Free Speech? Sorry, You're Not In a Free Speech Zone [Archive] - Global Affairs Forum, Politics, Law, Science, Health

Coot

01-05-2004, 07:18 PM

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone." Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."
This is not my America and I don't believe any of us right or left should be standing idly by and allowing this to go on any further.

Read all about it at Quarantining Dissent. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL)

eskimo

01-05-2004, 08:05 PM

nothing against keeping potentially violent people away from a peaceful crowd but that is taking it a bit too far.

ethics

01-05-2004, 08:08 PM

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

Can they be sued for this?

Coot

01-05-2004, 09:56 PM

nothing against keeping potentially violent people away from a peaceful crowd but that is taking it a bit too far.
Not that this is their intention to begin with. If someone wanted to create mischief or violence, all they would have to do is carry a pro-administration sign and they're allowed to come to the party.

cdw

01-05-2004, 11:26 PM

If this is what is really happening and the facts are correct, then it is completely and utterly WRONG.
So...what can we do?

saber11

01-05-2004, 11:33 PM

FrankF

01-06-2004, 12:14 AM

As far as I know this has pretty much always been common practice no matter who was in the white house.

I remember more then one time Clinton had protestors cleared out of the park accros the street from the white house.

As a supporter of free speech, I have no problems with this. They are not being told they can't protest, just moved to a different location.

But if they are being moved to a place where they can't be seen or heard by the object of their protest (or in some cases not seen or reported by the media), then they are being silenced. So their protest never happened. I'm not sure that is "free speech".

Coot

01-06-2004, 12:18 AM

As far as I know this has pretty much always been common practice no matter who was in the white house.

I remember more then one time Clinton had protestors cleared out of the park accros the street from the white house.

As a supporter of free speech, I have no problems with this. They are not being told they can't protest, just moved to a different location.
When you leave the people holding signs supporting you in plain view of the media and then move the people holding signs in opposition to you to 'another location' out of view, that is way, way over the top...and then when you use the justice department to go after the dissenters that do not wish to be moved, that is abuse of power.

ShinyTop

01-06-2004, 12:30 AM

I am not sure if free speech is being violated. What I am sure of is this practice of allowing some and not others is censorship. I think little of using the guise of security to limit dissent. As you say, this is not only this president, it is still a reprehensible practice in this country. Of course, maybe if the press did not dwell on negative more than the positive.....................

saber11

01-06-2004, 12:49 AM

But if they are being moved to a place where they can't be seen or heard by the object of their protest (or in some cases not seen or reported by the media), then they are being silenced. So their protest never happened. I'm not sure that is "free speech".

And perhaps it would be ok with you to have KKK supporters, and Anti KKK folks mixxed in the same crowd?

I know here there was a KKK rally in downtown, and for security, they setup an "ANTI-KKK" protest area more than 8 blocks away.

Copzilla

01-06-2004, 12:56 AM

Just some food for thought, but if the protesters were allowed full access to presidential events, those events would never happen. They would completely drown out all of whatever was going on. Let's face it... The huge majority of protesters do so in order to be civilly disruptive - if permitted, they would capitalize on every situation and become the sole attraction.

Neo

01-06-2004, 01:32 AM

This story is as they say is accurate but it is not true. Rather than blather on I will just point you to several things to seek out of if you are so inclined. It will take some investigation on your part though.

In the news article note the dates of these alleged occurrences "as reported." That should give you a hint especially given how long ago they happen and you are reading about it now. Normally don't you think the mainstream press would have been all over this big time? Especially if it was a regular or ongoing thing!

Also, if you did some phrase searches on the Internet you should find that this article although appearing in the 2004 San Francisco Chronicle as a regular news article is substantially a "reprint" of another article(s) and even Internet posts if you get my drift. Substantial parts are quotes if not almost verbatim. You should also find other "stories" that tells of this type of thing using almost the exact wording but referring to other instances. I can remember one specifically that was posted on a University student bulletin board a year or two ago about the same thing supposedly happening when Bush was speaking. The students and the no speech zone type thing supposedly happen based upon the post by a single student. Again, if you find the post note the wording and also note that the mainstream press did not run with that story either.

