Democrats join Republicans in using 'free speech zones' during convention

[Q]

Published on Friday, February 20, 2004 by the Boston Globe

Convention Plan Puts Protesters Blocks Away

by Rick Klein

-----

"What's the point to just have a rally, when you don't have an audience for whom the rally is organized?"

-----

Protesters at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates by a maze of Central Artery service roads, MBTA train tracks, and a temporary parking lot holding scores of buses and media trucks.
Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild's Massachusetts chapter

Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.

"The area looks a little silly, to be honest with you," said Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild's Massachusetts chapter. "People will not be able to express their concerns with whatever will be happening, because no one will have access to delegates. No one will be heard, and the area is just too small."

Officials with the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts plan to meet with Boston Police Department representatives in the weeks to come to ask that the plan be changed. Boston police say no final decisions will be made for months, and stressed that they're open to input.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm

[LuminousX]

1. Disgusting

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Richardo]

2. That's crap.

Need 1,000+ people to defy this shit in BOTH cities and everywhere smirky goes. Let the arrests be televised.

[donsu]

34. agree

they probably are afraid the repugs will come and cause trouble. so let them. let the world see what the repugs do. let the world see how the police handles it.

of course no one will see it if the TV doesn't show it.

so let the world see what our Media does.

let the light shine.

[bobthedrummer]

36. I agree.

They haven't enough jails for US.
They are sad that we've been peaceful too just asserting our Rights.
They love to use those non-lethal devices on the people if given the chance, the media loves to cover "confrontation" too-but we have learned from the past and it really is worth getting arrested for that right to peaceably assembly for a redress of grievances.

[zbdent]

3. You just beat me, but my link was abc news online

Point is: Why is it unconstitutional for the Dems to have the "free speech zones", and yet it's okay for Bush?

Watch the Repukes join up with the ACLU again when their rights are trampled.

[Goldmund]

8. Let's not get into the "they did it first" rhetoric

Point is, there are citizens whose rights of free speech are being trampled, even if they are freepers. If we want to maintain any credibility at all and any integrity in standing up to our principles, we should be equally outraged at this as we are when it is our rights that are in jeopardy.

[sangh0]

10. Actually, The Dems "did it first"

Free speech zones first made their appearance during the Clinton admin.

[Q]

14. I've heard this RWing talking point before...

...can you provide any kind of link to verify this?

- I remember the Secret Service having to 'detain' protestors all the time for trying to get too close to Clinton or screaming their heads off at him. This is something that would be hard to do from blocks away.

[sangh0]

18. Those were campaign rallies

when Clinton gave speeches, protestors were relegated to "free speech zones". I see if I can find a link

[sangh0]

27. Here's a link to the origins of free-speech zones

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/

"Supreme Court upholds abortion protest limits

The Supreme Court upheld a state law Wednesday requiring anti-abortion demonstrators to stay at least 8 feet away from anyone entering or leaving medical facilities.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, declared that the Colorado law designed to protect the privacy rights of patients and staff members at the clinics did not violate the constitutional free-speech rights of the protesters.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Hill v. Colorado that the law's restrictions on speech-related conduct were constitutional, and states have a special justification to avoid potential confrontations causing trauma to patients at health care facilities...."

This law was supported by the Clinton admin, which wrote amicus curae briefs in support of this law. While not confirmation, our own William RIvers Pitt also times the origins of these zones to the Clinton admin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/25_first.html

"Not so very long ago, protesters outside clinics where abortions are performed were able to get nose-to-nose with women entering and exiting the facilities. They would hand these women flyers, shout verses from the Bible at them, and follow them step for step to the door.

In 1993, a law was passed in Colorado that required protesters to maintain an eight-foot buffer zone around any person within 100 feet of a clinic. The protesters sued, claiming that their First and Fourteenth Amendment protections were being violated.

The case of Hill v. Colorado made it all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. In essence, their refusal to take up the matter affirmed the legality of the buffer zone.

Hill v. Colorado went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 27th, 2000, that court upheld by a 6-3 margin the law mandating the eight-foot buffer. Hill v. Colorado was as permanently fixed a law as any can be...."

