Full Version: Free Speech Zone at Democratic Convention?
The DNC is apparently going to segregate protestors using a "Free Speech Zone."
Given that one legitimate complaint about the current administration is their use of this tactic, is this not hypocritical?
Questions for debate:
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
Given that one legitimate complaint about the current administration is their use of this tactic, is this not hypocritical?
Questions for debate:
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
Last time I checked, the Bill of Rights-- Freedom of Speech included-- applies to all citizens within the United States: not only these free speech zones. It may be inconvenient, and it may be unsettling for these politicians to see that there are people out there who disagree with them, but relegating protestors to a free speech zone usurps their freedoms. I have no problem with putting in minor boundaries to allow convention goers to get to the convention without being hassled, but I do have a problem with putting protestors blocks away. Convention goers should be exposed to protestors as much as possible. "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to be the motto for those who move protestors to the zones: perhaps they forget that, in order for a protest to be effective, it must be heard and seen. Perhaps not. Not only that, plans are being made for protestors to apply for permits so that they can be in the free speech zone at allotted times; this further restricts the protestors' rights. Oh, but:
Yes, and I'm sure the police will let them thoroughly express themselves outside the zone.
ACLU Article on "Free Speech Zones"
American Conservative Article on "Free Speech Zones"
This quote is most frightening of all:
Reports often show that anti-Bush protestors are stowed away in remote "free speech zones" while Bush supporters are permitted to line the motorcade route. It is a clear sign of a systematic denial of rights for the sake of making Dubya think that all the people love him. I'm not sure if there will be a similar arrangement for the Democratic Convention, but I would doubt it.
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
It's absolutely abhorrent and antithetical to the whole point of freedom of speech: the First Amendment exists not to protect those whose views are popular or make Dubya feel good, but those whose views are unpopular and make Dubya uncomfortable.
2. How do you feel about the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
The same way that I feel about the other Free Speech Zones: they shouldn't exist to begin with.
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
No; freedom denied is freedom denied.
QUOTE(Boston Globe Article)
Protesters will be allowed outside the zone, but civil liberties groups say those outside the designated area are likely to be given less leeway in staging demonstrations.
Yes, and I'm sure the police will let them thoroughly express themselves outside the zone.
ACLU Article on "Free Speech Zones"
American Conservative Article on "Free Speech Zones"
This quote is most frightening of all:
QUOTE(American Conservative Article)
At Neel’s trial, 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” in a so-called free speech area.
Reports often show that anti-Bush protestors are stowed away in remote "free speech zones" while Bush supporters are permitted to line the motorcade route. It is a clear sign of a systematic denial of rights for the sake of making Dubya think that all the people love him. I'm not sure if there will be a similar arrangement for the Democratic Convention, but I would doubt it.
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
It's absolutely abhorrent and antithetical to the whole point of freedom of speech: the First Amendment exists not to protect those whose views are popular or make Dubya feel good, but those whose views are unpopular and make Dubya uncomfortable.
2. How do you feel about the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
The same way that I feel about the other Free Speech Zones: they shouldn't exist to begin with.
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
No; freedom denied is freedom denied.
1 and 2. I don't like any of the free speech zones. Nevertheless I understand why they were created - it's for the choir - the people who want to hear the message. If people don't like the President or the Democrats then they should not attend the speeches/conventions.
3. I don't see any difference between the two other than they're going to be in different cities.
3. I don't see any difference between the two other than they're going to be in different cities.
Holy massive violations of free speech Batman! The whole point of protesting is to get seen, how unfair... well not that Im suprised, Bush pulled the same kind of stuff when he was governer of Texas. However for the mod democrats to sink so low is astounding, well more astounding than Bush but still not that amazing.
I think the fact that if one forces away the protesters protesting oneself or ones party, one admits that one or ones party is probably guilty of the protesters slogans. Thats how Id like to see it at least.
I think the fact that if one forces away the protesters protesting oneself or ones party, one admits that one or ones party is probably guilty of the protesters slogans. Thats how Id like to see it at least.
What I'm not seeing in this debate so far is any discussion of how these "zones" are being created as a way to control security for those who are not credentialled participants in the event. It's already a good bet that terrorists have looked at the conventions as an excellent target. How does all that play into this particular scenario?
I agree, by the way, that the zones are abhorrant, especially the way they were created to shield Bush from any hint of negativity. In Atlanta, a lone dissenter stood on the street in the middle of the motorcade route holding a negative sign and was told he needed to leave the area or be arrested. Arrested for what? The officer didn't know, but was told by the Secret Service to arrest any people holding dissenting opinions along the route as being a "security risk". Yeah.
But, given the way that protesters have disrupted other events by being unruly, isn't this just a way to control that and ensure that it doesn't become a massive security problem?
I agree, by the way, that the zones are abhorrant, especially the way they were created to shield Bush from any hint of negativity. In Atlanta, a lone dissenter stood on the street in the middle of the motorcade route holding a negative sign and was told he needed to leave the area or be arrested. Arrested for what? The officer didn't know, but was told by the Secret Service to arrest any people holding dissenting opinions along the route as being a "security risk". Yeah.
But, given the way that protesters have disrupted other events by being unruly, isn't this just a way to control that and ensure that it doesn't become a massive security problem?
Yes, I am sure that it relates to security problems, but I have to agree with the other posters. What good is free speech when it is conducted where it cannot be heard?
Isn't it convenient how concern for security plays right into a desire for a rally/convention/speech to not be disrupted by the voices of dissent?
This is yet another instance where a freedom which exists on paper does not translate to the same thing in reality. It's like Burger King and McDonald's sandwiches: when you're holding one in your hand it never looks as good as the images on slick magazine pages or on t.v.
Alternatively, there could be a situation like the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
Isn't it convenient how concern for security plays right into a desire for a rally/convention/speech to not be disrupted by the voices of dissent?
This is yet another instance where a freedom which exists on paper does not translate to the same thing in reality. It's like Burger King and McDonald's sandwiches: when you're holding one in your hand it never looks as good as the images on slick magazine pages or on t.v.
Alternatively, there could be a situation like the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 17 2004, 07:43 PM)
But, given the way that protesters have disrupted other events by being unruly, isn't this just a way to control that and ensure that it doesn't become a massive security problem?
