MOG

And Bush is the first, (only?) politico to try to vet his audience?

Jeff, I think the point is this:

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Key word here is "peaceably". Free Speech Zones are not an option, peaceably or not. I feel if a protester is disrupting any proceeding to the point of violence or endangerment to others, that person should be removed I won't argue with you there. But quietly holding a sign or wearing a t-shirt declaring your disagreement is not grounds for quarantine.

As for Bush, I would say no. But this a current and easily identifiable breech of liberty. I am using Free Speech Zones as an example because you can read about it in your local newspaper.

It's hardly a breach of anyone's liberty. The first amendment does not allow for incitement under the guise of free speech. You can't assume that in the times we live in, these protesters are going to sit peacefully holding hands singing _If I Had A Hammer_. These are not nice polite kids that are screaming "Fuck Bush!" No, if they had a hammer, they would probably try to throw it at the first Republican they could find. If anything it's taking into account the safety of the larger group of people, who, if they are waiting to hear W. speak, are more than likely Bush supporters. If anything you could make the argument, albeit a weak one, that these zones are set up for the protesters own safety. Now of course, when you're dealing with a president with a level of paranoia at Nixonian levels, coupled with the times we live in, you kind of have to expect situations like this to occur everywhere the president speaks. Yes, they absolutely have the right to protest, but others have just as much right not to hear it.

_I feel if a protester is disrupting any proceeding to the point of violence or endangerment to others, that person should be removed I won’t argue with you there. But quietly holding a sign or wearing a t-shirt declaring your disagreement is not grounds for quarantine_

Anyway, when was the last time you heard a quiet protester?

Lester, I gotta ask:

Define incitment.

Where in the 3 Documents we call The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right to not listen to me?

What do you suggest peaceful protesters do when they are herded of to a zone?

I feel you are generalizing protest. Not everyone who WANTS to throw a pipe at some ones head actually brings that feeling to fruition. I get angry, but I am not out there lighting fires. You dig?

The first amendment does not allow for incitement under the guise of free speech. *

Lester you are dead on right there. Speech such as the classic example of , yelling Fire in a crowded movie house is not protected. A call to violent action such as, Let's go burn down that building, isn't protected. Saying, I think the war is a sham and we are being taken for a ride, is. I am a peaceful protester who is wearing a Stop Bush t-shirt. I go to watch the Prez speak with my family. We get torn apart because my choice of attire is deemed un American. I ask you, How freakin *more American can that be.

What is my recourse? How can I get my voice heard?

Also I would like to say,

Anyway, when was the last time you heard a quiet protester?

That's a keeper. I will be adding that one to my list of stock phrases. Thanks Lester.

Yes, they absolutely have the right to protest, but others have just as much right not to hear it.

By that logic, shouldn't we set up "Free Listen" Zones instead? Where those who don't want to hear the dissent can go and assemble quietly without having to listen to the disgruntled?

You do make a good point, though, that it seems like the days of the "peacable" protest are at an end. It seems like everyone gets pissed off, and goes straight to violent. We live in a culture where people think shouting the loudest makes you right.

Groon I think Free Listen Zones would make a great SNL skit.

You pretty much mirrored my point, only yours is funnier.

Thanks. I think a point can be made, though, in the end of that sentence: we're not granted the right to assemble by itself, we're granted the right to assemble and petition the government yada yada yada. I've never heard anyone spell out exactly what that would mean, but I assume it refers to people getting together and saying "hey, this is what we're pissed off about, what is your answer?"

The problem is that that scenario, or even something resembling it, rarely happens. The public at large only wishes to shout, scream, and belittle the other side, whichever side it may be. And the government for the most part stopped listening a long time ago to anything but money.

Agreed. Still I don't read it as the 2 being dependent.

Every year the Klan still gets together for a rally around my parts. What ever they do at these rallies is protected by the 1st Amendment. However distasteful I feel these rallies are they have just as much right to gather and spread their propaganda as I do wearing a t-shirt. I voice my opinion by not going in support of their agenda.

You have the right to gather, but you don't have to be petitioning the Government to do it.