Finally, forgetting what I just wrote, just read the article with an open mind and say to yourself, does this sound right--as right this must be true and happening as the article says? (Again note the dates and the time difference between the occurrence and the story.) Does this whole story pass the smell test?

Am I saying that it did not happen in any way at all and is all entirely made up? No. Is it as reported both in the totality of fact and tone as well as a full, complete, fair and balanced news story? Not exactly. Not even close.

I am actually kind of surprised that someone didn't pick up on some of the things I have noted.

Coot

01-06-2004, 02:25 AM

And your smell test would be? I see a reference to an alleged event dated Labor Day 2002. That's not exactly ancient history. I'm not going to bother to google phrases as it will likely turn up untold spurious hits.

I will go on the record as saying that if these events happened as reported then it is about as repugnant as it gets, and I don't care how many previous administrations used this tactic.

And no Copz, I don't see this tactic doing anything to prevent any kind of upheaval at a presidential function, nor do I see free and unfettered speech as a threat to any president wishing to hold a public meeting. Might it interrupt his photo-op/PR coup/baby kissing ceremony? Probably, but that really isn't the point here is it? As I stated earlier, anyone who is bent on causing mischief at a presidential event need only carry a pro-administration sign to gain admittance to the party. After they're in, they can then do whatever they choose.

I think it is absolutely anathema for any president to effectively be allowed to silence his detractors, and especially when he uses the Justice Department as his attack dogs. Where do you want to draw the line on this kind of behavior? Presidential appearances at functions are absolutely nothing more than PR ploys. I can't think of a president in recent history who actually did one of these for altruistic reasons. So, now what do we do? Allow the effective silencing of dissent in order that a president be allowed to pimp and pander for the cameras?

Discourse in this country, particularly public discourse, seems to be taking a backseat to political expediency, and that alone should piss everyone off.

Neo

01-06-2004, 09:19 AM

From the Chronicle story: "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone."

Sniff, sniff, what is that smell?

Glad they let us know they were grandmothers. Good stuff to know.

Why hasn't this practice of Bush's approved Secret Service abuse of rights been all over the press and cable media since it has been going on continously for at least three years?

Advocat

01-06-2004, 09:33 AM

Here's something from Fox News on the same topic:

Anti-Bush Protesters Exiled to Distant Zones (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.html)

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (search) sued the Secret Service (search) and the St. Louis police to stop a protest zone from being established for the president’s Aug. 26 visit to St. Louis. The organization said during three other visits by the president to the city, protesters were relegated to designated areas far away from the scene of any action.

The local police and Secret Service acknowledged that they had planned to use a free speech zone during the president's visit, but subsequently agreed in court not to do so. Based on that concession, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh decided not to issue a temporary restraining order.

“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...

...“If your sign said, ‘We like Bush,’ you were not censored, and if your sign said, ‘We don’t like Bush,’ you were relegated to the free speech zone,”...

ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen, who has tracked speech zone cases, said the use of protest zones is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush administration.

This is "a problem that has existed with all administrations. It is true of all administrations," Hansen said.

But Lirot said he believes the Bush administration has been much more proactive than previous administrations in keeping protestors away from the president.

“I think it’s become far worse with this president. I know [protest zones] have been around for a while ... but these days, it is so clear that the message of dissent is being censored,” he said.

Copzilla

01-06-2004, 09:49 AM

And no Copz, I don't see this tactic doing anything to prevent any kind of upheaval at a presidential function, nor do I see free and unfettered speech as a threat to any president wishing to hold a public meeting. Might it interrupt his photo-op/PR coup/baby kissing ceremony? Probably, but that really isn't the point here is it? As I stated earlier, anyone who is bent on causing mischief at a presidential event need only carry a pro-administration sign to gain admittance to the party. After they're in, they can then do whatever they choose. And then be popped for disorderly conduct, as the article whines about.

Coot, we know what these "protesters" are capable of doing. We know they're shipped in by all sorts of dubious special interests, even foreign interests and communist based organizations.

Would you have the KKK showing up at all presidential functions holding signs? Black Panther Party? The protesters would steal the event, EVERY event. They do that now whenever given the opportunity, such as they did in Seattle, trashing the city.

I just think this tactic is a necessary evil, considering the nature of the protesters.

FrankF

01-06-2004, 09:51 AM

And perhaps it would be ok with you to have KKK supporters, and Anti KKK folks mixxed in the same crowd?

