home

Only Those Who Agree With the President May Hear Him Speak

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:49:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hey, don't miss this one. It's brilliant.

Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.
Those who wonder how an absolute power to squelch dissent squares with the First Amendment are forgetting that while our unitary president makes our laws (remember signing statements?), no laws actually apply to him. Anyone daring to disagree with the president is dispatched with the bum's rush. Free speech? The unitary president doesn't want to be troubled with nonunitary opinions.

The argument is silly:

Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and this week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush’s.

“They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive,” said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.

Young and Weise were removed from the audience in a public event because of their political viewpoint. Their antiwar bumpersticker may have telegraphed a difference of opinion with the president, but differing opinions are not in themselves disruptive. They are, in fact, the foundation of democratic government. The president and his followers may want to control the message, but they have no right to control the thoughts of everyone else.

If dissenters can be kicked out of the president's audience, can dissenters be kicked out of the president's country for fear that they might become disruptive? Alberto Gonzales should look into it after he's done rehearsing his lies testimony.

< Gonzo: I Was Not The Decider on Prosecutor Purge | 42 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Only Those Who Agree With the President May Hear Him Speak | 99 comments (99 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    We all inhabit this country (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    at the pleasure of the President.

    He doesn't seem to be (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:33:12 AM EST
    enjoying it much.

    Parent
    Yes, but (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by LarryE on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:16:33 AM EST
    The argument is indeed silly but it serves the valuable end of being a startlingly clear and concise expression of the way Bush's acolytes think/

    The Colorado US Attorney (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jazzcattg1 on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:59:31 AM EST
    at the time did not present charges against the Secret Service impostor - must have been a 'good Bushie'.

    We are in trouble.... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:54:44 AM EST
    when it is against the law to try and talk some sense into the president.

    Claw (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    I may be wrong here but don't "visible anti-war protestors" also have a pretty good track record of allowing themselves to be herded in to "free speech zones?"  Also, while I may be unaware of the invisible protestors, I think most laws of physics dictate that protestors must be visible...distasteful as that may be.  Joking aside, you'd think that all the "libertarians" would be apoplectic over this.  But you'd be wrong.  
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Jefferson (Thomas) said that.  He was kind of a smart guy.
    Claw (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    Jefferson also lived in a world in which insults and verbal attacks often led to fighting a duel.

    That probably had a bit to do with the courteous behavior of many people.

    BTW - Enjoy your comments. Why don't you look at the symbols directly above the comment block and learn to use them? It will make your comments much easier to read and undersyand.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#38)
    by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    I fail to see the correlation between my Jefferson quote and duels.  We shouldn't have freedom now because we can't have duels?  Is that it?  I'm also not sure where you're getting your evidence that people were more courteous in Jefferson's day.  
    That's really neither here nor there.  The point is that these people were removed for having anti-war bumper stickers.  They were removed for something they hadn't done or tried to do.  I still--god help me--have a Kerry sticker on my car.  Do I make the cut for hearing the President speak?

    Parent
    That's OK, Claw (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Al on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    PPJ is just trying to find something to object to, without looking as if he's against freedom of expression when it comes to Dear Leader.

    Parent
    Claw (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:25:00 PM EST
    Well, it is unusual that edger and I agree on anything, but we both agree that the purpose of their attendance was to disrupt and get publicity.

    All of the crocodile tears being shed are just that, crocodile tears.

    People are much less courteous today than then. Much less  so than even 30 years ago.

    Parent

    ppj is a f**king liar! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    Well, it is unusual that edger and I agree on anything, but we both agree that the purpose of their attendance was to disrupt and get publicity.
    great job Jeralyn, you consistently support ppj's lying and attacking other commenters. ppj has broken your rules over and over and over.

    I want my donations back. The money I donated to you. The money I could ill afford.  The money I thought would defray your bandwidth expenses.

    But since you get so much $$ from advertising, and you consistently allow ppj to violate your own commenting rules, I think you should refund my money that I have donated.

