fact even have a right to be heard. That is the reality of the First Ammendment and the sooner you learn it the sooner you'll be comfortable living in the real world.
Have you been living in a snow cave in the Antarctic for the last 10 years? Those "people with dissenting opinions" tend to be a pretty violent bunch. Leftists as a whole, tend to be much more violent than Conservatives. I will refer you to the archives for articles on the WTO/World Bank/IMF protests of recent years.
I said "decades" because it wasn't until, say, the 1930s-1940s that the Supreme Court started to take the concept of free speech seriously.
The idea that the Govt cannot censor speech based on its content is the entire purpose of the right to free speech.
There are *literally* hundreds of federal court cases that say just that with plaintiffs ranging from Jevohah's Witnesses to the NAACP to anti-abortion demonstrators.
Sorry you didn't get the memo.
Leaving supporters in place and threatening dissenters with arrest is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Is this discrimination based on dissent legal? The courts might think so. But then they're not only supporting a violation of free speech, but engaging in judicial activism as well.
The day that he was knighted as the presumptive Dim Candidate, Kerry was in Chicago.
My wife had the misfortune to pull in behind his motorcade as it went on to Lake Shore Drive.
She followed them at some distance, and described Chicago police speeding ahead of the motorcade and cutting off drivers in order to block the entrance as exit ramps as the motorcade proceeded.
She also saw heavily armed men in full body armor hanging onto and from the escort vehicles.
It's the world we live in. Someone wants a piece of the king, and there are people whose job it is to prevent that from happening.
So...
I suggest you lay your gripes out for all to hear, as you yourself run for office, in a bid to end this shameless royal display.
Then, you can fade into blessed obscurity, confident that no one really cares about your beef with 'the king'.
They think the same of us.
"Freepers are violent! I'm scared of that man with the mean look on his face!" - Hillary supporter.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
- Thomas Paine
This is inane.
Nonsense, you have no right to "greet" politicians anywhere, in public or private.
Quite an odd take on the right of free assmebly. Politicians publicize their route in order to have people greet them. Those who greet them on public property cannot be sorted according to their approval or disapproval. If people are allowed to hold up signs of support, others who do not support must also be allowed.
You have a right to express yourself, but you do NOT hve a right to create a public nuisance,
Free expression of political beliefs may be a nuisance, but is still allowed in a free society.
you do NOT have a right to be published,
Strawman.
you do NOT have a right to obstruct a public throughway,
Strawman
you do NOT have a right to violate community decency standards,
Strawman. I concider your views to be indecent BTW, but claim no legitimate power to prevent you from expressing them.
you do NOT in fact even have a right to be heard.
Strawman
That is the reality of the First Ammendment and the sooner you learn it the sooner you'll be comfortable living in the real world.
I understand the first amendment quite well and have never advanced any of the strawman points you attack. You seem a tad confused however.
I got the memos. The ones that says abortion protestors aren't allowed within a certain distance of abortion clinics. The ones that says you can't shut down streets. The ones that say you don't have to be heard. Sorry the court cases agree with me across the board. And they always will because the First Ammendment DOES NOT garauntee you time, place or audience and it never will. People have just as much right to not listen as you have a right to yell your head off.
It's not descrimination. Seperating sides during protests is fairly common. Every seen KKK marches, they tend to have counter protests, those counter protests are shoved to the other side of the street at least. Why? Because: crowd control is LEGAL, and putting people with a certain type of sign in a certain area with people that have similar signs IS crowd control.
Cites (or names of cases) please?
Is that all you've got? A quote from Hillary Clinton? Show me an example of a Conservative protest that turned into a riot, and maybe I'll listen.
Every single person attacking you would rightuflly howl like little squealing piglets if it were the Klintons prohibiting protest signs.
Which makes them hypocrites and quite possibly liars.
I see you're still clinging to the absurd notion that the removal of protesters had anything to do with safety or security.
So maybe you can answer the question that no one here will address:
There are two people in the crowd watching the motorcade drive by. One is wearing a Bush t-shirt and appluading. The other is wearing one that says "NO WAR FOR OIL" t-shirt and saying "no more years". Neither individual has given any indication of malicious intent. They're simply standing there watching and speaking their mind.
As it stands, and not only in the case in the article, the dissenter will be threatened with arrest if he doesn't move to a "free speech zone", the supporter is left be.
Exactly what safety or security threat does the does the dissenter pose that the supporter does not? Please be specific.
The last court to take a real crack at KKK protests - involving a Klan rally in Louisville - upheld an earlier practice/notion that crowds at such rallies could be split into two sides. In the Court's view, this was an acceptable time, place & manner restriction.
What doesn't happen at Klan rallies is that one group (but not the other) is made to give up its signs or is moved so far away as to not reach its intended audience -- both violations of the First Amendment.
That's not merely opinion. It's what courts have said.
It's not innane. It's the truth. Protestors CAN do OTHER things that get them arrested. Barring any facts presented as to why the person was arrested I refuse to assume it was because of their sign. Show me a police report that says the person was arrested solely because of their sign and I'll join you in saying it's a travesty of justice and the American dream, but without FACTS to support the proposition that the person should not have been arrested I'm not going to assume they were sweetly and innocently telling George Bush to f#$% off while not committing any other type of crime.
Again, freedom of speech does not include an audience. Assemble all you want, that doesn't mean the politician of your choice needs to be within shouting distance. Yes people CAN be sorted according to their approval or disapproval, check out any KKK or neo-nazi rally and the accompanying counter protest.
No creating a public nuisance is NOT allowed in a free society, sorry but impinging other people's freedom to go about their life is counter to a free society.
Not strawmen at all. Part of the issue at hand. The guys sign said FUGW, community decensy standards clearly apply.
If you think you have a right to stand in the place or your chosing at the time of your chosing and "greet" the politician of your chosing then you know absolutely NOTHING about the First Ammendment.
I've already given plenty. Do you have a court case that says they CAN'T push pro-life protesters away from abortion clinics? One that says they CAN'T seperate Klan members and counter protestors? Of course you don't. Because the courts have supported these and other methods of crowd control every time.
Judicial activism.
It's kind of funny that we're supposed to vote for the worst RINO's imaginable because of those oh-so-important court nominees. The ones that you think should violate the 1st Amendment. LOL
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.