I know here there was a KKK rally in downtown, and for security, they setup an "ANTI-KKK" protest area more than 8 blocks away.
Upon reflection I think it is a necessary practice. Most of the people who show up at protests, yelling and waving signs are the lunatic fringe anyway. Anytime the opportunity arises the KKK supporters, gun control advocates, soybean farmers, PETA, and gay marriage rights groups all show up in one place. Sometimes things might turn ugly.

Robert Harris

01-06-2004, 10:24 AM

Things turn ugly when the usurper sticks his nose outside the bunker. :)

Advocat

01-06-2004, 10:33 AM

Damn! I <b>knew</b> that little brat from the "Emperor's New Clothes" story was a leftist agitator. The emperor's guards should have had his anarachistic little butt in jail before he got anywhere near the Emp!

After all, what's the good of being a ruler if you can't bathe in the love of your adoring subjects? :lol:

Steve

01-06-2004, 10:44 AM

I'm in agreement with Coot. No matter when or under which Administrations this practice has occurred, it is anathema to the basic principles of free speech and political dissent.

I can understand and support efforts by law enforcement to remove disruptive people from a crowd. However, indiscriminately targeting everyone, including those merely standing silent holding a placard, is repugnant. Such things should not occur in this country, for it sets the most dangerous precedent - arbitrary government limitations on free speech.

Misu

01-06-2004, 11:16 AM

Is it really that dissent is being punished, or is it merely the President exercising his right to NOT LISTEN to people who want to engage in free speech?

You have the right to say whatever you want to say - but if I don't want to hear it, then that is my right. I don't HAVE to listen to you. And if you continue to follow me around, trying to force me to hear you, then I have the right to protect myself from hearing you, no?

If you're sitting in a restaurant that serves veal, and PETA decides to protest that restaurant, would you approve of them protesting inside the restaurant? No? How about just outside the restaurant? No, either? How about a couple of blocks away from the restaurant, so you don't have to be subjected to their protest?

Not trying to be a Bush supporter, but this to me does not look like censorship or free speech being taking away. It just looks like someone exercising their right to not listen to others protesting. I think that anyone who is being hounded by a group of people who is constantly trying to make that person listen to them, and that person doesn't want to hear it, that person has the right to be protected from that speech. We're granted the right to free speech, but that right does not grant us an automatic audience. People don't have to listen to us if they don't want to.

Coot

01-06-2004, 11:19 AM

<li>The Saint Petersburg Times (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/73677236.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&PMID=33031&desc=Protesters+kept+at+a+distance%3b+three+arrested)
<li>The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11092003/commenta/109238.asp)
<li>CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/eveningnews/main586959.shtml)
<li>The Pittsburg Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03267/225306.stm)
<li>ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/protest_zones_031112-1.html)

It's being covered, it's just that no one is paying a lot of attention. In truth, I'm probably opposed to most of the issues these protesters are raising, but I am absolutely adamant that they have every right and reasonable expectation that their voice and message deserves equal protection when it comes to being seen and heard.

These actions by our government are the absolute antithesis of what our country is supposed to stand for.

ShinyTop

01-06-2004, 11:24 AM

Upon reflection I think it is a necessary practice. Most of the people who show up at protests, yelling and waving signs are the lunatic fringe anyway. Anytime the opportunity arises the KKK supporters, gun control advocates, soybean farmers, PETA, and gay marriage rights groups all show up in one place. Sometimes things might turn ugly.

If we label all protesters as the lunatic fringe we can really make progress, can't we? And we should let the Secret Service and Bush's employees make the decisions as to who is lunatic and who has a genuine cause. Sorry, that is not American.

Steve

01-06-2004, 11:32 AM

cdw

01-06-2004, 11:34 AM

I dunno Misu... I agree with Coot. The president is supposed to hear all the stuff the people he is representing want him to. He's in a public place. If he doesn't want to hear it, then he should stay in the White House and do a televised speech.
IMO, there is no reason why people who disagree with the president shouldn't be allowed to walk around and carry signs and show support for the "other side" of an issue. We have laws they have to follow and if they don't, then they should be prosecuted.
Shit...the 60's-70's would have never happened if we weren't allowed to get our voices heard.
On a side note...Ms. Clinton has been accused of doing this same thing with "goons" being the ones that push the people with a different point of view aside/to the back/far away, so I guess this happens quite often.