    Parent

    Every good site needs a TOKEN (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    What kind of fun would it be if this site didn't have a TOKEN WATERBOY from the other team.

    Since I didn't call his entire RACE tokens or water boys this can not in any way be construed as a racists comment according to PPJ.

    Try as he might he only encourages more and more individuals to stray further away from ever becoming conservative or neocon minded. His arguments are crafted for him by daily talking point memos and he tries to mimic every line Dear Leader feeds the loyalists.

    Instead of wanting him banished please consider this: "He is a great practice dummy to actually find out how the authoritarians would respond to questions."

    Besides, I truly believe this Administration has moles all over the blogs doing things like PPJ does. One less mole wouldn't change a thing.

    Parent

    Freewill doesn't know (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    Since "waterboys" aren't a race, you would have been incorrect if you had.

    Can you get nothing right??

    BTW - Here's a deal. First the fine print.

    I am an ex-Democrat now an Independent. I call myself a Social Liberal who is a strong supporter of national defense. Think Scoop Jackson, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ. My positions supporting gay rights, minorities, womens' rights, national health care, tax reform, drug law rationalization, etc. are well known to those on this blog who have been around awhile, and these positions have been stated for about 4 years, and are availanle in the archives.

    Now, since you most likely won't believe what I wrote, you can go to the archives. Or, I will do it for you and provide links. One for each $20.00 you contribute to TL. (Somebody has to pick up sailor's slack.)

    You really should hang around long enough to know what is what before you start pounding the old keyboard. It will help prevent you from making even more mistakes.

    Have a nice day.

    BTW - Your problem is that you think supporting the war and being a liberal are mutally exclusive positions. They aren't.

    BTW - "Lefties" and "Righties" are on the same coin, just oppositie sides on a few issues.

    Parent

    As usual (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:17:43 AM EST
    you're disconnected from reality. Freewill has already seen through you, ppj - you just haven't noticed.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    I make you the same offer my lippy friend.

    Have a nice day.

    BTW - You ready to retract what yoy wrote as a mistake, or are you going to continue to agree with me?

    Have a nice day, edger.

    And remember. Edges are sharp things to set on.

    Parent

    I'm having a wonderful day, ppj! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    Watching you self-destruct and watching the continuing implosion of the bush administration always makes my day. :>)

    You try to have a day too, ok? Heh!

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    Well thank you edger. There's nothing like enjoying a cup of coffeee on the deck of my palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ stand using my new lap top in its wireless mode to communicate with one of the workers (??) of the world working away...

    Yes, life is good. Aren't you glad I didn't take your suggestion?

    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM.......

    ....This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...

    Jim... you know how to use a gun?

    Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...

    You only need one, though...

    If I had done that, who else would here to point out the flaws in your arguments??

    Parent

    Hah! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    I guess I was wrong again, ppj.

    You obviously have a endless supply of them. You keep using them to shoot yourself in both feet.

    Thanks for being you! ;>)

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    No problem big guy.

    Now excuse me. One of the solid gold bathroom fixtures has been leaking and one of the worker bees have showed up to fix it.

    Sigh...... I do hate to be disrupted.

    Parent

    Yes, it's rough (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    For them that must obey authority That they do not respect in any degree Who despise their jobs, their destinies Speak jealously of them that are free Cultivate their flowers to be Nothing more than something They invest in.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    Please. No more of these.... I am crying and crying over you.

    Parent
    Hi (none / 0) (#100)
    by Freewill on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    Peek-a-boo

    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    Set a while?? With edger?

    Heck, I don't even want to be around him. Or you.

    yadda yadda

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:55:39 PM EST
    Here is what he wrote.

    Booting Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman out of a speech by shrub impinges
    "on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see" ...which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech and the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

    This is what I wrote in response:

    .You are saying that these two wanted to see how many showed up... no... they wanted to disrupt the proceedings for publicity purposes. Oh. Okay. Well, yes. I agree.