I don't think so. What is your definition of unruly and disruptive? For every destructive protest you have another that's completely peaceful. I don't agree with collective punishment. To quote Rumsfeld, 'Democracy is messy'. That doesn't mean you can just ban it or hope to contain it in far off zones where the people are ignored. They will only stand for being ignored for so long before there is going to be a backlash.
I think both sides are using security as an excuse to stifle dissent. Actually, Bush has proven that is how he's used it in the past and now it seems the Democrats believe if he can get away with it why shouldn't they. I hope that people will support the protestors on both sides because I think this is a very troubling habit that we're getting into. Not to sound corny but those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Anyone watch the news? Anarchists from across the country are eyeing the DNC and specifically the RNC. Look up at some of their web sites and see what they want to do. They tell people to go to firing ranges so that the gunpowder would throw off the bomb sniffing dogs. They will use slingshots and other objects to make the dogs and horses go crazy. And most disturbingly they plan on putting substances on the subway that would be interpreted by a bomb-sniffing dog as a bomb.
These are not protesters...they are people who want to disrupt the conventions in any way possible. They said that there goal was to have Madison Square Garden evacuated.
This is not about protest, and their rights...its about the protection of our nation's leaders in Boston and New York. These people are dispicable. They are draining the resources of the NYPD and BPD who already have their problems with terror threats. Instead of looking for suspicious activity and stopping an attack, law enforement will be forced to baby sit a group of anti-americans and containt their unruly behavior.
Everyone has the right to protest. But sensible people would realize that this is not the time nor place to hold such protests. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg offered the protesters a chance to hold demonstrations in Central Park, but it was rejected because it wasn't close enough to MSG.
These Free Speech Zones are necessary and that is truly unfortunate. People like this really make me angry. I hope each and every one of them get a special rubber bullet right in the chest.
Yes, there are peacful protesters out there, but they will be stuck in a crowd full of these jerks. there is a way of doing things and then there is a way of doing things. If our leaders need these zones to be protected then so be it.
These are not protesters...they are people who want to disrupt the conventions in any way possible. They said that there goal was to have Madison Square Garden evacuated.
This is not about protest, and their rights...its about the protection of our nation's leaders in Boston and New York. These people are dispicable. They are draining the resources of the NYPD and BPD who already have their problems with terror threats. Instead of looking for suspicious activity and stopping an attack, law enforement will be forced to baby sit a group of anti-americans and containt their unruly behavior.
Everyone has the right to protest. But sensible people would realize that this is not the time nor place to hold such protests. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg offered the protesters a chance to hold demonstrations in Central Park, but it was rejected because it wasn't close enough to MSG.
These Free Speech Zones are necessary and that is truly unfortunate. People like this really make me angry. I hope each and every one of them get a special rubber bullet right in the chest.
Yes, there are peacful protesters out there, but they will be stuck in a crowd full of these jerks. there is a way of doing things and then there is a way of doing things. If our leaders need these zones to be protected then so be it.
Perhaps if this was a one time solution I would agree with you, lederuvdapac. But Bush uses these free speech zones every where he goes. He has people arrested for doing nothing more than wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt. No. They have worn out the security excuse and abused it. What we ought to be asking is where does it all end? If Kerry wins and people are as unhappy with his policies as they are with Bush's will 'security' still be an accepable excuse to you when he ignores the voice of the people?
QUOTE
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
As a democrat, I'm deeply disapointed with "Free-speech zones" To me, every square inch of public space is a "free-speech zone"
The democratic party has been through phases, and this just one of the bad ones. To me, the real democrats were the ones standing outside of the Chicago convention in '68. 
Likewise, I'm afraid the same thing can be said of Boston '04. Although I'm disappointed with the party on this, 
I would prefer Kerry to the current president. And because of that, I'm willing to support it despite some of it's positions. 
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 17 2004, 10:24 PM)
Everyone has the right to protest. But sensible people would realize that this is not the time nor place to hold such protests. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg offered the protesters a chance to hold demonstrations in Central Park, but it was rejected because it wasn't close enough to MSG.
leder, that's not true at all. Read the stories again. These folks want to be in Central Park. That's close enough for them. And large enough to accomodate them, and not so far away that news crews couldn't walk over and talk to some of the protestors.
The city is denying them Central Park, saying that their precious park grass won't handle more than 80,000 people without damage. Aparently, they forgot about the Simon & Garfunkle concert (400,00) the Pope's Service there (750,000) or the Garth Brooks Concert (500,000).
No, the city's solution is to force everyone to a park in Queens, far far away from Manhattan, where they will be out of sight, and (they are hoping) out of mind. And let's face it - if you're a reporter, are you really gonna schlep yourself an hour or two away from the convention, to talk to a few protestors? Of course not.
This is just another attempt to keep the current administration from seeing that there are people out there who don't love them, for any number of reasons.
And if the DNC sets up "free speech zones" for their convention, they will be just as despicable in my eyes. This is America - the whole damned country is supposed to be a free speech zone - not just where and when our politicians find it convenient.
QUOTE
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
Being as the hate quotient for President Bush is pretty high, I feel that if I were in his shoes, I'd want as much distance from angry people as possible.
As a citizen, I feel that it's a dangerous trend regarding the right of free speech. I also feel that those protesters who want to raise a stink physically aren't really talking at all. They just want to shake things up with violence or tricks to miff the authorities. I feel that this sort of protest isn't worthwhile.
QUOTE
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
The hate quotient for the Demos isn't nearly as high as for President Bush. Still, the rowdies want to make their disruptions, so I feel that this is a prudent thing to do at this time in unfolding history.
QUOTE
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
President Bush's motorcade was egged on the way to his inauguration. After 9/11 the government had to go underground and shadow itself. The free speech zone idea came about then, so I see this as starting with the Bush presidency.
The Demos are just going along with the current program for maintaining security in a dangerous world with aggressive (and misdirected IMO) protesters in it.
Is this hypocritical? Not any more than defensive driving among aggressive drivers. It would be stupid not to take precautions, just as it is stupid not to wear a seatbelt.
I do think that the RNC's convention is at more risk for violence than the DNC's. Wouldn't blame the RNC if they put the free speech zone at the other end of the continent. Maybe even Hawaii.
QUOTE(Danya @ Jul 17 2004, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 17 2004, 07:43 PM)
But, given the way that protesters have disrupted other events by being unruly, isn't this just a way to control that and ensure that it doesn't become a massive security problem?