It's a shame. Keep this up and people will start doing drastic things in order to get their point across and be heard.

Advocat

01-06-2004, 11:54 AM

If we label all protesters as the lunatic fringe we can really make progress, can't we? And we should let the Secret Service and Bush's employees make the decisions as to who is lunatic and who has a genuine cause. Sorry, that is not American.

Come on, Shiney! If they dislike Bush and want to protest, even quietly, where Bush can see them, they can't be <b>real</b> patriotic Americans, now can they?

I find this very interesting... if the President's speech is interrupted by protestors being in line of sight, it's disruptive, and they should be removed. But if his speech is interrupted by the cheers and applause of the crowd, it's great, and more should come.

Wonderful thing, being the one to choose which crowd gets the television converage. :haha:

Misu

01-06-2004, 01:18 PM

Misu, the problem is that these protests are in public places, not private restaurants. The President, nor anyone else, can have no reasonable expectation to not be exposed to things he doesn't want to hear...in a public area.

No one has to pay any attention to anything anyone says or does in a public area, but that is far different from saying that anyone else has the right to prevent them from doing or saying reasonable things in a public area.

Are restaruants really considered private, though? The smoking ban put in effect here in the state of Florida deemed all public areas as smoke-free, and then went on to list public areas, and named restaurants as one of them.

And these "free speech zones" are not preventing anyone from protesting - they're just preventing the protests from interfering with scheduled events and traffic.

Steve

01-06-2004, 01:27 PM

No, restaurants aren't "private", per se, but the intended purpose of a restaurant is not conducive to public protests. It's not an appropriate public venue as, say, a public sidewalk, street corner, square, plaza, or park would be. I guess what I mean is that some public areas are more public than others :)

Net Inquirer

01-06-2004, 02:01 PM

If we label all protesters as the lunatic fringe we can really make progress, can't we? And we should let the Secret Service and Bush's employees make the decisions as to who is lunatic and who has a genuine cause. Sorry, that is not American.

I certainly can see both sides of this issue and personally don't especially care one way or the other. But the underlying issue of Presidents and other government and or law enforcement agencies regulating the place, time, and degree of demonstration goes back as far as you want to look in this century.

So, the current president is not doing anything new in this regards. And I know you personally are not singling him out, but I just wanted to post this to add to the topic of this thread.

But the ACLU has "sued" on this matter, so if the ACLU is correct then the courts, as they are supposed to do, will change this practice.

(Fortunately the ACLU was able to spare attorneys to file the appropriate legal paperwork as they are also currently suing over the Federal Government requiring the fingerprinting of all foreign nationals arriving on international flights from certain countries. God bless the ACLU.)

Sierra Mike

01-06-2004, 02:04 PM

(Fortunately the ACLU was able to spare attorneys to file the appropriate legal paperwork as they are also currently suing over the Federal Government requiring the fingerprinting of all foreign nationals arriving on international flights from certain countries. God bless the ACLU.)
One would wonder just what the heck the ACLU is suing for, as their constituency is not made up of foreigners visiting the United States. But I could be wrong about that one.

SM

Steve

01-06-2004, 02:05 PM

Half the time, the ACLU absolutely enrages me; the other half, I wholeheartedly agree with what they're doing.

I suppose that means they're doing a good job of impartially defending our Constitutional rights.

Net Inquirer

01-06-2004, 02:29 PM

One would wonder just what the heck the ACLU is suing for, as their constituency is not made up of foreigners visiting the United States. But I could be wrong about that one.

SM

Didn't they teach you 160th guys anything other than how turn a helio inside out or to lay down covering CAS fire? ;)

As soon as anyone steps foot on the United States they are covered by the Constitution and by fingerprinting them we are violating their rights! Somehow--I am not exactly sure how. But thank God the ACLU is there to protect us. So when Osama Bin Laden and his boys fly in we may be able to arrest them, but we can't fingerprint them at the airport when they deplane. Only after we book them! (If we catch them.) Of course if a terrorist's fingerprints are on file, and a lot are, then we would catch them at the airport regardless of the name or desguise they may using. But what the heck we need to keep our priorities straight! That is why we have the ACLU.

