Posted on 08/27/2004 10:13:58 AM PDT by Hotline
(FindLaw) -- The FBI, no longer content with working to maintain order at political events, is now preemptively identifying and interrogating ("interviewing") possible demonstrators. It has summarized this strategy in a memo.
To make matters worse, the Department of Justice blessed the FBI strategy in its own memo -- suggesting that no First Amendment concerns are raised by the interrogations.
As I will explain in this column, however, the truth is quite to the contrary: The strategy, as outlined in the memo, is a serious threat to free speech.
*snip*
Who can forget the great costumes and Nixon face masks that appeared at many political rallies and other events during the 1960s and early 1970s? Reagan and Clinton masks, the latter sometimes adorned with long, Pinocchio-type noses, added color and a bit of levity to political demonstrations throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. There was, in a word, tolerance.
*snip*
But during that period, you didn't feel you were doing something criminal if you simply decided to show up at a rally with a protest T-shirt on, or lugging around a sloppy paperboard sign criticizing the president. You didn't feel intimidated.
Now, things are very different. The Administration and campaign of George W. Bush is squelching any possible hint of disagreement or protest at every political rally or gathering.
For example, people with T-shirts that hint at disagreement are not allowed anywhere near the events, nor even on the route traveled by the presidential motorcade. Think what they'd do to you if you showed up in a -- shudder -- mask.
But it's gotten even worse than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Did a search for this article and didn't find it, and I'm very curious to see what others think about someone the likes of Bob Barr sounding the alarm.
I've ignored a lot of the whining from various quarters over the last few years, even though I have been quite concerned about the Patriot Act et al.
But... hmm... your thoughts?
Thanks!
Hotline
Co-Founder, Second Amendment Sisters
(right here on FreeRepublic, 2000)
No legitimate protestor needs to wear a mask.
Everybody knows that's John McCain's job.
When the tear gas is still lingering in NYC the middle of next week, we should write the authors of all these articles and ask them to comment.
I hope his situation improves, he did good by the country before.
Carolyn
The anarchists and violent lefties have nobody to blame but themselves.
We didn't see this type of mobilization during the DNC now did we?
Sounds to me like the FBI and the cops know who the troubls makers are and are taking appropriate steps to protect the delegates and the public.
On the contrary, the LEO's need to worry about revenge attacks on themselves their families and their property.
The protestors have no such worries.
How dare the FBI try to prevent violence, property damage, and possible terrorist activity! Imagine if they had violated Lee Harvey Oswald's rights and squelched his freedom of speech! </sarcasm>
Oh btw, did that book get banned yet? Let's check with CNN.
Please show me one person whose yapping piehole has been silenced for yammering on about Bush. Fahrenheit 911 made $115 million dollars at the box office. There have been at least 50 Bush-bashing books that hit the best seller list this year. You can't throw a dead rat without hitting someone whining about Bush "squashing" free speech.
On the other hand, anyone worried about dissenters being cracked down upon should have serious qualms about John Kerry. Look at how he and his attack machine are trying to destroy the Swift Boat Vets for engaging in legal, peaceful dissent.
With all due respect to Mr. Barr. Why is this part of the First Amendment igonred by the Leftist Brown Shirts? Why do the cities bend over backwards to them? they have no right to free speech in public if it is not peacable. DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION from the leftist brown shirts.
Bob Barr is a human just like the rest of us. When he supports the side for the advancement of the founding principles of Americans, he will be strongly supported.
When he attacked my own personal form of religion, he crossed an important line. My religion is none of his freaking business.
What he did during the Clinton years will always be respected. I still consider Bob Barr as one of the good guys.
A quick hypothetical to better understand the situation:
Person X is a protester. X has previously "protested" at events like the world monetary fund, and was a ringleader in sparking and sustaining the riots that occurred. Further, X also has a record of committing or conspiring to commit bombings in "protest" of something or other.
X now says they will "protest" the RNC convention in NYC.
Is the FBI wrong to go and talk to X before hand, to help X understand that any illegal activity will be seen and punished?
That is my understanding of how this is being handled - the FBI is checking in with people known for violent protest. Anyone with better info is free to correct this impression, if it is wrong.
I wore a mask a couple of times at Clintoon White House protests - I was in a Frankenstein getup with a cigar, making me Clintonstein.
The FBI needs to crack down on actions and threats, but a mask can be part of a protest getup.
I disagree.
It is easy enough, when necessary, legally to get the identity of a masked LEO. In the meantime, his private life and the safety of his family are protected.
The same can't be said for a protestor, who may have been imported for the sole purpose of inciting mayhem and riot.
Government school graduate, huh?
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.