[Goldmund]

33. If the "free speech zone"

...consisted simply of not allowing protesters to get closer than 8 feet from delegates, I don't think that anyone would reasonably object. This is different, and can't be justified by concerns for the delegates' safety and prevention of potential harrasment. This is a purely political move, and a bad one at that, since Freepers aren't known to stage massive rallies that would imply a massive opposition to what's said at the convention. How would the democrats be harmed by the sight of a few rag-tag freepers with mispelled signs?

That said, this isn't a political issue but one of principle. Even if they expected a million Bush supporters I would not support restricting their right to protest.

[sangh0]

35. You're missing the point

The SCOTUS decision says nothing about limiting the zone to a 8 foot diameter; It merely describes circumstances that allow the govt to set up zones where free speech is restricted, and places no specific limits on how large those zones can be.

That said, this isn't a political issue but one of principle. Even if they expected a million Bush supporters I would not support restricting their right to protest.

Well, you might object, but this thread is about the Democratic Party, and experience indicates that they would not object. After all, they didn't object to SCOTUS's ruling - They fought for it.

[nannygoat]

42. I may be mistaken but for me the difference is that one

is a free speech zone against the president who works for us and is accountable to us and the other is a zone to protect "regular" Americans who are either going to work in an abortion clinic, or who are patients or people accompanying a patient. To me these are two very different things, especially considering the extreme things that anti-choice protestors have done at abortion clinics (bombings, murder, etc.)

[sangh0]

43. They are the same

The ruling that allows the creation of "free-speech zones" does not distinguish between the zones around clinics and the zones around POTUS. They may be different to you, and that *is* understandable. However, the law makes no such distinction. If it did, it wouldn't be quite so bad.

especially considering the extreme things that anti-choice protestors have done at abortion clinics (bombings, murder, etc.)

And political protestors have assasinated (or tried) elected figures.

[Q]

49. This is what you call the creation of 'free speech zones'...

...under Clinton? I hope you're aware that this is the same position the RWingers take in defending Bush's* 'zones'?

- The decision you're referring to was specific to 'zones' (feet instead of blocks) around family planning clinics.

- Yet...you can't point to the Bush*-type of zones used by Clinton. The reason is because these types of 'free speech' zones are exclusive to THIS administration. The only type of zone you can point to is the clinic example.

[sangh0]

51. Not true

-The SCOTUS decision did not limit the size of the zone to "feet" as opposed to "blocks". Try again.

-The Clinton admin supported the law, and they supported the decision

[sangha]

70. Here's your link

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/14/campaign.protest.01/index.html

"Political rap-rock band Rage Against The Machine plans a free, outdoor concert Monday night across the street from the Democratic National Convention site, forcing police to juggle safety, security and free speech concerns.

The raucous four-piece group, known for supporting numerous causes and whose latest album is called "Battle of Los Angeles," is set to play in a fenced-off protest zone outside the Staples Center. ...

The security precautions include a 12-foot-tall fence separating the official protest area from the convention hall.

Rage Against The Machine, whose latest album has sold 2 million copies, did not need a permit to perform in the area because a federal judge in July approved the protest zone as an open demonstration site. "

[zbdent]

23. I believe that the "free speech zones" started around the economic

summit and abortion clinics.

I believe that the "free speech zone" at that time was a protective wall (or just zone) around an area, protecting the area from the free speech.

In other words, prior to 2001, the US was a "free speech zone", the non-"free" areas were tiny little areas where you weren't allowed to protest.

After 2001, the US is now a non-"free speech zone", and tiny little areas are where you can voice your opinion without fear of arrest.

[sangh0]

28. Yes and no

Yes, it was started around abortioon clinics.

No, the entire US is NOT a non-free-speech-zone. The only non-free speech zones are around abortion clinincs and around the pResident. You can still walk down the street saying whatever you wish.

[zbdent]

40. September 1, 2003, Richfield Ohio was a non-free speech zone

three miles away from where the pResident was scheduled to appear.

All those who decided to voice an opinion (surprisingly including the 6-10 pro-Bush people) were told to stand within a taped-off area. Crossing over the tape was verboten.

In other words, if you carried a sign, and an hour before the pRes rushed through the intersection, if you wanted to cross the street, you pretty much were under police scrutiny.

