Please go to the "free speech area"

[Alyrium Denryle]

So the PATRIOT act and the new sweeping powers of his justice department dont ring a bell for you?

[Gil Hamilton]

I loved this.

The sign, not much larger than a folded newspaper, was not the news conference's only visual aid from Pittsburgh. Displayed next to it were two photographs from Neville Island: one depicting fenced-in anti-Bush protesters and the other showing sign-carrying Bush supporters along the president's route, apparently unimpeded by police.

Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with where places are in Pittsburgh, but I do. Neville Island is this shitty island in the middle of the Ohio River that is barely within the city limits, it would almost be accurate to describe Neville Island as being part of either Coraopolis or Sewickley, since it's closer to both than it is to Pittsburgh. So putting the "free speech zone" on Neville Island and arresting any that don't either go there or go home is in effect kicking demonstrators out of the city. That's insane.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I loved this.

The sign, not much larger than a folded newspaper, was not the news conference's only visual aid from Pittsburgh. Displayed next to it were two photographs from Neville Island: one depicting fenced-in anti-Bush protesters and the other showing sign-carrying Bush supporters along the president's route, apparently unimpeded by police.

Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with where places are in Pittsburgh, but I do. Neville Island is this shitty island in the middle of the Ohio River that is barely within the city limits, it would almost be accurate to describe Neville Island as being part of either Coraopolis or Sewickley, since it's closer to both than it is to Pittsburgh. So putting the "free speech zone" on Neville Island and arresting any that don't either go there or go home is in effect kicking demonstrators out of the city. That's insane.

The statement also said that the picture of the Bush supporters was from Neville Island, however, if one is to be fair--implying that it was simply along the President's route.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So the PATRIOT act and the new sweeping powers of his justice department dont ring a bell for you?

Other than "worse things have happened in the past and were followed a decade later by sweeping civil rights movements that massively improved the social and legal position of large repressed minorities in the country"? No.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So the PATRIOT act and the new sweeping powers of his justice department dont ring a bell for you?

Other than "worse things have happened in the past and were followed a decade later by sweeping civil rights movements that massively improved the social and legal position of large repressed minorities in the country"? No.

So what if worse has happened? Any violation of our civil rights is a travesty.

[Durandal]

And if someone was posting statements on behalf of the Secret Service? Would they be considered a reliable source? Is it really so difficult for you to believe that a president who appointed John Ashcroft as the attorney general would use the Secret Service as his way of drowning out negative press?

Uhm, why do you people get so upset over John Ashcroft? He was effective in his duties as a law enforcement official before at the state level, you know, and that was what he was chosen for. There has never been any substantiated evidence to the claims that he runs around trampling on freedoms left and right. The worst thing he's ever done is cover up an aluminum breast on a statue, so you can blame him for being a Christian morality freak.

Yes I can, and I do. And you know what? That shows that he cares nothing for free speech, which (gasp!) is precisely the issue here.

Seriously, Durandal, go read--I mean really, really read--some of the stuff that was done during the Hoover era. Read some of the legislation that was passed then! The McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, for example. PATRIOT is nothing compared to that.

How about you stop changing the subject? What's so difficult to believe about Bush using the Secret Service as his own personal shield to political criticism, given who he's surrounded himself with? Or how about the fact that Bush is on record saying that freedom should have limits when questioned about a site which lampooned his White House campaign?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes I can, and I do. And you know what? That shows that he cares nothing for free speech, which (gasp!) is precisely the issue here.

Uhm, why is that a free speech issue?

How about you stop changing the subject? What's so difficult to believe about Bush using the Secret Service as his own personal shield to political criticism, given who he's surrounded himself with?

That's changing the subject right there. You're inferring things from the behaviour of individuals associated to an individual about things he may have done--which could have been illegal. It's an exceptionally tenuous way to draw such a serious conclusion and not worthy of even talking about.

Or how about the fact that Bush is on record saying that freedom should have limits when questioned about a site which lampooned his White House campaign?