The scenario stands. I am following the laws of the land. Why should I be held accountable for the lawlessness of others? Paranoia or not, If your afraid, don't go there.

I happen to agree with you on this, just so you know. It's the libertarian in me.

This has gotten well away from your original post, though, which dealt with Free Speech Zones, which is, of course, ridiculous.

Not at all Groon. It's all variations on a theme.

I mentioned Roe v. Wade before. My personal feeling is, The Government doesn't have the right to legislate our bodies. In the same breath I will say I appreciate the FDA. Same but different.

Roe v. Wade came down to a case concerning the 1st Amendment.

That being said I feel the 1st's width doesn't equal it's depth. You have a bit of latitude when arguing the 1st Amendment.

Yeah Libertarians. I would love to see a Hobbes/Mills ticket in the future.

Did you hear, Ron Paul isn't to popular with the Republican caucus. I say good for him, he must be doing something right.

Well, Ron Paul is basically a RINO (Republican In Name Only) anyway. He's the one I'm keeping an eye on right now, more than any other.

My opinion on abortion actually strays from the libertarian view a bit. As much as I loathe the idea of the government telling people what to do with their bodies, it's different to me when it feels like it's more than one body involved. But that's not a discussion I'm up for right now, as I'm headed off to bed . . .

Being a male, that's a prickly pear I would sooner avoid, myself. Night man.

groon, what a brilliant line" and the government for the most part stopped listening a long time ago to anything but money" bravo! great discussion moggers, i love this.....wish i had more time to play

Ambitious, Chris, examining the Constitution. Now that is something to be proud of - good on ya! "Free listen zones", hehe.

At the Montebello Summit in Quebec in August (a pan-North American meeting of Bush, Harper and Calderon), three police officers posed as protesters and tried to incite the real, peaceful protesters to violence. When confronted (because one of them was wielding a rock), they were taken away by uniformed police officers, but never arrested. Later the Quebec police admitted that the three were undercover officers, but said they did nothing illegal.

And you thought Canada was a peaceful dominion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q69oW-28jc4

If I attended a speech by a sitting president, I would not wear a T-shirt bearing obscene or insulting messages. Its called respect FOR THE OFFICE. If someone did such a thing, they SHOULD be escorted from the area. If they do not agree to go, they should be arrested and charged with disrupting the peace, and here's why: If I went to a speech by Hillary wearing a T-shirt that said BUSH RULES, my physical well being would be in danger. Law enforcement personnel would have no choice but to escort me from the area. And probably arrest me for disturbing the peace. (they couldn't arrest my myriad attackers.) I know for a fact that this same scenario played itself out at Brown last year. The student in question did nothing wrong but wear an Ann Coulter T. Of course the tolerant crowd tried to rip him to shreds. He was arrested for disturbing the peace (and blackening his own eyes? and ripping off his own t?). In these turbulent times one must remember that protesting is very often civil disobedience, the precepts of which dictate that you accept the consequences of your law-breaking because you respect the rule of law. This weekend will see a large gathering of protesters in DC to protest the war in Iraq. There will also be the gathering of Eagles to protect gov. property. Should the police position themselves between the two groups? Shoud the protesters be aloud to bring things to a halt? Destroy recruitment offices? Attack policemen? Of course not. And it matters not a whit if its just a miniscule minority causing trouble if the peacefull majority does not express their disapproval with more than just words. Yes protest is as American as the constitution, and there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Peacefull gatherings are fine. violence is not. destruction is not. Screaming vile obscenities is protected speech, right? What a country.

Yes protest is as American as the constitution, and there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Peacefull gatherings are fine. violence is not. destruction is not. Screaming vile obscenities is protected speech, right?

Absolutely Jeff. But ......

If I went to a speech by Hillary wearing a T-shirt that said BUSH RULES , my physical well being would be in danger. Law enforcement personnel would have no choice but to escort me from the area.

I say maybe to the first part and heck no to the second part. The police should escort you away if you were violent or inciting others to do violence. They are under no obligation to arrest you because of your t-shirt.

As for respecting "the Office", I respect the office I don't agree with it's decisions.