[Cocoa]

41. this is not about freepers, it's about protests from the left

but, there is good news in this article:

Some observers have predicted fewer protesters in Boston, in part because many of the groups that targeted delegates in Los Angeles are united in their dislike of President Bush.

:-)

[Loonman]

4. Let's see how they like it

Probably not that much.

[Goldmund]

7. Who's the cutie?

[Kinkistyle]

5. Agree with ACLU 100%

Dems can set a good example by not partaking in this unconstitutional "Free Speech Zone" crap. They only further confirm its validity, which takes away one of our most powerful rights - the right to assemble.

[Goldmund]

6. Utter BS. Liberals need to protest this

How awesome would it be if liberal protesters against the "free speech zones" joined and outnumbered the conservatives who will be there to protest the convention?

[Q]

9. It's obvious why Bush* uses these 'zones'...

...but why the Democrats? Why are they participating in this joke of a government and their hatred of civil liberties?

[sangh0]

12. The Dems invented these 'zones'

Again you push the idea that the Dems are changing from what they used to be based on your ignorance of party history. The Dems aren't merely participating in this - they initiated it

[tom_paine]

17. Good question, Q

I have no viable answer.

You know, the Democrats SHOULD try to emulate the Repugs, in intensity, in not-backing-down, and perhaps certain propaganda strategies (though ideally NEITHER Party would have taken this road, now that the Busheviks have created their Lying Sub-Media, wehave to at least counter with a Truthful Sub-Media that can shout just as loudly...ugh! what an awful situation we've been put in by the Busheviks and their "Mein Kampf" propaganda strategies).

But the ONE THING we should emulate them in is their Civil Liberty crushing!

I agree with you on this, Q. It's a bad situation.

And the truth is: a Kerry victory in 2004 only slows down the rush to Empire mostlikely, and maybe even not very much.

The infrastructure of Totalitarianism has asserted itself on the Body Politic exactly as cancer cells do to real bodies.

[K-W]

11. This isnt soley, or probably even primarily the dems decision

This is probably more the cities jurisdiction than the dems. Though im sure they have some part in this area of the planning.

[Q]

13. Looks like we're coming to a point where these ZONES...

...are becoming acceptable to many Americans.

- The Right won't stand up to this...so it's up to the left to do it.

[Atman]

15. This year, no one is staying in any zone

There will be THOUSANDS of demonstrators and protestors at both the DNC and RNC. It will be impossible to detain them behind much of anything, and the crowd controllers better come to grips with this real soon. They are trying to hold the top on a pressure cooker with their bare hands, and with everything at stake this year, if We The People are relegated to caged-animal status just because we disagree with the party bosses...hoo boy.

The whole world WILL be watching. It has the potential to be America's finest hour. Of course, that will all depend upon who's side of the fence you're on.

[Q]

16. And they know this...which is why they'll call in the Guard...

...for extra 'security'.

- Looks like neither the Republicans or the Democrats will tolerate any kind of dissent at their conventions.

[tom_paine]

21. Not ready to go that far and say that, Q

And I must say I never care for your many assertions that the Democrats and the Busheviks are so damned similar.

I agree with your points regarding this article, if true, but the Democrats and the Busheviks ARE NOT THE SAME!

Whatever other problems the Dems have...it's STILL not even close.

[Q]

26. Other assertions aside...

...it looks as if Democrats will use the same 'zones' at their convention that the Bushies use routinely. Do you have any information to the contrary?

- If you look at the sum of all my posts....I've never said the Democrats and Republicans 'are the same'. You shouldn't have to resort to hyperbole to make your point.

- But if you look at recent history....the silence of the Dems can be interpreted as consent. Election fraud, civil rights infractions, corporate and government corruption, Iraq 'war' vote, patriot act...the Dems have consistently enabled Bush* and are practically giving him the next election.

[sangh0]

31. "the Dems have consistently enabled Bush*"???

If they have enabled Bush*, then how can you expect them to oppose what they have "enabled", or is that just more sloganeering?

Stop blaming Dems for what Bush* did. No Dem ordered the military to invade. Only CINC can do that

[Q]

44. Actually...if you believe in the Constitution...

...only the CONGRESS can declare war.

- And please stop apologizing for those who helped (enabled) Bush* in attacking Iraq. Bush* couldn't have 'ordered' anything without the consent ( Iraq war resolution) of many Democrats. You'll never convince anyone that Bush* could have invaded without the Democratic vote.