I don't think so. What is your definition of unruly and disruptive?
WTO Seattle 1999.
It's definitely one thing to protest, another to run rampant on the street causing as much mayhem as possible. The cities really have two choices: limit where protests can occur or bring out the National Guard to beef up the police presence to ensure that protests are peaceful. Not saying they won't, but a camera is a pretty good inciter for some folks.
Again: hate the idea of free speech zones. Think they need to be somewhere between the convention center and the hotels where the conventioneers are staying. But definitely don't think they need to be on the sidewalk in front of the convention center.
I disagree with the free-speech zones used by Democrats as much as I do by Republicans or anyone else who might seek to use them. We have the right to speak freely without being quarantined for it, and no political party should be assisted in doing otherwise by those who enforce the very laws protecting our free speech.
Would the same law enforcement officers not be there if there weren't such groups planning those activities? It may be just a guess, but I imagine such high profile political figures draw significantly from the NYPD and BPD resources without there being such people or plans. Whether there's a group of anarchists planning to protest or not, it's been well understood by law enforcement for years that it takes only one person to jeopardize not only the security, but also the life, of such political figures. The security is going to be there regardless, just as it has been in the past, and security should be capable of checking people for potential problems (sling-shots, etc.) as they enter into the area rather than quaranteening anybody and everybody who might actively disagree with a candidate.
I disagree. What better time would there be for those who disagree with a candidate's policies to let their voices be heard than when they can do so directly in front of that candidate? If you want your voice to be heard by the candidate in question, of course you're not going to accept being separated and kept out of sight/earshot... if that's the case why not just stay home? The protests and demonstrations are scheduled around the conventions and other public appearances so that the politicians can witness first hand the diverse reaction of their supposed constituents.
Can we really expect our politicians to consider an issue from both sides when they refuse to encounter an entire side of a debate, choosing instead to jet-set around the country holding little more than pep rallies? Of course not.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 17 2004 @ 11:24 PM[/QUOTE)
This is not about protest, and their rights...its about the protection of our nation's leaders in Boston and New York. These people are dispicable. They are draining the resources of the NYPD and BPD who already have their problems with terror threats. Instead of looking for suspicious activity and stopping an attack, law enforement will be forced to baby sit a group of anti-americans and containt their unruly behavior.
Would the same law enforcement officers not be there if there weren't such groups planning those activities? It may be just a guess, but I imagine such high profile political figures draw significantly from the NYPD and BPD resources without there being such people or plans. Whether there's a group of anarchists planning to protest or not, it's been well understood by law enforcement for years that it takes only one person to jeopardize not only the security, but also the life, of such political figures. The security is going to be there regardless, just as it has been in the past, and security should be capable of checking people for potential problems (sling-shots, etc.) as they enter into the area rather than quaranteening anybody and everybody who might actively disagree with a candidate.
QUOTE
Everyone has the right to protest. But sensible people would realize that this is not the time nor place to hold such protests. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg offered the protesters a chance to hold demonstrations in Central Park, but it was rejected because it wasn't close enough to MSG.
I disagree. What better time would there be for those who disagree with a candidate's policies to let their voices be heard than when they can do so directly in front of that candidate? If you want your voice to be heard by the candidate in question, of course you're not going to accept being separated and kept out of sight/earshot... if that's the case why not just stay home? The protests and demonstrations are scheduled around the conventions and other public appearances so that the politicians can witness first hand the diverse reaction of their supposed constituents.
Can we really expect our politicians to consider an issue from both sides when they refuse to encounter an entire side of a debate, choosing instead to jet-set around the country holding little more than pep rallies? Of course not.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 17 2004, 10:24 PM)
These Free Speech Zones are necessary and that is truly unfortunate. People like this really make me angry. I hope each and every one of them get a special rubber bullet right in the chest.
If I was planning to assassinate Bush it would be easy enough to keep from being segregated into the "free speech zone". I'd not be waving a sign or wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt.
Look at the case of the couple in Texas arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts: displaying the T-shirt doesn't make them hate Bush any more, if they'd been carrying guns instead of wearing anti-Bush T-shirts the "free speech zone" would have done nothing to protect the President.
Just plain common sense tells us that the only thing the candidates are being protected from is hearing the complaints of the people they are supposed to be representing.
"Free speech zones" is a nice euphemism, but it's about as grounded in reality as "jumbo shrimp."
Our so-called "leaders" pay homage and lip service to freedom of speech and then hide behind "woulda/coulda/shoulda" worst-case scenarios. It's amazing how casually liberty is denied under the prextext of security. Maybe, disgusting would be a more accurate word.
It doesn't matter if it's done by Republicans or Democrats. It's an artifical restraint placed upon the right of people to congregate peacefully and express their discontent with politicians. The desires of Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie to provide only campaign approved staged events for the media and masses is detestable.
Freedom of speech? Sure. Just watch what you say.
Our so-called "leaders" pay homage and lip service to freedom of speech and then hide behind "woulda/coulda/shoulda" worst-case scenarios. It's amazing how casually liberty is denied under the prextext of security. Maybe, disgusting would be a more accurate word.
It doesn't matter if it's done by Republicans or Democrats. It's an artifical restraint placed upon the right of people to congregate peacefully and express their discontent with politicians. The desires of Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie to provide only campaign approved staged events for the media and masses is detestable.
Freedom of speech? Sure. Just watch what you say.
I've posted on question #2, but now I will address #1 after having done some research.
I would have to say that in my lifetime, this president is the most anti-bill of rights president that has ever been (s)elected. Even when he was governor, Bush banned people using walkways in front of the governor's mansion to circumvent protesters. 
One protest featured the use of pepper spray as local police were ordered to clear protesters from being outside a building where Bush was busy raising money for his party. While touring Rocky Mountain National Park, the president had protesters located over a mile away. The ACLU is filing a suit alleging that the secret service ordered local police to move protesters away from Bush, but to allow "friendly" crowds motorcade access. Not only that, but check the stories related here:
I love the ACLU's argument.
ACLU's Dissent Under Fire report.
After looking up these examples, I will say that yes, there is a difference between Kerry's free-speech zones and what the Bush administration does. Has Kerry's secret service detail acted like Bush's at his public appearances? Anyone care to share information proving that he had protesters pepper sprayed, arrested, interrogated, records kept on their private information, as well as relocated a mile away?