Freedom should have limits. Should I be able to shoot you because we're debating like this? Or, for that matter, should I be able to declare that "all niggers should be burned" without some kind of consequences? We often regulate all aspects of constitutionally protected rights and the fact that you're using a statement which appears only to recognize that to advance your agenda shows how biased you are.

[Joe]

Or how about the fact that Bush is on record saying that freedom should have limits when questioned about a site which lampooned his White House campaign?

I was unaware of your anarchism, Durandal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Freedom should have limits. Should I be able to shoot you because we're debating like this? Or, for that matter, should I be able to declare that "all niggers should be burned" without some kind of consequences? We often regulate all aspects of constitutionally protected rights and the fact that you're using a statement which appears only to recognize that to advance your agenda shows how biased you are.

YOu may have freedom so long as you harm no one... shooting someone, is one thing. That causes objective harm.

However saying that "all niggers should be burned" is well within someones rights, so long as they do not commit such acts, or so long as it isnt a part of speach, to get people to burn African Americans...

We may not agree wth what someone says, but they have a right to say it, without being restricted, or shunted off to an area where the target of their protests cant see it.


That is a basc constitutional principle, and you of all people should know it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or how about the fact that Bush is on record saying that freedom should have limits when questioned about a site which lampooned his White House campaign?

I was unaware of your anarchism, Durandal.

Was President bush being harmed by a spoof site? No(other than emotional distress maybe). Therefore freedom in that case should not have limits(Falwell vs. Flynt)

[Stuart Mackey]

Seriously, Durandal, go read--I mean really, really read--some of the stuff that was done during the Hoover era. Read some of the legislation that was passed then! The McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, for example. PATRIOT is nothing compared to that.

That bad things happned in the 50's does not justify bad things happening now, even if they are of a lesser scale.
Using a national law enforcement and security body to sheild politicians from critisism of their activities is morally and legally wrong, why do you not understand this?

[Durandal]

Yes I can, and I do. And you know what? That shows that he cares nothing for free speech, which (gasp!) is precisely the issue here.

Uhm, why is that a free speech issue?

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but I will. It's a free speech issue because people's right to free speech is being infringed by the implication that there are certain zones in public in which free speech is not prohibited.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that you may be referring to the nude statue, in which case it's still a free speech issue, and specifically one of artistic expression.

That's changing the subject right there. You're inferring things from the behaviour of individuals associated to an individual about things he may have done--which could have been illegal. It's an exceptionally tenuous way to draw such a serious conclusion and not worthy of even talking about.

No, I'm drawing a conclusion from the facts (Bush dick-suckers being ignored while protesters are being shuffled away to "free speech" zones) and then saying, "Well that's not too surprising, considering ..." You're putting the cart before the horse.

Freedom should have limits. Should I be able to shoot you because we're debating like this? Or, for that matter, should I be able to declare that "all niggers should be burned" without some kind of consequences? We often regulate all aspects of constitutionally protected rights and the fact that you're using a statement which appears only to recognize that to advance your agenda shows how biased you are.

Nice job on completely missing the context. I agree with you, and that's why I provided the context of the quote. Bush said that freedom should have limits in response to a question about a site satirizing him, implying that he believes that satire of the president should be off-limits. Do I need to spell everything out for you? Do your normally impeccable critical reasoning skills go out the window whenever you're acting as the Official SD.Net Bush Administration Apologist?

I was unaware of your anarchism, Durandal.

Oh come on, Durran. Did the "... when questioned about a site which lampooned his White House campaign?" part of that sentence evade you? When I sought to use that quote in my defense, I made damn sure that he said it in context of a harmless expression of free speech, rather than something else.

[Joe]

Mea culpa. Guess I should have paid attention better.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

EDIT: It just occurred to me that you may be referring to the nude statue, in which case it's still a free speech issue, and specifically one of artistic expression.

Why? They're not silencing artistic expression in any way, are they? They're just modifying a piece of property in the possession of the Justice Department. Silencing artistic expression is doing things like banning certain types of art or driving artists out on the street or engaging in censorship. If I buy a piece of artwork and break it I might be a philistine but I'm not violating the constitution.