[sangh0]

46. Bush* never declared war...

--and that is simply proved by pointing to the Constitution, which says "only the CONGRESS can declare war", so by definition, Bush* could NOT have declared war. That is, if YOU really believe in the Constitution, which says "only the CONGRESS can declare war" then you can't also believe that Bush* could also declare war.

--Why do you keep defending Bush* and his responsibility for instigating this invasion?

You'll never convince anyone that Bush* could have invaded without the Democratic vote.

A majority of voters, AND a majority of DUers believe that Bush* was going to invade NO MATTER WHAT.

[burrowowl]

50. What Guard?

They are in Iraq.
These FSZ miles away from what is being protested is utter Fascism!

[NoPasaran]

19. I may be old fashioned

But I remember when the whole country was a free speech zone. This is BS.

[Q]

20. Bush* insists that you're 'free'...

...why don't you believe him?

- Ten commandments is in....Bill of Rights is out.

[GOPisEvil]

22. What a perfectly stupid idea.

Keeping protesters and conventioneers apart makes sense, but I certainly don't mind protesters on the grounds. They have a right to be there and voice their opinions; just as I have a right to ignore them.

[truthspeaker]

24. contact the DNC and voice your objections!

www.democrats.org

[MoonAndSun]

25. Who was surprised by this? I certainly was not. The DNC and the RNC

do not want any publicity that will detract from their "message" to the American people. I do wish that the Dems will rethink this and allow the protesters to be closer to the convention. And address their concerns during the convention. What a concept.

[boobooday]

29. Let them protest

The democrats should strive to uphold the American ideals that the Republicans trash. Let them protest, I say. They usually draw pretty small crowds, and their signs have stupid typos, so really, the just kind of advertise against themselves.

We are the ignorant sheeple!!! Follow us!!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Cat Atomic]

30. This is unacceptable.

It's just sickening, no matter which side is trying to do it.

[Brian Sweat]

32. I respect the right of the parties to host their conventions

without any disruptions, but I don't think that restricting protests to a tiny area blocks away from the event is necessary. Protesters should be restricted from areas were they could disrupt the proceedings. This would pretty much include the sidewalk right in front of the building, but not across the street.

[EV1Ltimm]

37. Eesh... bad PR move.

I hope they change their minds and do something a little more reasonable...

[dawn]

38. I'm going to write the DNC about this.

I'm a district-level delegate and will go to the Convention if my candidate gets enough votes in my state. If I go, I want to hear what the protestors have come to say.

To shuffle them off into a "free speech zone" is suppressing dissent and this will look VERY bad for the Democratic Party. We shouldn't be mimicking Bush*'s policies against free speech. This country was founded on dissent and this suggestion is just awful.

What is going on in this country? All of our freedoms are slipping away...

[sangh0]

39. Free speech zones were created during the Clinton admin

and the Clinton admin supported them.

[Q]

45. Have you offered a link yet...

..for this claim that Clinton 'created' free speech zones? Anything to offer besides your memory?

[sangh0]

47. deleted

.

[sangh0]

48. Be honest

..for this claim that Clinton 'created' free speech zones? Anything to offer besides your memory?

-I never said Clinton created the free speech zones. I said they were created during the Clinton admin, and the Clinton admin supported the law which created them.

-Those of us who understand the English language realize the difference between what you think I said and what I actually did say

-I provided links in your other thread. Maybe you should read your own threads

[Q]

52. But you're trying to confuse the issue...

...of protest against presidents and a law created to allow people to attend a clinic without being molested or harmed.

- The 'free speech zone' is a recent creation of the Bush* administration...where those protesting against HIM are penned off blocks or miles away from where he is appearing.

- You can parse words all you want...but you were attempting to imply that the type of 'zones' used by the Bush* administration were around during the Clinton 'administration'. Otherwise...why the comparison between the family planning 'zones' and Clinton or his administration?

- Are you this fucking rude to everyone...or just us 'lefties'? And why are you using the same arguments that the RWing uses to defend these BUSH* 'free speech' zones?

Quote: Those were campaign rallies when Clinton gave speeches, protestors were relegated to "free speech zones". I see if I can find a link"

- But you didn't give us a link to zones around Clinton campaign rallies/speeches. You gave two links to a SC decision regarding family planning clinics.

