Protestors to be caged at DNC

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-24 07:15pm

link

I'm surprised that I'm saying this, but go Dems.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-24 07:15pm

Actually, nevermind, it's the city that's doing it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-24 07:16pm

The 'Free Speech Zones' are back? As much as I'm for 'Good for the goose, good for the gander'...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-24 07:18pm

Hey hey now, We need them to overrun the place and burn it down ala
Chicago '68

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-07-24 07:25pm

MKSheppard wrote:Hey hey now, We need them to overrun the place and burn it down ala
Chicago '68

Hey, as long as Dan Rather gets beat up again, I won't argue.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-07-24 08:16pm

Bah, old. The Daily Show had a funny piece on it.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-24 08:19pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Bah, old. The Daily Show had a funny piece on it.

What was it?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-24 08:21pm

neoolong wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Bah, old. The Daily Show had a funny piece on it.
What was it?

Their website has it up. 'Freedom Of Oppression'.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-24 08:26pm

What's so oppressive about it?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-24 08:28pm

SirNitram wrote:Their website has it up. 'Freedom Of Oppression'.

I know. For some reason the videos never work for me. That's why I asked.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-25 03:09am

I just find it funny that conservative protestors are bitching over those protest areas when they thought they were fine when it was democratic protestors marching against the President.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-07-25 07:01am

Joe wrote:What's so oppressive about it?

Well I think they have been using these "Free Speech Zones" at all of Bush's rallies, now they will be using them at the DNC convention and the RNC convention. But, what is disgusting is that they are being deemed "Free Speech Zones." Last time I checked the First Amendment the entire nation was a "Free Speech Zone." And caging people up far away from the very people they are protesting seems to be oppressing their freedom of speech. I mean, is it truly "free speech" if there is no audience?

Also on a side note; I think these areas could end up being a hazard to the people inside of them. All of those people will be trapped in a six foot tall fence with barbed wire, a net over the top, and concrete barriers on the bottom. What if there were an emergency? Trying to get out of there, would create quite a problem for the people inside of that contraption.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-25 11:10am

I certainly hope the city of Boston delouses them first.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-25 03:15pm

Marksist wrote:Well I think they have been using these "Free Speech Zones" at all of Bush's rallies, now they will be using them at the DNC convention and the RNC convention. But, what is disgusting is that they are being deemed "Free Speech Zones." Last time I checked the First Amendment the entire nation was a "Free Speech Zone." And caging people up far away from the very people they are protesting seems to be oppressing their freedom of speech. I mean, is it truly "free speech" if there is no audience?

Yeah, you'd think that Freedom of Peaceful Assembly would apply anywhere that's public property. I mean, as long as I'm not doing anything illegal, I can pitch a chair outside City Hall and protest anything I want, if I want. Yet they have these "Free Speech Zones" for protestors for the sake of politicians (which I suspect has to do with not wanting protestors in to be seen in photo shots of the politician more than anything).

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-07-25 08:02pm

Marksist wrote:
Well I think they have been using these "Free Speech Zones" at all of Bush's rallies, now they will be using them at the DNC convention and the RNC convention. But, what is disgusting is that they are being deemed "Free Speech Zones." Last time I checked the First Amendment the entire nation was a "Free Speech Zone." And caging people up far away from the very people they are protesting seems to be oppressing their freedom of speech. I mean, is it truly "free speech" if there is no audience?

Yeah it is. You're free to say whatever you want, not to force whoever you want to listen to it. If you don't like that then too bad, you don't get to oppress other people's rights to assemble just so you can yell slogans at them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-25 08:06pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I just find it funny that conservative protestors are bitching over those protest areas when they thought they were fine when it was democratic protestors marching against the President.

Of course, such is the natural order. Most hard core party people (aka the ones in these) tend to be hypocritical like that.

As for me, I said it about the orginal: keeping angry protestors away makes sense. There have been plenty of protests, even in recent years, that have turned into riots and bloodshed. No need to give them easy access to a potential target.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-25 08:31pm

However, by the same token it is unacceptable to sequester the protestors blocks away from all political activity.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-25 08:45pm

Marksist wrote:
Joe wrote:What's so oppressive about it?
Well I think they have been using these "Free Speech Zones" at all of Bush's rallies, now they will be using them at the DNC convention and the RNC convention. But, what is disgusting is that they are being deemed "Free Speech Zones." Last time I checked the First Amendment the entire nation was a "Free Speech Zone." And caging people up far away from the very people they are protesting seems to be oppressing their freedom of speech. I mean, is it truly "free speech" if there is no audience?

Certainly the entire nation is not a free speech zone; if it was, pro-life groups could set up displays featuring those disgusting aborted fetus photos in public property any time they wanted to do so and this would be seen as basically OK. The government cannot deny the right to free speech, but it can regulate it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-25 08:56pm

Stormbringer wrote:As for me, I said it about the orginal: keeping angry protestors away makes sense. There have been plenty of protests, even in recent years, that have turned into riots and bloodshed. No need to give them easy access to a potential target.

That's the thing, isn't it? People have the constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Angry protestors looking for a fight aren't peaceful, so they can be cleared out. However, they aren't just putting angry protestors in caged areas, they are putting all protestors in them, whether the are liquored up and ready for some political hooligannery or intend to stand somewhere with a protest sign and a T-Shirt. Until they stop being peaceful, according the the Constitution of the United States, anybody has the right to assemble anywhere they want on public property to protest. If it does turn into a riot, then by all means the cops should arrest or disperse them, but only when that occurs. Peaceful protestors should not be locked up and if they haven't done anything, how can you pre-emptively punish them?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-25 08:58pm

Howedar wrote:However, by the same token it is unacceptable to sequester the protestors blocks away from all political activity.

At an event the size of a convention, with crowds of that size, it's not unreasonable for them to be a good way's away.

I went to a rally for Gore in 2000 in town that has 50,000 people and I still wound up a block or so away. At something far larger you're gonna get pushed to the back.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-25 10:19pm

I don't mean in this particular case, I mean in smallish rallies where protestors are still driven a great distance away.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-07-25 10:44pm

Howedar wrote:However, by the same token it is unacceptable to sequester the protestors blocks away from all political activity.

If that picture is showing one of the protest areas, then it's hardly blocks from the convention center, more like across the street.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-25 11:14pm

Howedar wrote:I don't mean in this particular case, I mean in smallish rallies where protestors are still driven a great distance away.

Quoted for truth for THE GREAT LEADER.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-07-25 11:33pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I just find it funny that conservative protestors are bitching over those protest areas when they thought they were fine when it was democratic protestors marching against the President.

I agree; it's right back in your face and it couldn't be better

.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-26 01:05pm

Howedar wrote:I don't mean in this particular case, I mean in smallish rallies where protestors are still driven a great distance away.

And if you'll note my point, even a very small rally will have people far away. And it only makes sense to keep the potential troublemakers as far away as possible.