No, I'm drawing a conclusion from the facts (Bush dick-suckers being ignored while protesters are being shuffled away to "free speech" zones) and then saying, "Well that's not too surprising, considering ..." You're putting the cart before the horse.

Why is that a fact, Durandal? WHY THE FUCK IS THAT A "fact"? You have gone off and assumed that this is all fact. Well, let me tell you something! We have several possibilities -- Either this did not happen and no crime was committed. Or else it did happen and no crime committed and we can now debate if it should be a crime or not. Or else it did happen and there was a crime that was committed and we must consider the implications of the President abusing his authority like that. But you are referring to an unproven allegation which is being used as part of a lawsuit as a FACT, which shows just how fucking biased this board has become in regards to political matters.

Nice job on completely missing the context. I agree with you, and that's why I provided the context of the quote. Bush said that freedom should have limits in response to a question about a site satirizing him, implying that he believes that satire of the president should be off-limits. Do I need to spell everything out for you? Do your normally impeccable critical reasoning skills go out the window whenever you're acting as the Official SD.Net Bush Administration Apologist?

Ah, so now I am the apologist, just for demanding that you show some standards of evidence instead of cravenly worshipping every article that comes across condemning the Evil Bush Team--or maybe, even, for this other comment? Well, let's look at it. If you insulted someone in public this could be have consequences for you--as I brought up hate speech. For example no doubt if you compared a black person to an ape that would be considered hate speech. Yet the President is often compared to an ape constantly. Why are the standards lower here? There are certain incidences in which hate speech is in fact a crime. Other incidences in which certain language can be conceived as attempting to incite violence, or a riot.

Really, he could just be saying that online speech should be limited in the same way as speech offline (which is a constant conservative theme and however odious is hardly something new) -- or he could even be saying that people merely exercise civility. And these are just the possibilities that come to mind merely thinking of what the contents of the site are; were I to see the site, if it is still up, and read it, I could think of others. And of course you forget the fact that politicians often say things which sound silly or dangerous when got off-guard with questions. Do not assume malice when it is unnecessary to do so--that, I think, is a lesson you should take to heart.

[SirNitram]

What sources would be considered untainted, Marina?

The ACLU has picked this up, to the point that FOXNews is speaking of it.

http://ww w.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.html

Is Congressional outcry enough? A state newspaper?

http://ww w.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/6143956.htm

(Note: Outcry limited to 11 representatives. Individual results may vary. You may already be a winner)

Anyone know what globalsecurity.com is? They talk about it too.

For those wanting to see something.. Uh... Bizarre on the subject, there's protestzone.com

Then, of course, there's the fact he's literally being prosecuted for carrying a flag outside this 'protest zone', a rather difficult feat to fake for the adoration of a single article. Though I'll concede if you believe that the Earth is really run for the benefit of a few white mice, this isn't much of a stretch.

Those that are willing to look at Left-leaning media without their eyes burrowing out of the back of their head will see even more about it, but I tried to be brief. This is a massive conspiracy being executed if it's not the real deal.

[Durandal]

Why? They're not silencing artistic expression in any way, are they? They're just modifying a piece of property in the possession of the Justice Department. Silencing artistic expression is doing things like banning certain types of art or driving artists out on the street or engaging in censorship. If I buy a piece of artwork and break it I might be a philistine but I'm not violating the constitution.

You're not the government, Marina. They're modifying it on grounds of egotistical religious tenets which are designed to stifle free speech. Are you now going to argue that the government can put Ten Commandments displays in their courthouses because you can put one in your room if you want?

Why is that a fact, Durandal? WHY THE FUCK IS THAT A "fact"? You have gone off and assumed that this is all fact.

Oh excuse me for assuming that multiple accounts of such behavior by the Secret Service are reliable sources. You've been doing nothing but spreading FUD because you don't like the author, and admitted that you didn't even read the fucking article before commenting on its credibility.