    Now, let's see.

    which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech

    That certainly says what I wrote. And edger obviously means that he thinks they were looking for how many agreed with them. Now, if you are just going to listen, why do you need to know who many people agree with you and could join with you?

    Then:

    the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

    Here again, edger makes a point. "petulant little boy response" and "have it recorded..."

    petulant

    insolent or rude in speech or behavior
    2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor :

    Now, if there was to be no disruption, in edger's mind, why would there be a petulant response?

    edger clearly states that they showed up to see how many of like minded was there, do what was needed to be done to provoke a response and "have it recorded."

    That clearly agrees with my position.

    sailor, you might try reading before you jump off the cliff.

    BTW - I have made no attack on edger, and my comments have been calm and reaonable.

    Unlike your nasty ill-tempered and inaccurate remarks.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    Again, the courteous thing is kind of irrelevant.  But by my math, 30+ years ago people were having fire hoses turned on them and being attacked by police dogs.  This, to me, seems discourteous.  
    A few things:
    1. We don't like to charge people for things they might do (without attempt which is in itself a crime).  Why?  Well, one reason is that most people aren't mind readers.  
    2. We have a long and, I think, distinguished tradition of civil disobedience.  And that is making the HUGE assumption that these people were there to do anything other than hear a speech by their President.
    3. You have not addressed my question as to whether or not I am eligible to hear Bush speak.  I have a bumper sticker on my car that demonstrates the fact that I do not like our current President.  By your logic, I am a prime threat to disrupt his speech.
    4. I don't know if you've ever defended the rights of those who wish to protest abortion clinics. If you ever have, I fail to see how your argument here squares with that.  They are extremely disruptive and abusive.  And they are abusing people who don't have the secret service at their disposal.  


    Parent
    Claw... The truth comes out (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    1. I have never said they should be charged.

    2. What is civil about disrupting other people's right to move about, attend events, etc?? Do they have no rights?

    3. I was not aware I was supposed to answer all of your questions.

    Wnat the rest of the story?

    The three, who are members of the Denver Progressives (search) political activist group, did have T-shirts tucked under their business attire calling for Bush to "stop the lies" but a plan to brandish them during the program had been abandoned earlier and the shirts never saw the light of day, Recht said.

    Sure......

    "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." ;-)

    Secret Service (search) in Denver told the three the next day that the bumper sticker on their car, which read "No More Blood for Oil," a common anti-Iraq war slogan, triggered the ejection.

    And the T-Shirts??? Oh. They had them hid?? Gee, it just gets worse for these folks.

    Link

    Pretty simple. They had tickets. If they had tickets their names were checked as a matter of security. The check showed their politics. They show up with T shirts under their suits...

    And got asked to leave.

    Well, duhhhhhhhhh. More evidence that edger and I are aright. Way to go edger! What a team we are!

    5. Why would you think that I have defended the rights of those picketing abortion clinics? Remember how "assume" is spelled.

    I defend everyone's right to demonstrate as long as they don't destroy property and stomp on the rights of others.

    BTW - I wonder why the info I dug wasn't mentioned....

    Parent

    Stop it, you're killing me (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:47:19 AM EST
    Your "truth," which contains nothing that has not been known from he beginning, is a worthy contribution to this thread.

    I noted early on that the lawyers' argument

    is indeed silly but it serves the valuable end of being a startlingly clear and concise expression of the way Bush's acolytes think.
    Your attempt here, a wonderful example of the right wing attitude "truth is what we say it is," is a nice addition. I mean, just look at the very quotes you pulled from the link you "dug out." (Yeah, I'm sure it was a major investigative effort. Well, for you, anyway.)

    1. What you insist on calling an intent to "disrupt" the event was, at most, an intent to display t-shirts. T-SHIRTS? OMIGOD! HOW DARE THEY! HOW RUINOUS TO OTHERS' RIGHTS! I MEAN, MY GOD, T-SHIRTS? OH, THE HUMANITY!