Steve

01-06-2004, 02:36 PM

(Fortunately the ACLU was able to spare attorneys to file the appropriate legal paperwork as they are also currently suing over the Federal Government requiring the fingerprinting of all foreign nationals arriving on international flights from certain countries. God bless the ACLU.)Source, please? I find nothing about such law suits on the ACLU's web site about this topic (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14649&c=206), nor on CNN.com, MSNBC.com, or FoxNews.com, one of which would surely have mentioned such a lawsuit.

Net Inquirer

01-06-2004, 03:17 PM

Source, please? I find nothing about such law suits on the ACLU's web site about this topic (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14649&c=206), nor on CNN.com, MSNBC.com, or FoxNews.com, one of which would surely have mentioned such a lawsuit.

KNX 1070 New Radio in Los Angeles. Possible that they said were going to file a lawsuit or were going to take legal action as opposed to have done it. I was listening to it in the background while working in my office. But I definitely heard that it was one or the other. That much I am sure about. No doubt.

I assumed or may have heard that it had something to do with we are only fingerprinting passengers on flights from certain countries as opposed to all.

ShinyTop

01-06-2004, 03:19 PM

I totally agree that protesters should not be allowed to scream and rant enought to make so others cannot hear a speaker. What I object to is that people merely holding signs are moved.

Protesters should not be allowed to stop people from speaking and to stop other citizens from listening. If their vocal protests tread on the right of others to listen, arrest and charge them. If they are merely holding and waving signs leave them alone. Seems simple enough even for the sorry excuse we have for an AG.

Net Inquirer

01-06-2004, 03:25 PM

Follow up:

I did just one quick search on CNN and got from their article of December 23rd about the the new fingerprinting system:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been critical of several steps the Bush administration has taken to track or question foreigners since the terrorist attacks, said it was reserving judgment on the new system.

"The government hasn't explained exactly how it's going to work," said Lee Galernt, the ACLU's senior staff counsel.

So the timing of the news radio story is in line. I don't have time at this moment to search further. Maybe later.

Net Inquirer

01-06-2004, 07:15 PM

Follow up II:

Only had time to do one more quick search. No more specific information to corroborate what I believe I heard.

For everyone's "enlightenment" here is just one small part of a ACLU maifesto on national security versus "civil liberties", with the part pertaining indirectly to the subject before us.

"There have been proposals, including those made by Senator John Edwards, D-NC, to use biometric techniques to accurately identify airport personnel who have access to sensitive areas. The ACLU does not oppose using biometric identification techniques with a proven record of accuracy, such as iris scans or digital fingerprints, to identify and authenticate persons working in secured areas of airports. The error rate for those technologies is very low and using the technology could increase security without compromising civil liberties. This represents a good application of modern technology. Biometric identifiers collected from airport and airline workers should not, however, be used for unrelated purposes."

"The ACLU does, however, oppose using this technology for all airline passengers. To be effective, the government would have to have the iris scan or digital fingerprint of every person living in the United States. This would be the high-tech equivalent of creating a National ID system. Doing so would raise grave privacy concerns and, furthermore, it would be unrealistic to expect that high quality images could be easily obtained and maintained on the tens of million of Americans who travel by air. "

Sierra Mike

01-06-2004, 11:37 PM

Ah...but no one is fingerprinting Americans, right? Unless I can't read any longer, the articles so far have been pretty explicit in saying foreigners are getting fingerprinted.

Methinks the ACLU can kisseth my asseth.

SM

FrankF

01-07-2004, 12:03 AM

... I assumed or may have heard that it had something to do with we are only fingerprinting passengers on flights from certain countries as opposed to all.

I sort of have a problem with fingerprinting some, but not all foreigners. One article that I read said that most Canadians are not being fingerprinted, and that most Mexicans who are "not staying for too long or traveling far into the counrty" are not being fingerprinted.

Excuse me, but how do you tell what a Canadian or Mexican LOOKS like? And how do they tell that a person claiming to be a citizen is telling the truth? In most cases the Border Patrol just asks if you are a US citizen (without ever checking ID). If you say yes (that you are an American citizen)... zip, you're on your way and "welcome to America".

Seems that if the US is really concerned about security, then everyone ought to at least show proper ID when entering the country.