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)
Sorry charley, personal attack are all you've had for a while. It's OK, I understand why a person resorts to personal attack, I know that it's just because you've realized you're wrong but aren't up to admitting it publicly. Some people hve problems with that and I don't hold that against you and it doesn't lessen my opinion of you in any way.
Hinckley was posing as a supporter.
So much for that theory.
This article is one of the Left's favorite little tricks, wherein the "jernalist" searches out a singularity, and uses the singularity to "prove" a pet theory.
Thusly:
The singularity: "In Platteville, peace activist Frank Van Den Bosch was arrested for holding up a sign that was critical of the president."
The extension of the singularity to "proof": "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." A "no-free-speech zone" 120 miles long? Give me a break! Well, I guess it must be true, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"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."" Right. I'm supposed to believe a partisan like Wolf on his say-so, and especially because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested. A "more sweeping" clampdown that produced less arrests.
"The Bush visit attacked First Amendment rights up and down the Mississippi." I guess this must correct, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"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." We're being instructed on the finer points of an unnamed city park by a guy who already has asserted that the Bush team created a "no-free-speech" zone 120 miles long. Riiggghhht. Well, I suppose it's true, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"The Bush-Cheney campaign paid a $100 fee to use one part of the park, but disrupted much of the city." The author has now completed the extension from singularity to general theory, and now feels free to make disguised editorial comments, completely without backing.
Josef Stalin would have been proud of this apparatchik.
Actually they're all alike. They're all people that don't know anything about the Constitution incorrectly thinking somebody violated it when they inconvenienced them.
Oh, and just so you know, the Secret Service isn't Congress.
Of course it was OK - Clinton liked sex!
Please reference the posts where the writer has been praised.
I see. The Clintons did it, so it must be ok.
How odd.
Just my opinion, I consider you, Protagoras, as out of the mainstream, and the leading Libertarian party(pro-drug) advocate on FR.
Please reference any personal attacks.
Exactly. The phony "outrage" by the Lefties over the president's allegedly not visiting hospitalized soldiers (which is a lie; he simply chooses not to have the media intrude, unlike his psychopath predecessor would have) or not attending funerals (which is true, since he doesn't want to intrude upon the families' privacy during their time of mourning) is further evidence of his consideration and decency. Last week he and his wife's decision to not attend their daughters' college graduation ceremonies was announced. Again, they didn't want to intrude (with the necessary security and the gaggles of media).
Freeee, you and John Nichols chose the wrong president to criticize in this department.
inane
obtuse
shrill
Those aren't polite words.
Got the police report yet?
The first three were boycotts.
The last involved government force.
Couldn't be more obvious.
Uh freeeee, posting this leftist drivel in the first place.
Dude, JMO, lay down the bong or pill bottle.
"Your concern for free speech is touching."
What the hell are you talking about! Free speech is alive and well (exceptions: campus speech codes, pc-correct terms, a few others) but you expect that the President should be obligated to engage with fanatics that would only yell and scream emotionally-charged and intellectually-bankrupt questions and slogans. Every President recieves death threats but Clinton's were not published in GOP literature or as part of a comedy show (Daily Show: "Sniper's Wanted") or like that heard almost daily on the soon-to-be-defunct Liberal Radio Network.
I'm sure you also believe that equal opportunity demands equal results.
Geez - What a maroon!!!
And all four are people that have no understanding of the First Ammement.
Couldn't be more obvious.
I have never used any illegal drug. Have you?
Just my opinion, I consider you, Protagoras, as out of the mainstream, and the leading Libertarian party(pro-drug) advocate on FR.
Your conciderations are incorrect.
I'm am neither a Libertarian nor do I advocate for them, nor am I pro drug.
Your opinion is goofy, as usual.
The people in the picture are not protestors or they wouldn't be in the picture. They are supporters who were met at the entrance with their tickets in hand and throroughly checked out before proceeding further. The "signs" were no doubt handed out by the campaign itself so are perfectly appropriate for a rally like this.
Does or does not this president use his security force to remove protesters from public appearances under threat of arrest while leaving supporters in place?
A simple yes or no will do.
You may also be interested in:
* SEIU v. City of Los Angeles - 114 F.Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2000)
* Boos v. Barry
* Edwards v. South Carolina - 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
* Gregory v. Chicago (1969)
* Bay Area Peace Navy v. U.S. - 9th Circuit (1990)
* Collins v. Jordan - 9th Circuit (1990)
Among others.
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.