- I'll be glad to admit I was wrong if you can provide a link of the same type of 'pens' or free speech zones (blocks or miles away) during the Clinton administration. I simply don't remember there being such a thing.

[sangh0]

54. I confuse nothing. That's your specialty

-Clinton pushed for, and supported the law which is based on a legal principle which is NOT limited to abortion clinics.

-Free speech zones WERE around during the Clinton admin, and they never objected to any of them.

-I'll look for a link documenting Clinton's use of free speech zones during while campaigning.

[Q]

58. I just provided links...

...that suggest you're wrong. The courts wouldn't ALLOW restrictions such as you say were used during the Clinton administration.

- Once again...I'd be glad to say I'm wrong if you can find the necessary links...but I'm not sure they existed in the same FORM used by the Bush* administration. Their may have been some restrictions...but I distinctly remember most of the protests against Clinton being within earshot of the president.

- Besides that...the courts have already ruled on these 'zones'...saying they're illegal and ignore the first amendment.

[sangh0]

61. Your link proves YOU are wrong

If the Clinton admin allowed free speech, then why did someone have to sue the govt in order to be allowed to protest?

I'm not sure they existed in the same FORM used by the Bush* administration. Their may have been some restrictions

-Are you implying that limiting speech by using free speech zones is bad, but using some other method to limit speech is OK?

-Also, above I refuted your claim that Bush* declared war. You haven't responded. Why not?

-You're bg on calling me out when you think I'm not responding, but you have no problem not responding to other people's posts, even in your own threads.

[sangha]

71. And here's your link

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/14/campaign.protest.01/index.html

"Political rap-rock band Rage Against The Machine plans a free, outdoor concert Monday night across the street from the Democratic National Convention site, forcing police to juggle safety, security and free speech concerns.

The raucous four-piece group, known for supporting numerous causes and whose latest album is called "Battle of Los Angeles," is set to play in a fenced-off protest zone outside the Staples Center. ...

The security precautions include a 12-foot-tall fence separating the official protest area from the convention hall.

Rage Against The Machine, whose latest album has sold 2 million copies, did not need a permit to perform in the area because a federal judge in July approved the protest zone as an open demonstration site. "

[Q]

53. Some links...and courts deny Clinton anything resembling a 'zone'...

December 15, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

“Free-Speech Zone”

The administration quarantines dissent.


By James Bovard

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When 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 came 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, though 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. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

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. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service “come in and do a site survey, and say, ‘Here’s a place where the people can be, and we’d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.’” Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?” Continues - http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

------------------------

A Times Editorial


Zones hinder free speech

The president's supporters and detractors have an equal right to stand at the same site, at the same time, and tell him what they think.


© St. Petersburg Times
published November 9, 2002

The name itself is a joke: "First Amendment Zones." The term describes those fenced-off areas designated for protesters at political events. It may seem benign enough, but in reality the zones are another way government controls speech. Protesters are kept so far away from their intended target that their presence becomes almost invisible.

Earlier this month, seven people were arrested outside the USF Sun Dome during a political rally where President Bush was appearing on behalf of his brother Gov. Jeb Bush . The group was charged with trespass for refusing to move into a "First Amendment zone" that had been set up hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome. Their experience is similar to that of three protesters who were arrested last year at a public rally at Legends Field at which President Bush was promoting his tax cuts.

A bedrock free speech principle is that the government cannot give freer rein to some messages than others. Yet, in and around these Bush rallies, supporters of the president were welcome anywhere. It was only those opposing administration policies who were banished to a spit of land out of earshot and eyeshot of the president..."

- And here is a reference to the Clinton administration:

"....Recent court decisions have made it clear that presidents cannot be insulated from dissent. In 1997, when anti-abortion activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney attempted to organize a group of demonstrators along Pennsylvania Avenue for President Clinton's second Inaugural Parade, the National Park Service denied the group a permit. In overruling that judgment, the D.C. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could not have been more blunt: "If the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to 'inject' their own convictions and beliefs into a public event on a public forum, then it is difficult to understand why the Framers bothered including it at all." Continues - http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml

[Q]

55. And this is decidely unConstitutional:

"The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path."