QUOTE
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
I would have to say that in my lifetime, this president is the most anti-bill of rights
president that has ever been (s)elected. Even when he was governor, Bush banned people using walkways in front of the governor's mansion to circumvent protesters. One protest featured the use of pepper spray as local police were ordered to clear protesters from being outside a building where Bush was busy raising money for his party. While touring Rocky Mountain National Park, the president had protesters located over a mile away. The ACLU is filing a suit alleging that the secret service ordered local police to move protesters away from Bush, but to allow "friendly" crowds motorcade access. Not only that, but check the stories related here:QUOTE
During a Nov. 4, 2002 Bush visit, activists Bill Ramsey and Angela Gordon were arrested after refusing to move to a gravel parking lot a quarter-mile away from the president's entourage.
* On Jan. 22, 2003, Andrew Wimmer was arrested for refusing to take his "Instead of war, invest in people" sign to a designated protest zone more than three blocks away and down an embankment; however, a woman with a "Mr. President, we love you" sign was allowed to remain. Police also barred reporters from entering the protest zone to interview dissenters.
* On Jan. 22, 2003, Andrew Wimmer was arrested for refusing to take his "Instead of war, invest in people" sign to a designated protest zone more than three blocks away and down an embankment; however, a woman with a "Mr. President, we love you" sign was allowed to remain. Police also barred reporters from entering the protest zone to interview dissenters.
I love the ACLU's argument.
QUOTE
"While a security buffer may be appropriate, one that regulates based on viewpoint is indefensible on security and First Amendment grounds," said Denise Lieberman, legal director for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.
ACLU's Dissent Under Fire report.
After looking up these examples, I will say that yes, there is a difference between Kerry's free-speech zones and what the Bush administration does. Has Kerry's secret service detail acted like Bush's at his public appearances? Anyone care to share information proving that he had protesters pepper sprayed, arrested, interrogated, records kept on their private information, as well as relocated a mile away?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 17 2004, 07:24 PM)
This is not about protest, and their rights...its about the protection of our nation's leaders in Boston and New York. These people are dispicable. They are draining the resources of the NYPD and BPD who already have their problems with terror threats. Instead of looking for suspicious activity and stopping an attack, law enforement will be forced to baby sit a group of anti-americans and containt their unruly behavior.
Actually led, you're dead wrong. This is precisely about the protest and their rights. The National Convetions for both parties are traditional places for the people to voice a dissenting view of the direction of the parties.
The idea that even the threat of violence from sketchy and unreliable sources would scare you to the point of sacrificing the freedom of speech of hundreds of groups with a history of only peaceful demonstrations makes me wonder just how Un-American you are.
How willing are you to give up your rights? What if YOU were one of the people organizing a protest against something you really believed in?
QUOTE
These Free Speech Zones are necessary and that is truly unfortunate. People like this really make me angry. I hope each and every one of them get a special rubber bullet right in the chest.
Who exactly are you talking about here? Fellow Americans?! Fellow Americans trying to utilize their First Amendment rights to voice dissent? Violence against peaceful protesters?! It's amazing how crazy the emotion of fear can make some people.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Jul 18 2004, 09:57 PM)
Actually led, you're dead wrong. This is precisely about the protest and their rights. The National Convetions for both parties are traditional places for the people to voice a dissenting view of the direction of the parties.
The idea that even the threat of violence from sketchy and unreliable sources would scare you to the point of sacrificing the freedom of speech of hundreds of groups with a history of only peaceful demonstrations makes me wonder just how Un-American you are.
How willing are you to give up your rights? What if YOU were one of the people organizing a protest against something you really believed in?
The idea that even the threat of violence from sketchy and unreliable sources would scare you to the point of sacrificing the freedom of speech of hundreds of groups with a history of only peaceful demonstrations makes me wonder just how Un-American you are.
How willing are you to give up your rights? What if YOU were one of the people organizing a protest against something you really believed in?
What the hell are you talking about? These anarchists are trying to cause disruption and seriously hurt the effectiveness of law enforcement. I am not talking about the peaceful protesters. I am talking about the jerks who want to put substances on the friggin subways to throw off the bomb-sniffing dogs and make MSG evacuated. They want to leave briefcases inr andom places. It is not within their rights to do such acts. Everyone has their right to voice their opinion, but when you put others in danger, you are overstepping your boundaries. These "zones" are for the safety of our nation's leaders as well as the peaceful protesters who are there just to push across a political point. Their point is not going to be more or less heard if they are in a zone.
QUOTE
Who exactly are you talking about here? Fellow Americans?! Fellow Americans trying to utilize their First Amendment rights to voice dissent? Violence against peaceful protesters?! It's amazing how crazy the emotion of fear can make some people.
Read a little closer at my post. Once again i am talking about the anti-american anarchists who wish to cause chaos at the convention. Nobody has the right to commit such acts of dissent.
I tried to be fair and balanced here so i checked all the major news sources but it seems FOX News is the only one that did an article on it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125464,00.html
QUOTE
NEW YORK — Radical protesters are reportedly trying to cause chaos at the Republican National Convention (search) in New York City at the end of August.
Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.
New York City police (search) say they are worried about the tactics diverting their time and resources from preventing authentic attacks, and add that they are preparing for "black blocs" of anarchists who cover their face with bandanas and vandalize corporate targets.
Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.
New York City police (search) say they are worried about the tactics diverting their time and resources from preventing authentic attacks, and add that they are preparing for "black blocs" of anarchists who cover their face with bandanas and vandalize corporate targets.
Are you defending these people? I would really like to see that. Is this protest? Is this a viable way to get your point across?
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/211413p-182089c.html
Here are excerpts from an Internet posting advising how to trick bomb-sniffing dogs:
QUOTE
"Go to a rifle, pistol or skeet shooting range, spend an hour shooting to saturate clothing with smell of gunpowder, go directly to a New Jersey Transit, LIRR or subway train headed for Penn Station.
"Try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible.
"If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule. ... If there is more than one person on the train that causes a dog to alert, you can bet that the train will not be going anywhere for a long time ... neither will any trains behind it.
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation. ... This will result in the maximum disruption. ... With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated.