I will check back on this thread here and there. For now I will open debate on religion.

How did I miss this the first ime around?

In these turbulent times one must remember that protesting is very often civil disobedience, the precepts of which dictate that you accept the consequences of your law-breaking because you respect the rule of law.

Protest IS civil disobedience, but protest ISN'T law breaking. The right to peaceably assemble is the law of the land plain and simple. You can not argue that.

Did you purposely ignore my point? The police should leave me to be pummeled by the tolerent folk? Did I incite violence? You bet I did. Any sentient creature knows you don't go against the group think of the left, you will be attacked. Physically. If you deny that I'm afraid you're being somewhat disengenuous. Try it yourself, put a BUSH RULES bumper sticker on your car. See what happens.

Honestly Jeff I thought I had hit your points. I am not trying to ignore anything.

Your are however making assumtions that violence will befall you if you do one thing or another that goes against the crowd you are in. The police should absolutly step in if you are being assaulted. If you read my other comments you would know I don't condone violent protest or violence toward other or personal property.

For the record I have an anti Bush sticker on my car right now. As far as I can tell nothing has happened to me because of it.

And That's exactly my point! Nothing will happen to you as long as you have the proper bumper sticker. If you put the PRO-BUSH bumper sticker on your car, I Guaranty someone will take it upon themselves to vandalize your car. Do you doubt that? My point is, ONE SIDE of the debate has created an atmosphere so toxic that some within the group feel they're acting in a way that the rest of the herd approves of. And of course, THAT herd would remain silent. Oh they would, like yourself, denounce violence, paying lipservice, but would actively defend the perpertrator. You can prove what I say, don't take my word. Put the bumper sticker on. I'll mail you one. And BTW for the record. I am only a Bush supporter by default. Kerry? I, as a Viet Nam Vet would rather have voted for ANYONE else. Bush is NO conservative. That's why he's lost his base of support. Many of my friends will be in DC this weekend, on both sides of the barricades. I wish I could be.

And for the record I too am a vet. Of the first Gulf War. DDG 993 USS Kidd, BM2 and Master helmsman.

I have a super great friend who is an ardent Bush supporter (no smirking). He has and has had many pro Bush stickers on his truck (I want to say he has NRA stickers affixed to the glass also). I have never heard him say his property was damaged because of his tightly held political beliefs. I just don't buy into the fact people are inherently violent, especially when it comes down to something like a bumper sticker. I feel they really just don't give a damn about something as ubiquitious as a bumpersticker.

My question to you brother in arms is this, Why do you feel a majority of the nation is against you because of your support for GB? Could it be because a majority of the public doesn't like the current tack of this admin?

My question to you brother in arms is this, Why do you feel a majority of the nation is against you because of your support for GB? Could it be because a majority of the public doesn’t like the current tack of this admin?

Posted at September 14, 2007 at 2:19 AM | Permalink It may be because I live in close proximity to Brown U, & RISD, URI, PC, etc etc. Believe me, if I parked my truck in Prov. overnight, it would be vandalized. And you're correct, the majority in this country give Bushy a low approval rating. (But congress's is lower!)

Minister gets his leg broken by capital police for wearing an "I love the people of Iraq" button" and trying to get into the Petraeus speech. Smells like teen anschluss.

In my province this week, a kid wore a pink shirt to school and was attacked for "being a fag." If deadman's arguments hold, that implies he was "asking for it." The great thing is that there was a positive community response: two other students, unknown to the victim, spread the word that the entire student body was invited to wear pink shirts the next day in his support, and they got a stunning turnout.

As an aside, I no longer display a Canadian flag on my car or at my house because the display of the flag is now associated with support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Patriotism = support of war. How sad is that.

Free speech denied because we are afraid. That is downright sickening.

Eric, That video speaks volumes.

This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in a long time, and tells me I shouldn't waste my time debating with deadman anymore:

"My point is, ONE SIDE of the debate has created an atmosphere so toxic that some within the group feel they're acting in a way that the rest of the herd approves of. And of course, THAT herd would remain silent. Oh they would, like yourself, denounce violence, paying lipservice, but would actively defend the perpertrator."