    2. By the quote you cited, even that idea had been "abandoned."

    3. By the quote you cited, the pair was barred entry from a public event for which they had tickets, specifically because of a bumper sticker on their car. Not because of anything they did and not because the Secret Service had any information saying they planned to do anything. That is, they were denied entry precisely and avowedly because of their political opinions. (You remember, opinions. I'm sure you've heard of the word.)

    And what do you conclude from this?

    Well, duhhhhhhhhh.

    Reasonable translation "Well, of course they were kicked out. Legitimately! Of course! How could it be otherwise? Only pro-Bushies can be allowed in a public forum! The mere presence of an opposing thought is an affront to good order!"

    You are a buffoon. And unworthy of further response.

    Parent

    Don't underestimate t-shirts (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST
    Shirts exert weird influences over Bush audiences.  There's something about the written word and unusually soft cotton that make it impossible for anybody in the room to concentrate:  

    Mrs. Sheehans freedom of [shirt-]speech should not impede my right to hear the President, nor should it impede my right to do so in a peaceful and tranquil manner. I am very pleased that the police arrested her and removed her.


    Parent
    LarryE (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    You demonstrate a startling lack of ability to understand.

    Yes, I did some research since I don't believe everything the press tells me, or in this case, doesn't tell me.

    Was it difficult? Well it must have been too difficult for you, edger, squeaky, Frerwill, Claw, Sailor, etc. because none of you did it.

    You just took the post, swallowed it whole and ran with it... Wanna tell me about "mind numbed robots?"  "Dittoheads?" Can you explain the difference between the Left's seekers of truth and them?????

    The issue is "disruption." Now. Since these people were going into an location filled with partsian Bushies, if you didn't want to attract attention and get a response, why would you wear a "T-Shirt" with a political message on it?

    Come on. Think. Try harder. You can do it.

    And yes. At some point they intended to show them, else they wouldn't have put it on. Had they given up on the idea? Well, that's what they now claim.

    I think it is pretty simple. They had tickets. So they, and everyone else with tickets, were checked out by the Secret Service for security purposes. Their political stance was noted and their names passed around. When they showed up, someone in the security detail saw them parking the car and passed the information re the bumpersticker on... the T Shirts, visible under the suit coats, sealed the deal and they were bounced.

    Parent

    Truths and made-up stuff (none / 0) (#93)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    There's no solid support for any of these claims:


    1. The SS was aware of the ejectees' politics.  Since protest groups don't exactly register their membership with the government, the only way the SS could know about it is if the ejectees had been especially vocal or had been arrested in a previous protest.

    2. Their shirts were visible.  Your source says they were "tucked under business attire", which could mean under a suit jacket, or under a dress shirt.  Visible or invisible.  It gets cold in Denver in March; a t-shirt under a suit jacket seems inadequate (but I'm accustomed to Texas, so this point may be BS).  Since their goal was to hide their shirts, I'm inclined to think the shirt were invisible unless the SS searched them thoroughly.

    3. They were going to disrupt the speech.

    I can actually almost give you #3, even though it's contradicted by your own source.  Based on the information we have now, it's at least a credible guess that they really were going to raise a ruckus.  Your article says they changed their minds, but that's probably just repeating their claim to have changed their minds, and they aren't exactly unbiased sources on the matter.  If they say they just wanted to hear the speech, they get sympathy.

    However, because #1 and #2 are unsupported, it looks like the only information the decision was based on was the presence of the bumper sticker.  Or, to quote your source:

    Secret Service (search) in Denver told the three the next day that the bumper sticker on their car, which read "No More Blood for Oil," a common anti-Iraq war slogan, triggered the ejection.

    So you should go back to defending the choice to eject people based on bumper stickers, not based on other information that made known only after the fact.