"Rush hours are ideal, the final night of the convention, very good, too."
"Try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible.
"If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule. ... If there is more than one person on the train that causes a dog to alert, you can bet that the train will not be going anywhere for a long time ... neither will any trains behind it.
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation. ... This will result in the maximum disruption. ... With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated.
"Rush hours are ideal, the final night of the convention, very good, too."
QUOTE
"Where is the legitimate protest in trying to endanger the public?" an angry Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told The News.
"It is the height of irresponsibility," he added. "These hard-core groups are looking to take us on. ... They have increased their level of sophistication and violence."
"It is the height of irresponsibility," he added. "These hard-core groups are looking to take us on. ... They have increased their level of sophistication and violence."
You have your un-american finger pointed in the wrong direction. I am not afraid of the voice of these people. They can say whatever it is they want, its not like anyone will listen. But the disruptive behavior is most definately a cause for concern.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Jul 18 2004, 09:57 PM)
The idea that even the threat of violence from sketchy and unreliable sources would scare you to the point of sacrificing the freedom of speech of hundreds of groups with a history of only peaceful demonstrations makes me wonder just how Un-American you are.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 18 2004, 10:36 PM)
What the hell are you talking about?
<snip>
You have your un-american finger pointed in the wrong direction.
<snip>
You have your un-american finger pointed in the wrong direction.
Cool off with the inflammatory rhetoric and stick to the issues please.
TOPICS:
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
TOPICS:
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
2. How do you feel anout the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
How is having the police harass people wearing T-shirts with a political message or waving signs going to prevent an attack? It seems to me that it would only serve as a diversion from going after, oh I don't know, people with guns and bombs.
Anyone planning to attack a political figure can avoid being sent to the "free speech zones" easily. Two guys, one has a sign and the other is wearing a business suit but carrying a gun: why would anyone want the police to go after the guy with the sign rather than the guy with the gun?
Anyone planning to attack a political figure can avoid being sent to the "free speech zones" easily. Two guys, one has a sign and the other is wearing a business suit but carrying a gun: why would anyone want the police to go after the guy with the sign rather than the guy with the gun?
How strong is your message if you have to disrupt everyone else. just because you have freedom ofspeech does not mean anyone else has to listen to you.
It does not mean one has to give you any credibility.
No one is restricting their right of speech but they are restricting their ability to disrupt the ability of others to voice theirs.
In the past few years protest groups of all stripes have taken civil disobedience to mean complete disruption of life for everyone else. They have begun to resemble more a mob than any actually legitimite form of protest.
This is basically the same as threats of violence. Since they don't have enough support to actually make a clear and decisive difference in an election they will do their best to inflict themselves upon others. This is kindegarden behavior not healthy debate and protest. Many of these types of protest have become more of a social event than any actually coherent protest. Go and question the participants and see just how few have any actual understanding of what they are protesting.
Its depressing just how many can muster nomore than a parroted response, begin to question their answers and your response is inevitably shrill anger that you dare question them. Bring up any counter arguments and you will be loudly and emphatically labeled by whatever derogatory label their particular side favors.
I've been called a liberal traitor and a Conservative nazi at the same event.
I really have begun to favor the idea ofa qualifying test in order to be able to vote.
It does not mean one has to give you any credibility.
QUOTE
Actually led, you're dead wrong. This is precisely about the protest and their rights. The National Convetions for both parties are traditional places for the people to voice a dissenting view of the direction of the parties.
No one is restricting their right of speech but they are restricting their ability to disrupt the ability of others to voice theirs.
In the past few years protest groups of all stripes have taken civil disobedience to mean complete disruption of life for everyone else. They have begun to resemble more a mob than any actually legitimite form of protest.
This is basically the same as threats of violence. Since they don't have enough support to actually make a clear and decisive difference in an election they will do their best to inflict themselves upon others. This is kindegarden behavior not healthy debate and protest. Many of these types of protest have become more of a social event than any actually coherent protest. Go and question the participants and see just how few have any actual understanding of what they are protesting.
Its depressing just how many can muster nomore than a parroted response, begin to question their answers and your response is inevitably shrill anger that you dare question them. Bring up any counter arguments and you will be loudly and emphatically labeled by whatever derogatory label their particular side favors.
I've been called a liberal traitor and a Conservative nazi at the same event.
I really have begun to favor the idea ofa qualifying test in order to be able to vote.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 18 2004, 09:36 PM)
These "zones" are for the safety of our nation's leaders as well as the peaceful protesters who are there just to push across a political point. Their point is not going to be more or less heard if they are in a zone.
You have a valid concern leder, but using fears of anarchist protesters to corral peaceful ones is like comparing apples to oranges. Various peace groups will be obtaining protest permits from the city and it won't be hard for the police to discern who are the ones holding protest signs, and who are the ones tossing bricks. These groups tend to stick with themselves and through simple questioning, it can easily be discerned who is a legitimate protester and who is connected to a group without a permit. A crowd of elderly quaker/mennonite peace marchers shouldn't' be too hard to figure out. The problem with this administration is that people who wear t-shirts are interviewed by the secret service. This administration has effectively gutted the first amendment and simply pretends that it doesn't exist.
Not only that, but there is an apparent double standard on this issue:
QUOTE
Conservative activists planning public demonstrations in Boston during the Democratic National Convention have won changes in the city's controversial permit process, but progressives who want to protest during the Republican National Convention in Manhattan are having a harder time getting official approval.
A lawsuit designed to force New York City to alter how it handles street protests went to trial last week, while a legal case with similar goals in Boston led to settlement of some issues. Not a single permit has been issued for a demonstration during the Republican convention; Boston has already approved a handful.
A lawsuit designed to force New York City to alter how it handles street protests went to trial last week, while a legal case with similar goals in Boston led to settlement of some issues. Not a single permit has been issued for a demonstration during the Republican convention; Boston has already approved a handful.