Well, let me tell you something! We have several possibilities -- Either this did not happen and no crime was committed. Or else it did happen and no crime committed and we can now debate if it should be a crime or not. Or else it did happen and there was a crime that was committed and we must consider the implications of the President abusing his authority like that. But you are referring to an unproven allegation which is being used as part of a lawsuit as a FACT, which shows just how fucking biased this board has become in regards to political matters.

Oh for fuck's sake, Marina. Arrests are a matter of public record, and the ACLU certainly wouldn't be able to file a lawsuit if there was no record of such arrests taking place, now would they? It is a fact that those arrests took place for the exact reasons those arrested said they did. The only thing in dispute here is if pro-Bush demonstrators were carted off to "free speech zones" like cattle, and considering that all the people who refused to go to such zones never described any pro-Bush demonstrators present in those areas, and no complaints from pro-Bush demonstrators have been filed for forcing them into a cage full of anti-Bush protesters, I'd say that it's not a stretch to say that pro-Bush demonstrators were, in fact, left alone, just like the anti-Bush protesters who were arrested said.

EDIT: Just read one of Nitram's links. Is this yet another strand in the vast conspiracy web?

“The government did admit that they had already set up a designated protest zone and it was going to be on the other side of the football-domed stadium, so between where the president was going to be and the protestors was a domed football stadium,” Matt LeMieux, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, told Foxnews.com.

Here's a hint. "Protest zones" aren't for people supporting the president.

Are you seriously arguing that multiple accounts from people in different cities is all some vast web of lies? What exactly are your standards of evidence? Obviously, "Stuff from authors I don't like" is ruled out, but there have been plenty of posts in this thread with formal complaints. But of course, the ACLU isn't credible either because it's fighting the Bush administration. What do you want? A complaint from someone who supports Bush?

Ah, so now I am the apologist, just for demanding that you show some standards of evidence instead of cravenly worshipping every article that comes across condemning the Evil Bush Team--or maybe, even, for this other comment? Well, let's look at it. If you insulted someone in public this could be have consequences for you--as I brought up hate speech. For example no doubt if you compared a black person to an ape that would be considered hate speech. Yet the President is often compared to an ape constantly. Why are the standards lower here? There are certain incidences in which hate speech is in fact a crime. Other incidences in which certain language can be conceived as attempting to incite violence, or a riot.

It's satire. What part of "... a site which lampooned his White House campaign" escaped your reading comprehension this time? Do I need to specifically highlight certain key words in that sentence multiple times for you to fucking understand it?

There's a large gulf between satire and hate speech. There's also a difference between saying that an individual resembles a chimp and saying using derogatory racial slurs (even though the site in question does not compare Bush to a chimp that I can see, but that's hardly relevant).

Even so, I wouldn't restrict the use of racial slurs on the internet because (get ready for this) they're protected speech. And the site in question is political satire which does not incite violence in any way.

Really, he could just be saying that online speech should be limited in the same way as speech offline (which is a constant conservative theme and however odious is hardly something new)

Since when are people barred from making fun of the president or writing satirical news articles about him and his policies offline? Did Bill Mahr's Real Time get canceled by the government all of a sudden?

-- or he could even be saying that people merely exercise civility.

Oh come on. Saying that there should be limits to free speech implies that there should be limits to what can be said, not that everyone should be polite. Even if you're right, since when is anyone obligated to be civil?

And these are just the possibilities that come to mind merely thinking of what the contents of the site are; were I to see the site, if it is still up, and read it, I could think of others. And of course you forget the fact that politicians often say things which sound silly or dangerous when got off-guard with questions. Do not assume malice when it is unnecessary to do so--that, I think, is a lesson you should take to heart.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if his actions and policies didn't lend credence to the idea that he wants limited free speech. Politicians can vindicate themselves from one small snippet through actions; Bush has not done this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Then, of course, there's the fact he's literally being prosecuted for carrying a flag outside this 'protest zone', a rather difficult feat to fake for the adoration of a single article. Though I'll concede if you believe that the Earth is really run for the benefit of a few white mice, this isn't much of a stretch.