    Parent

    roy - good morning (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    I think it is pretty simple. They had tickets. So they, and everyone else with tickets, were checked out by the Secret Service for security purposes

    I think... You think.... differently. But you have to agree that anyone who had tickets were known, and checked out by the Secret Service. That's just common sense. This the Pres, not a book signing.

    Let's have a beer.

    As more information becomes available, positions change. I initally started because:

    a. I'm really tired of, in general, the Left thinking it has the right to demonstrate, disrupt other's lives, right to travel/move about in the name of "free speech." We all know that "free speech" isn't the issue, what they want is to attack/embarass Bush. Hey, works for me. Just don't do it on my nickel.

    b. As usual the press is better at leaving things out than putting them in. Why in this case? The news was them being bounced, not "why." Is that bias? Probably. And probably the "press" would not even see that haven't told the whole story.

    And yes, the bumpersticker thing was thin gruel until I found the T-Shirt link.

    Cancel the beer. I have to go replace my tomatoes and peppers that were killed in the record cold wave of last week.

    Damn Global Warming.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:41:11 PM EST
    "The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
    Wouldn't you agree, ppj?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    Agree with what? Are you trying to make a point?

    Are you heavy into cartoons? Is your favorite Donald or Mickey??

    Parent

    What's Bush afraid of? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    Here was a chance for the president to use his oratory skills to persuade a couple critics that his way is the right way.  A chance to state his case.  And what does he do?  He gets the critics ejected.  Very telling I think.  Not to mention the critics help pay his freakin salary, for christs sake.

    And isn't is standard operating procedure to wait for a disruption before ejecting somebody for causing a disruption?   lilybart's thought crime analogy is right on the mark.

    OOOOh, this is sooo complex, free speech!!! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by walt on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    I phoned my old friend Fredo & he checked with his boss, & here's the interpretation.

    The official line will be that just as there is no mention of abortion (or any right thereto) & no mention of a right to habeas in the Constitution, then there is no mention of a right to hear a speech, either.

    The Constitution very clearly gives citizens the right to make a speech.  But there is no right to hear one.  This clever interpretation could cut both ways, however.  The two perpetrators of bumper sticker philosophy have no right to hear Bu$h xliii speak; equally, though, if the two potential disrupters had actually been allowed in & committed 3rd degree disruption or 4th degree holding of signage (or some such), that would have been OK because none of the other people in the audience have the right to hear the speech either--because there is no such right in the Constitution.

    In the end, of course, this case will be right up there with E. Bunny v. S. Klaus and D. Webster v. Scratch, or even perhaps U.S. v. Libby in importance.  Stunning, really, to prove that there is no right to hear a speech.  The rethuglicans can keep almost every citizen out of these events.  How quaint!

    While I sympathize... (none / 0) (#5)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:54:16 AM EST
    I have some sympathy for your point here, but - given the track record of disruption by anti-war people at public events, I understand their removal as well.  Dissent and disruption are two different things, and the anti-war movement need only look in the mirror to see why many people now put the two together.  

    I see (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    given the track record of disruption by anti-war people at public events, I understand their removal as well.

    So you want these people punished, not for anything they did, but for what others did in other places at other times.

    Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?  

    Did that thought die after you tortured it so terribly?

    Parent

    RePack - Huh? (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    Punished?

    When is being denied the right to disrupt an event, "punishment?"

    Parent

    Easy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    When is being denied the right to disrupt an event, "punishment?"

    When there is no "disruption."

    Duh.

    Did that thought die after you tortured it?

    Parent

    Repack (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    When did disrupting an event become a right?

    In your mind.

    Parent

    PPJ swings for the gutter and misses (none / 0) (#62)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    When did disrupting an event become a right?

    You will have to show me where I said that anyone had a "right" to disrupt an event, because anyone who says I did is a liar.

    Agreed?

    So since I said nothing of the sort, perhaps you are responding to one of the voices in your head that only you hear.

    Please tell me how these people "disrupted" the event.  Please.