United for Peace and Justice website
I disagree with your last sentence, a protest IS less likely to be heard if protesters are in a zone away from earshot of the intended people who are being protested. Isn't the point of a protest to let people know your grievance? It's unfair to base a drastic measure on the actions of a violent 1%. Of course, United for Peace and Justice has accepted the "zone" irrationality and wants to stage a protest in Central Park, which isn't near the GOP convention, they can't even get that. The reason? It might ruin the grass, all of that in spite of the fact that:
QUOTE
Not when the great Pavarotti sang before 250,000 people in 1993. Not when 130,000 turned out for Pope John Paul's open-air Mass in 1995. Not when another quarter-million showed up for a Garth Brooks concert in the park's North Meadow in 1997, nor when when 120,000 came out last fall to hear Dave Matthews. Now along comes Mayor Bloomberg, claiming he can pick and choose which New Yorkers get to use the Great Lawn for a public event.
If you're the Metropolitan Opera or the Philharmonic, Bloomberg says, you and your fans are okay. But if you are called United for Peace and Justice, and want to assemble more than 200,000 people in the park to protest the Iraq war on Aug. 29, the eve of the Republican Convention, the Great Lawn is off-limits.
If you're the Metropolitan Opera or the Philharmonic, Bloomberg says, you and your fans are okay. But if you are called United for Peace and Justice, and want to assemble more than 200,000 people in the park to protest the Iraq war on Aug. 29, the eve of the Republican Convention, the Great Lawn is off-limits.
Groups can't even protest in "zones" that they agree to observe!. Mr. Bloomberg's actions are a less than traditional "American" action in regards to protests in my opinion.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 19 2004, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE
Not when the great Pavarotti sang before 250,000 people in 1993. Not when 130,000 turned out for Pope John Paul's open-air Mass in 1995. Not when another quarter-million showed up for a Garth Brooks concert in the park's North Meadow in 1997, nor when when 120,000 came out last fall to hear Dave Matthews. Now along comes Mayor Bloomberg, claiming he can pick and choose which New Yorkers get to use the Great Lawn for a public event.
If you're the Metropolitan Opera or the Philharmonic, Bloomberg says, you and your fans are okay. But if you are called United for Peace and Justice, and want to assemble more than 200,000 people in the park to protest the Iraq war on Aug. 29, the eve of the Republican Convention, the Great Lawn is off-limits.
If you're the Metropolitan Opera or the Philharmonic, Bloomberg says, you and your fans are okay. But if you are called United for Peace and Justice, and want to assemble more than 200,000 people in the park to protest the Iraq war on Aug. 29, the eve of the Republican Convention, the Great Lawn is off-limits.
Groups can't even protest in "zones" that they agree to observe!. Mr. Bloomberg's actions are a less than traditional "American" action in regards to protests in my opinion.
Protesters just need to keep off the grass
QUOTE
The group was denied a permit for the rally by the city's Parks Department, which said such a huge demonstration would trample the Great Lawn and do serious damage to the park. Instead, Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked the group to work out a compromise with the police department.
It's important to note that the last big political protest in Central Park - against nuclear weapons - was in 1982, before the city spent $18 million to beautify and restore the park.
It's important to note that the last big political protest in Central Park - against nuclear weapons - was in 1982, before the city spent $18 million to beautify and restore the park.
QUOTE
But yesterday police department officials proposed a march route that would start at West Street, in the vicinity of the West Side Highway, wend up the West Side, pass within a block of Madison Square Garden, where the convention is being held, and circle back downtown for a rally on the highway.
The Peace and Justice folks rejected this plan, calling the march route circuitous and not going directly past the convention site, and calling the West Street site too hot and exposed. The city's plan made them feel "marginalized," they said. Essentially they're saying they won't consider any site but Central Park for their rally and no other march route than the one they've proposed.
The Peace and Justice folks rejected this plan, calling the march route circuitous and not going directly past the convention site, and calling the West Street site too hot and exposed. The city's plan made them feel "marginalized," they said. Essentially they're saying they won't consider any site but Central Park for their rally and no other march route than the one they've proposed.
The protesters willing to shell out the $18 million+ that "US" New Yorkers will have to pay through taxes to repair our park? IMO if they want to hold it in central park, they should charge the people to get in. That would make a great profit for the city. Otherwise, the protesters should accept the city's proposal.
QUOTE(Danya @ Jul 17 2004, 10:08 PM)
I think both sides are using security as an excuse to stifle dissent. Actually, Bush has proven that is how he's used it in the past and now it seems the Democrats believe if he can get away with it why shouldn't they. I hope that people will support the protestors on both sides because I think this is a very troubling habit that we're getting into. Not to sound corny but those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
A few of you have pointed out that Bush did this and he's anti Bill of Rights, etc., and now the DNC is joining in.
Just to be factual, this isn't something that those big bad Republicans did first, and now the Democrats are 'stooping' to their level. Clinton/Gore did exactly the same thing in Chicago in 1996, and probably before that. It's not a new idea at all.
I'm against segregating protesters, but also against the disruptions that the wing-nut groups want to cause. This may be the best solution - at least the news cameras know where to go to show protesters, so maybe they get more camera time?
edited to add -
New York ruckus brought to you courtesy of Teresa Heinz-Kerry
QUOTE
The Ketchup Queen financed the shadowy Tides Foundation to the tune of $4 million to date. The Tides Foundation funds the Ruckus Society, a notorious group of anarchists who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots.
This summer, the Ruckus Society has been training protesters for the GOP Convention. Included in their how-to Book for Dummies are mass sit-ins, blockades and pie throwing at high-level officials enroute to Madison Square Gardens.
This summer, the Ruckus Society has been training protesters for the GOP Convention. Included in their how-to Book for Dummies are mass sit-ins, blockades and pie throwing at high-level officials enroute to Madison Square Gardens.
I don't see a problem with there being "Free-Speech" zones at the conventions. The Conventions are organized pep rallies, that are paid for, and have had permits issued to. Freedom of free speech should not allow you to crash a party because you have different views. If you don't like what will be said in Boston at the DNC, then attend the RNC in NYC. Conventions are events that bring a group of people together, and it would be inappropriate to have there celebration marred by another group of people that neither paid rent on the facility, paid the insurance, got the permits, etc.
What I do have a problem with is when the sitting President has these "free-speech" zones while traveling the country promoting his policy.