Those that are willing to look at Left-leaning media without their eyes burrowing out of the back of their head will see even more about it, but I tried to be brief. This is a massive conspiracy being executed if it's not the real deal.

I'm not denying that something is happening. My principle complaint is that this board has discarded a position of skepticism on articles regarding the Bush Administration, and accepts them without complaint or further investigation. As for the nature of what is happening in this particular incidence? Well, that could vary. I'd really like to see what the courts make of it, because this is ultimately a legal issue, however one might dislike how they operate. And one can discern from that process at any rate if they rolled over or provided a real ruling on the matter.

I will also note that the last article you provided a link to actually pertains to a different person--who seems like quite a rabble-rouser and is a convicted felon and thus certainly would be considered a genuine security threat. I grant that's a nit-pick but the other article appears to be mostly a recap (can you provide a link to the Globalsecurity one? I can't find it on their website).

[Durandal]

Mea culpa. Guess I should have paid attention better.

Shit happens; it's not like I'm innocent of replying before fully reading a post.

[Darth Wong]

Question: are people allowed to protest in front of the white house?

[Gil Hamilton]

Question: are people allowed to protest in front of the white house?

They are allowed to protest on the sidewalk outside of the fence surrounding the White House, which is a pretty standard demonstration area, as long as they don't attempt to do anything stupid.

[Durandal]

Question: are people allowed to protest in front of the white house?

As far as I know, yes. They can't actually crowd the lawn, but they can stay outside of the fence.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually, I'm sure you can protest in front of the White House, now that I think about it, because when I wished Washington during a school trip there were a bunch of people protesting President Clinton's godlessness.

[Darth Wong]

Well, if they're allowed to protest at (a place far away from) the front of the White House, that's not ideal but it's sort of workable as a protest venue. Does the press ever cover these protests? I know that people routinely protest on the front lawn of the legislature in Canada, and that the press usually covers it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You're not the government, Marina. They're modifying it on grounds of egotistical religious tenets which are designed to stifle free speech. Are you now going to argue that the government can put Ten Commandments displays in their courthouses because you can put one in your room if you want?

Durandal, covering up the breast of a statue is not an explicit endorsement of religion even if everyone knows why Ashcroft did it--which even then is not so certain. Maybe he really was just annoyed that everyone was distracted by the statue. Did you know there's an Air Force barracks in Southern California which looks like a Swastika when viewed from the air? Are you going to demand they tear that down because it promotes Nazism? There's no explicit violation of anything and there's no firm reason to doubt the official explanation, so there's no conceivable reason to go so batshit insane over it like this board managed to do.

Oh excuse me for assuming that multiple accounts of such behavior by the Secret Service are reliable sources. You've been doing nothing but spreading FUD because you don't like the author, and admitted that you didn't even read the fucking article before commenting on its credibility.

Oh, like I should apologize for noticing the name and dismissing it as "article by guy who compared the President to Adolf Hitler, more overblown shit from the Left."

Oh for fuck's sake, Marina. Arrests are a matter of public record, and the ACLU certainly wouldn't be able to file a lawsuit if there was no record of such arrests taking place, now would they?

I'm not saying that the arrest didn't happen, I'm referring to the placement of the protestors. It's basically purely a bunch of people talking now and making claims and we're all asked to believe them. I suppose one of us could go to Pittsburgh and look up police arrest records for an incident report and that would put the matter to rest, but short of that we're simply being asked to believe eyewitness testimony which is being distorted for both political and legal reasons.

It is a fact that those arrests took place for the exact reasons those arrested said they did.

Oh, it is, is it? Why is it? Disorderly conduct--how do we know they weren't threatening the Bush supporters in some way? The ACLU has been bitchsmacked in court before for taking tenuous cases and they certainly aren't pleased with the administration. They think they have a chance--not that this is a slam-dunk like you seem to imply. We don't have access to the incident reports right now and we don't have access to the legal testimony because the proceedings have not started--and only one side is talking. Unless one of us wishes to go to Pittsburgh, we are going to continue to hear a completely biased story, and instead of understanding that the story is biased and at least attempting to take that into account, you just ran with it. And that, really, is what I have the problem with.