- It's illegal for the SS and police to 'clear the path' of ONLY dissenters...while leaving those who approve of Bush* and his policies.

[sangh0]

57. Who said anything different?

--I haven't said free speech zones are OK. I said that Clinton supported the law that created them, and Clinton supported the SCOTUS decision which upheld them.

--Do you always argue with imaginary opponents? No one is disagreeing with you on this point, so why bring it up? To make it seems like your right and I'm wrong? We both agree on this

[sangh0]

56. That's just wack!

I dont see how articles from AFTER CLinton left office demonstrate that Clinton never used a free speech zone. Furthermore, the article you cite shows that Clinton did limit the free speech rights of protesters. Why did they have to take the Clinton admin to court if their free speech wasn't being limited?

[Q]

59. Read it again:

"....Recent court decisions have made it clear that presidents cannot be insulated from dissent. In 1997, when anti-abortion activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney attempted to organize a group of demonstrators along Pennsylvania Avenue for President Clinton's second Inaugural Parade, the National Park Service denied the group a permit. In overruling that judgment, the D.C. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could not have been more blunt: "If the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to 'inject' their own convictions and beliefs into a public event on a public forum, then it is difficult to understand why the Framers bothered including it at all." Continues - http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml

---

- Are you saying that 1997 was AFTER the Clinton administration? Hmmm.

- The court overruled the Park Service...and it appears the permit was granted.

- But let's get down to the crux of the matter. Do you agree with the idea of 'free speech zones'? Your only position so far is that the same type of zones the Bush* SS is using were used during the Clinton admin. Yet...you still haven't provided a link or reference.

- The argument is that the BUSH* ADMINISTRATION is using them right now to hand-pick audiences that can get anywhere near the president. Even if the Clinton admin. DID use these zones (still no proof of this)...that wouldn't make them any more legitimate or legal.

[sangh0]

62. You read it again

In 1997, when anti-abortion activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney attempted to organize a group of demonstrators along Pennsylvania Avenue for President Clinton's second Inaugural Parade, the National Park Service denied the group a permit.

-Clinton limited people's right to dissent. Does it really matter if he did through free-speech zones or by some other method? Either way, he was trying to stifle dissent.

-No, I don't support free speech zones, and only an idiot would assume that I do since I haven't said ONE WORD in support of them. NEVER

- The argument is that the BUSH* ADMINISTRATION is using them right now to hand-pick audiences

-Are you daft?? Read the first post, which YOU wrote. It's about how DEMOCRATS are using them! Don't you even know what the threads YOU started are about?

[sangh0]

63. No response?

There are six different places in this one thread where I refute your ridiculous claims, and everytime you get nailed you try to ignore it and not respond.

WHat are you afraid of? Why won't you either respond to my refutations or acknowledge your errors?

[Q]

64. Hmmm...

...around and around we go.

- It's weird...but you're not only insulting...but you still haven't shown where FREE SPEECH ZONES existed during the Clinton administration. That the park service tried and failed means nothing.

- You were going to go out and search for a link or article that describes one of these 'pens' in the 90s...but all you've been able to do is resort to questioning MY posts and integrity.

- Let's put an end to this right now. I frankly don't care how you feel about this issue. Why? Because you've got nothing to say beyond your mean spirited posts.

[sangha]

68. Your entire premise is foolish

You keep claiming that the Dems using free-speech zones at theirupcoming convention is an example of the Dems following the Repukes. Whether or not Clinton used a free speech zone, the fact still remains that Dems supported the law, passed the law, signed the law, and defended it in court and all this came BEFORE any Repukes used a free speech zone.

The Dems didn't follow on this one. They led the way. I've shown you that the law was Dem supported before Bush* ever used it, and you still won't admit that you were wrong to say the Dems were following Bush*

You think you can prove you're right by proving I made a mistake on a minor point. Right or wrong on Clinton, I have proved you wrong about the Dems following Repukes.

[sangha]

72. And here's the link

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/14/campaign.protest.01/index.html

"Political rap-rock band Rage Against The Machine plans a free, outdoor concert Monday night across the street from the Democratic National Convention site, forcing police to juggle safety, security and free speech concerns.