When Bush came to Redmond Oregon 2 years ago to promote his "Healthy Forest Initiative", he had set up "Free-Speech" zones. If you were a card caring Republican, then you get get a ticket to his speech, but if not, you were restricted to an area 3 miles away!!!!! As the world heard Bush tout his "RE-INTRODUCE LOGGING" message, they also heard, what they perceived, were cheers and approval from the local community. It made him look like he was SAVING Central Oregon from the cheers of the "ALL REPUBLICAN" audience, while a crowd 3 times that size stood 3 miles away, and could not be seen or heard by the cameras. IT WAS A FARCE, THE INITIATIVE WAS PASSED, AND DON'T EVEN ASK ME ABOUT THE 2 FIRES THAT WERE SUSPICIOUSLy STARTED 3 DAYS BEFORE HIS SPEECH. (One of those fires raged to over 90,000 acres).
It is one thing to not disrupt a Party's convention. It is another thing to restrict protests involving Government Policy.
What I do have a problem with is when the sitting President has these "free-speech" zones while traveling the country promoting his policy.
When Bush came to Redmond Oregon 2 years ago to promote his "Healthy Forest Initiative", he had set up "Free-Speech" zones. If you were a card caring Republican, then you get get a ticket to his speech, but if not, you were restricted to an area 3 miles away!!!!! As the world heard Bush tout his "RE-INTRODUCE LOGGING" message, they also heard, what they perceived, were cheers and approval from the local community. It made him look like he was SAVING Central Oregon from the cheers of the "ALL REPUBLICAN" audience, while a crowd 3 times that size stood 3 miles away, and could not be seen or heard by the cameras. IT WAS A FARCE, THE INITIATIVE WAS PASSED, AND DON'T EVEN ASK ME ABOUT THE 2 FIRES THAT WERE SUSPICIOUSLy STARTED 3 DAYS BEFORE HIS SPEECH. (One of those fires raged to over 90,000 acres).
It is one thing to not disrupt a Party's convention. It is another thing to restrict protests involving Government Policy.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 18 2004, 11:37 PM)
The protesters willing to shell out the $18 million+ that "US" New Yorkers will have to pay through taxes to repair our park? IMO if they want to hold it in central park, they should charge the people to get in. That would make a great profit for the city. Otherwise, the protesters should accept the city's proposal.
O.K., I don't want to argue about the status of grass in your fine state,
but here it goes. Is it not hypocritical when you consider that the park can handle 250,000 people for a Pavarotti concert, 500,000 for a Garth Broks concert, but it can't handle 200,000(and that' questionable) for an anti-Bush protest?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 19 2004, 07:48 AM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 18 2004, 11:37 PM)
The protesters willing to shell out the $18 million+ that "US" New Yorkers will have to pay through taxes to repair our park? IMO if they want to hold it in central park, they should charge the people to get in. That would make a great profit for the city. Otherwise, the protesters should accept the city's proposal.
O.K., I don't want to argue about the status of grass in your fine state,
but here it goes. Is it not hypocritical when you consider that the park can handle 250,000 people for a Pavarotti concert, 500,000 for a Garth Broks concert, but it can't handle 200,000(and that' questionable) for an anti-Bush protest? Who is being hypocritical here? Concert goers pay admission, and if they don't, promoters of the concert pay fees to deal with the issues mentioned by lederuvdapac.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jul 19 2004, 08:52 AM)
A few of you have pointed out that Bush did this and he's anti Bill of Rights, etc., and now the DNC is joining in.
Just to be factual, this isn't something that those big bad Republicans did first, and now the Democrats are 'stooping' to their level. Clinton/Gore did exactly the same thing in Chicago in 1996, and probably before that. It's not a new idea at all.
Just to be factual, this isn't something that those big bad Republicans did first, and now the Democrats are 'stooping' to their level. Clinton/Gore did exactly the same thing in Chicago in 1996, and probably before that. It's not a new idea at all.
Go back to 1988, here in my sunny hometown, and you'll find that protesters were given a large area -- a square block, I think -- near the convention center to protest during the Dem Convention. It wasn't far off the beaten path, though, unlike the current plans in NYC. Pretty funny protests, if I remember right.
QUOTE(Government Mule @ Jul 19 2004, 10:08 AM)
Who is being hypocritical here? Concert goers pay admission, and if they don't, promoters of the concert pay fees to deal with the issues mentioned by lederuvdapac.
O.K., the payment issue is clearly settled by the protest organizations willing to shell out $18 million. Buying grass seeds and other items can't be purchased for that amount?
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
I agree with Nighttimer that this term is an oxymoron, but I argue that Jumbo Shrimp (there are some shrimp that are less shrimpy than others) is much more accurate than the term "Free Speech Zone". This term in downright Orwellian and I can hardly believe some of the anecdotal evidence that is being collected about how these things are being applied.
i.e.
“Free-Speech Zone”
The President is the symbol of our freedoms and powers and he is the lightning rod for dissent in this country. To abuse the need for security to the point of taking out protesters and leaving supporters is a sign that our liberties are facing grave dangers today. If we are going to be this casual about our rights we may not deserve them.
The President of the United States has no right to censor the political speech being made in his presence. Security must be arranged for, but dissent is not something that should be sacrificed. These zones are being abused to the point of pushing opposition voices out of sight. This is political theater of the worst kind. This is one of the most alarming stories I have seen in the last four years.
2. How do you feel about the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
I don't feel any better about it. I think Chicago 1968 should be the standard (minus Mayor Daley preserving disorder). This is a type of public event. The DNC should have more control over the immediate space (the convention area itself) than a president should have in a public speech (dissent not security). But pushing opposition voices out of sight is a hideous idea. Hopefully, the DNC will see the error of its ways before it tries to borrow this tactic.
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
The difference I see is the difference of the main event itself. The DNC should be able to exercise control of affairs inside the building. Outside they should not be able to control picket lines, sign carriers, and even activities of raging anarchists. That is a job for the Boston police limited by the limits of the Constitution as interpreted by the USSC.
Both parties seem to be equally eager to control the public face of America and I find this incredibly disheartening.
I agree with Nighttimer that this term is an oxymoron, but I argue that Jumbo Shrimp (there are some shrimp that are less shrimpy than others) is much more accurate than the term "Free Speech Zone". This term in downright Orwellian and I can hardly believe some of the anecdotal evidence that is being collected about how these things are being applied.
i.e.
QUOTE
At Neel’s trial, 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” in a so-called free speech area.
“Free-Speech Zone”
The President is the symbol of our freedoms and powers and he is the lightning rod for dissent in this country. To abuse the need for security to the point of taking out protesters and leaving supporters is a sign that our liberties are facing grave dangers today. If we are going to be this casual about our rights we may not deserve them.