The only thing in dispute here is if pro-Bush demonstrators were carted off to "free speech zones" like cattle, and considering that all the people who refused to go to such zones never described any pro-Bush demonstrators present in those areas, and no complaints from pro-Bush demonstrators have been filed for forcing them into a cage full of anti-Bush protesters, I'd say that it's not a stretch to say that pro-Bush demonstrators were, in fact, left alone, just like the anti-Bush protesters who were arrested said.

Or they were removed to a completely different area, which is standard procedure in crowd control, to keep the two groups from fighting?

What do you want? A complaint from someone who supports Bush?

A. Comparison with comments of the officers on the scene.

B. An official statement from the USSS, which isn't forthcoming so we can rule that out.

C. Results of the legal proceedings.

D. Official incident report.

Essentially, just something to support notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony, worse yet, completely biased and one-sided eyewitness testimony which has so far virtually all be seen in the context of either ideologues or lawyers getting ready to argue a case.

It's satire. What part of "... a site which lampooned his White House campaign" escaped your reading comprehension this time? Do I need to specifically highlight certain key words in that sentence multiple times for you to fucking understand it?

There's a large gulf between satire and hate speech. There's also a difference between saying that an individual resembles a chimp and saying using derogatory racial slurs (even though the site in question does not compare Bush to a chimp that I can see, but that's hardly relevant).

I'm sorry--but this gulf between satire and hate speech has escaped every PC-speech lover on both sides of the political aisle, even though I recognize it just fine. You're point it out to the wrong person. Go tell it to those people who get mad at George Lucas for casting Jar-Jar or the Christians who go apeshit at movies that poke fun at God. You are lambasting Bush for an attitude which is totally common to both political parties and trying to make that attitude into something unusual and dangerous. It might be dangerous in the long run, but not in the way you're making it out to be, and it's hardly unusual.

Even so, I wouldn't restrict the use of racial slurs on the internet because (get ready for this) they're protected speech. And the site in question is political satire which does not incite violence in any way.

I completely agree with you. I wouldn't restrict them at all, actually. But a lot of people in both political parties would--and a lot of other kinds of speech, as well. That's what I'm getting at. You're singling out the President for a kind of viewpoint which is totally typical and common in modern American politics.

Since when are people barred from making fun of the president or writing satirical news articles about him and his policies offline? Did Bill Mahr's Real Time get canceled by the government all of a sudden?

I grant it hasn't gone that far, yet, but you know there are Hate Crimes legislation which are basically Thought Crimes legislation--including Hate Speech. How much of a stretch is it? Well, you can sue someone for defamation of character already--so what's the next step? Making it a criminal as well as a civil crime? That isn't necessarily a big step with the modern PC attitude that pervades both sides of the aisle. I am not condoning the attitude but I am saying that it is not some sort of attitude common to the President alone--that sort of belief in the regulation of "offensive" speech is utterly pervasive in our modern political climate.

Even if you're right, since when is anyone obligated to be civil?

That does seem to be the stated goal of the PC movement--legislated civility in society.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if his actions and policies didn't lend credence to the idea that he wants limited free speech. Politicians can vindicate themselves from one small snippet through actions; Bush has not done this.

Reasonable enough. However, the limitation of certain kinds of speech in itself is not something--sadly--that is terribly odious by the standards of modern Washington, no matter which party or position.

[Durandal]

Well, if they're allowed to protest at (a place far away from) the front of the White House, that's not ideal but it's sort of workable as a protest venue. Does the press ever cover these protests? I know that people routinely protest on the front lawn of the legislature in Canada, and that the press usually covers it.

According to the excerpt that Gil posted, the Neville Island press got photos of the protest zone, (not surprisingly) populated exclusively by anti-Bush demonstrators, while pro-Bush demonstrators were unimpeded by police.