The raucous four-piece group, known for supporting numerous causes and whose latest album is called "Battle of Los Angeles," is set to play in a fenced-off protest zone outside the Staples Center. ...

The security precautions include a 12-foot-tall fence separating the official protest area from the convention hall.

Rage Against The Machine, whose latest album has sold 2 million copies, did not need a permit to perform in the area because a federal judge in July approved the protest zone as an open demonstration site. "

[lostnfound]

60. Miami Police chief Timoney to be a consultant

After spending $8 MM of taxpayer's money brutalizing the fair-trade activists in Miami, he's ready to give it a go again.

[ieoeja]

65. Let me help out sangh

I first heard the term "free speech zone" in 1996 referring to the fenced in area up the street from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Didn't like it then. Don't like it now.

* has simply taken this to the next level by surrounding himself with a non-free speech zone everywhere he goes.

[sangha]

69. Thank you

.

[Tinoire]

66. Oh ho ho ho. Is Nader ever going to have fun with this one!

Yet another similiarity ... both parties are afraid of the people.

[kiahzero]

67. As I said before...

How much of this is simply a practical concern? Boston's not exactly a large, open area, and I'd imagine most of the parking in the Fleet Center is going to be taken.

In fact, on my second reading of the article:

<snip>

Being tucked into a small lot, where views of the FleetCenter are likely to be blocked by buses and a forest of TV satelite trucks would render demonstrations virtually worthless, protest advocates said.

<snip>

Mariellen Burns, a spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, said convention organizers will place protesters within sight and sound of delegates, but that the dense urban setting around the FleetCenter makes that task difficult. There are few large open areas near the building, which is in the middle of a busy business district and transportation hub, she said.

"Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that," Burns said.

Convention organizers plan to ask groups who wish to protest near the FleetCenter to apply for permits that would allow them into the free-speech zone at designated times. 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. Police say they have not yet determined policies about protesters outside the zone.

<snip>

[buycitgo]

73. how sad....

but

http://www.commondreams.org/views/051000-104.htm

ironically (?) this sad state of affairs was the genesis of indymedia:

"In Chicago, at the 1996 Democratic Convention, DC’s chief of police Charles Ramsey, was deputy commander of the Chicago police department. The "protest pit" strategy his forces used there greeted activists again in Washington. Relying on heavy cop presence and barricades to block all access to the DNC in Chicago, Ramsey’s forces fenced critics into "free speech" zones -- parking lots miles from the site. He was trying, no doubt, to prevent another ‘68 debacle when police riots made it onto network television.

Ramsey’s tactics in Chicago inspired media activists to collaborate, and the prototype of the IMC was born. To get as much information out as widely as they could, given minimal access and maximum constraint, reporters from different media shared resources, ability and energy, to cover what was not in the mainstream and put the info out onto the world wide web. "Not as many people looked, four years ago," Jay Sands, one of the group’s many coordinators, told me. "But Indymedia took off in Seattle and the habit is catching on." Next stop is Los Angeles, Philadelphia, then Prague. For many, the world wide web will be the only way to see what happens at the IMF’s annual meeting this fall."

if the pugs were smart (but they're not, so they won't do this), they'd get rid of their own FSZs during their NYC convention, or scam it to make it look as if Bloomberg were somehow behind them, despite their protests.

how bad would it make the dems look THEN?

[Q]

74. Looks like both Dems and GOPers use 'free speech zones'...

...but the fact that searches for these zones during the 90s came up with very few hits shows that they weren't put into common use until the Bush* admin.

- We can't disregard the points made about the COURTS rejecting this practice as illegal and unConstitutional. The problem is that the Bush* government has ignored the courts and the law on many issues...the most recent and notable is Cheney ignoring court orders to hand over PUBLIC national energy policy documents.

- This has become similar to other issues...like campaign fianance reform...where if both parties participate it's eventually accepted as the norm.

[sangha]

75. What a shameless argument

-Your claim that the Dems are following the Repugnants has been proven false, but instead of admitting that, you just acknowledge that the Dems have used free speech zones

-Even worse, you minimize the significance of the Dems having supported and initiated the use of free speech zones

-You use a court case that has NOTHING to do with free speech zones (it deals with the denial of a permit, not free speech zones) to falsely claim that the courts have ruled free speech zones illegal when that is just not true. Have you no shame, Q?