The President of the United States has no right to censor the political speech being made in his presence. Security must be arranged for, but dissent is not something that should be sacrificed. These zones are being abused to the point of pushing opposition voices out of sight. This is political theater of the worst kind. This is one of the most alarming stories I have seen in the last four years.
2. How do you feel about the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
I don't feel any better about it. I think Chicago 1968 should be the standard (minus Mayor Daley preserving disorder). This is a type of public event. The DNC should have more control over the immediate space (the convention area itself) than a president should have in a public speech (dissent not security). But pushing opposition voices out of sight is a hideous idea. Hopefully, the DNC will see the error of its ways before it tries to borrow this tactic.
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
The difference I see is the difference of the main event itself. The DNC should be able to exercise control of affairs inside the building. Outside they should not be able to control picket lines, sign carriers, and even activities of raging anarchists. That is a job for the Boston police limited by the limits of the Constitution as interpreted by the USSC.
Both parties seem to be equally eager to control the public face of America and I find this incredibly disheartening.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
QUOTE
NEW YORK — Radical protesters are reportedly trying to cause chaos at the Republican National Convention (search) in New York City at the end of August.
Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.
New York City police (search) say they are worried about the tactics diverting their time and resources from preventing authentic attacks, and add that they are preparing for "black blocs" of anarchists who cover their face with bandanas and vandalize corporate targets.
QUOTE(ibid.)
QUOTE
"Go to a rifle, pistol or skeet shooting range, spend an hour shooting to saturate clothing with smell of gunpowder, go directly to a New Jersey Transit, LIRR or subway train headed for Penn Station.
"Try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible.
"If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule. ... If there is more than one person on the train that causes a dog to alert, you can bet that the train will not be going anywhere for a long time ... neither will any trains behind it.
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation. ... This will result in the maximum disruption. ... With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated.
"Rush hours are ideal, the final night of the convention, very good, too."
"Try to have at least two people on a train in different locations, sit or stand near the doors as the train approaches the station, try to get near police and dogs, loiter as long as possible around the dog, try to pet it if possible.
"If the dog alerts on your scent, do not leave or resist; the situation will cause a major disruption of the train schedule. ... If there is more than one person on the train that causes a dog to alert, you can bet that the train will not be going anywhere for a long time ... neither will any trains behind it.
"It is important that the police call in all possible resources to investigate the situation. ... This will result in the maximum disruption. ... With any luck, Madison Square Garden will be evacuated.
"Rush hours are ideal, the final night of the convention, very good, too."
Care to explain how relegating dissenters to the free speech zones will ultimately stop the anarchists from boarding the trains? How about any of the others? I'm guessing that police horses will be guarding the zone, and New York City is full of "corporate targets". How will the free speech zone stop these? If I'm determined to carry out these attacks, can't I just pose as an average supporter and carry them out? The zone does absolutely nothing to prevent these attacks; rather, it silences dissent by moving it out of earshot of their target audience.
QUOTE(ibid.)
Their point is not going to be more or less heard if they are in a zone.
Yes, because I'm sure the corporate media are going to waste their coverage of the convention on the protestors. The only hope these dissenters have is to make their message seen and heard; any protest is useless otherwise. I can sit on my front line with a placard that reads "Down with the rule of King George II", but it won't do me any good because the intended audience won't see or hear it. Their point is going to be more or less heard when they have been marginalized to some little plot of land blocks away from any convention goers.
This ultimately isn't an issue of safety: if I want to harm the people attending the convention I can simply dress like one of them and not carry a dissenting sign. That's easy to do! This is an issue of keeping the politicians from hearing the voices that disagree with them; nothing more, nothing less.
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 18 2004, 08:51 AM)
QUOTE(Danya @ Jul 17 2004, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE(amf @ Jul 17 2004, 07:43 PM)
But, given the way that protesters have disrupted other events by being unruly, isn't this just a way to control that and ensure that it doesn't become a massive security problem?
I don't think so. What is your definition of unruly and disruptive?
WTO Seattle 1999.
It's definitely one thing to protest, another to run rampant on the street causing as much mayhem as possible.
unless, of course, you're the police. I should point out that it is very well documented that the seattle PD was the ones who started the N30 riots, as it was the LAPD that caused the 2000 DNC riots
(battle of seattle - FAIR: Pepper Spray Gets in Their Eyes The LAPD Rages Against Democracy
Have the Police Been Cracking Down Too Hard on Political Protestors?
QUOTE
Instead of concentrating on arrests, the LAPD was able to use its resources to intimidate disruptors with a massive display of riot police, complete with teargas, helicopters, and "infiltrators". The LAPD was given the opportunity to make their case on the first day of the Convention, at a free concert given by the band Rage Against the Machine outside the convention hall. Demonstrators were herded into a designated "protest area" (see: free speech zone) for the concert, surrounded by a large chain-link fence and concrete barricades. The barricades were surrounded by hundreds of riot police with teargas grenades and rubber bullets. As the concert progressed, a few of the rowdier demonstrators began to taunt the police and throw glass bottles over the fence.* The police responded by shutting down the entire concert and giving the 10,000 protestors jammed inside the fenced area 15 minutes to leave. After 15 minutes, a line of policemen on horses charged the crowd, eventually forcing thousands of activists down the streets with rubber bullets and horses. According to organizers, about 150 demonstrators were injured.
(*it is known that the LAPD uses agent provocateurs, as do many police departments)as for the free speech zones, I'm surprised no one has searched for any actual PICTURES of the "free" speech zones. I have. Photos Of The "Free Speech Zone" // July 23rd to me, these look worse than the ones at the 2000 DNC.
1. How do you feel about the Bush administration's use of "Free Speech Zones" to remove protestors from areas where the President will be speaking?
I think it is shameful. america is supposed to be a free nation in which you can protest you president and representatives anytime you wish. I don't think it helps bush is the most protested president in history and can't even go to hi inauguration without being protested.
2. How do you feel about the use of "Free Speech Zones" at the Democratic convention?
if it is shameful for bush and republicans to hide dissent, it is just as shameful for democrats to do the same.
3. Do you see any difference between the two?
no. both are designed to limit the effect of the protesters. if the candidates can't see them it is easier to ignore them.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.