    PLEASE.

    Parent

    funny ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    ... who knew the ppj and rethugs could read minds?

    There is zero evidence of the Denver 3 doing anything improper.

    Parent

    They didn't disrupt (none / 0) (#7)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 08:39:04 AM EST
    They had a bumper sticker on their car out in the parking lot. That is different than a protester (who I also think should be allowed in). You can't eject someone who is not disrupting.
    The SS innoculates W from ever thinking someone might disagree.

    Parent
    Minority Report, the film (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    was about the government taking pre-emptive action against people for thought crimes that the gov believed would manifest into real crimes.

    Now protesting IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN A DEMOCRACY and not a crime, but if you think the government is allowed to pre-emptively keep people out, we are done as a democracy if people who think like you do are allowed to win.

    Parent

    Lilybart (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    Uh, I repeat what I said to RePack.

    When is being denied the right to disrupt an event, "punishment?"

    Or a "crime?"

    And I have enjoyed many sci-fi/fantasy films, actually collect magazines/books and have over 3000....

    That doesn't mean that I believe...

    As to "right to protest," are you agreeing with me that was the intent of this pair?

    If so, I would say that they had the right to protest, but away from the event so as to disrupt the rights of those who wanted to see/hear. I hate to tell you this, but others have rights.

    See my lengthy reply to edger.

    Parent

    My sons (none / 0) (#41)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    went to a concert with me last night. I guess we should have been ejected because my younger son looks like he'd have a hard time sitting still.

    We might have disrupted the event so we should be kept out. How silly of me to even think we should show up.

    Actually the ladies behind us rattled their programs far louder than any wiggling my son was doing.

    Parent

    Carolyn - Not the same, but (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    There are people who would tell you that there are places young children shouldn't be taken because they will quite likely disrupt the movie, the dinner, the concert, etc.

    I'm not 100% there, but they do have a point.

    Parent

    BTW (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    I'm all for public flogging of  people who let their cell phones ring during the movie, church, etc.

    Parent
    What track record? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Al on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    Elaborate, please. Give examples.

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    In related news, ppj noted that the sun came up this morning.

    Parent
    It's a daily event. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    In related news, ppj noted that the sun came up this morning.

    In the west.

    Just like every other morning.


    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 08:40:27 AM EST
    The brief filed by Mr. Gallagher and other lawyers refers to a 1992 case involving a woman who wore a button supporting Bill Clinton for president as she tried to enter a campaign rally in support of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle. She was denied entry until she removed the button.

    A lawyer for Ms. Weise and Mr. Young, Martha Tierney, said that case was different because the event was sponsored by the Strongsville, Ohio, Republican Party, a private entity. "I think if the court adopts this argument, they'll essentially gut the First Amendment in terms of viewpoint discrimination," Ms. Tierney said.

    Both cases are the same, and hinges on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see without being disrupted by someone who could express/publish/broadcast/blog whatever they wanted without also denying the righs of others.

    In the end, this is no different than someone losing control of themselves and running onto a baseball/football field, smoking in a no smoking area, talk over a cell phone in a movie, etc. It violates the rights of others.

    I get it. (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    A Clinton button is So offensive it trumps free speech rights because of the people who may be 'bothered' seeing a campaign button? Since that was a  repub event, maybe the property rights trump.

    But in this case it was an open speech by the Pres, not a political event. And these folks were just going to listen.

    Disrupting a large private event is miles away from merely attending a public event. And smoking in a non-smoking area either breaks a law or private property rights. So your examples don't apply here.

    Parent

    Carolyn (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    I often heard in my youth that your rights end where my nose begins.

    No one has lost their freedom of speech. As I noted they can "express" themselves in any number of ways.

    And you have no knowledge of what they were going to do.

    What they have lost is their right to bother/disrupt the freedom of action enjoyed by others, irrespective of location or type of event.

    In general the Left demonstrates that they don't understand that simple point.

    Parent

    What the bush sycophants have lost, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    though they have still to comprehend it, is their right to bother/disrupt the freedom of action enjoyed by others, irrespective of location or type of event, especially the freedom to exercise their rights, without the whole world seeing through it and condemning them for it.

    In general [many of the sycophants] demonstrate that they don't understand that simple point.

    Yet.

    Parent
    Different right (none / 0) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    No one has lost their freedom of speech. As I noted they can "express" themselves in any number of ways.

    Freedom of speech is not the only right guaranteed in the Constitution.  They also have the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Parent

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    And no one says they can't.

    They just can't do it in the middle of an event that other people are excercising their right to attend.

    Parent

    just keep lying ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    ... about a non-existent disruption.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    They just can't do it in the middle of an event that other people are excercising their right to attend.

    Are you saying that these people disrupted the event?

    How did they do that?  By pulling into the parking lot with a "No blood for oil" bumper sticker?

    How did that "disrupt" anything?

    I await your answer with bated breath.  It should be good.

    Parent

    Sorry, you are wrong again. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    The issue in question involves a WHITE HOUSE event with the President, who is supposed to be the president of all the people NOT just Republicans.

    And don't forget the President is the employee of the people.

    And the two women in question had done nothing to suggest they might cause a disruption, which is not illegal anyway.

    So, they had NO RIGHT to keep them away.

    And I cannot believe I am wasting time trying to make you see the facts here.

    Parent

    Lilybart (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    I guess you have never heard of a sports team referred to as YOUR Denver Broncos.

    The issue is really the right of people to attend an event, be it a speech, sports game, dinner at a resturant, a political speech, or a speech by a politican (Bush in this case, etc., without it being disrupted.

    See my response (above) to Carolyn.

    BTW - Neither of us have the slightest knowledge of what their intent was.

    Parent

    Preemptive this, Preemptive that.... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    Preemptive audience sorting?

    They must have spent millions of dollars in conservative think tanks to come up with these strategies and defensive lines of argument. The words and actions of Preemptive measures must have been tried and liked by the base because I can't believe those who proclaim that they are dedicated, loyal Patriots to this Nation would allow these types of actions to exist in a Democracy.

    It's really scary when the President and his Attorney General have the power to determine who is and who is not a terrorist enemy of this nation and to watch the selective nature of his "PUBLIC EVENTS". Is it true then, "Your either with us or you are against us" applies to U.S. Citizens as well? Who is US?

    The argument "well, they might have become disruptive no one really knows what their intent was" does not entitle separation of tax-paying U.S. Citizens who are actively participating in a Democracy.

    Jim I read your comments and now I'm starting to understand why Iraq is in the turmoil that it is. Just how does our current President and his Administration define Democracy?

    Parent

    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    They spent millions of dollars??? Wow. They must be slow.

    It took me zero time to see that this is a conflict between people having the right to travel, assemble, etc. without being disrupted and bothered versus what, in general, the Left believes is its right to do what it pleases anywhere, anytime and for any reasons.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#75)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    Do all lefties disrupt?

    Do righties disrupt?

    Are you disruptive to this site?

    They spent millions of dollars??? Wow. They must be slow.

    I believe it's called a tax credit those kind of individuals and somehow conducting studies on Preemptive anything allows friends and loyalist to be employed. Plus it fires up the base! Preemptive Wars, Preemptive Negotiations, Preemptive pulling out, just attach Preemptive <add noun> and their base gets all fuzzy and tingly inside.  

    I'm only joking about the spending of millions. Sarcasm, the lost art of mine when discussing anything to parrots of this current Administration. For some reason I'm not funny to them. Go Figure?

    Parent

    Freewill (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    You ask if all lefties disrupt?

    versus what, in general, the Left believes is its right to do what it pleases anywhere, anytime and for any reasons.

    I there anything more I can explain to you?

    Parent

    Damn that Freedom (none / 0) (#99)
    by Freewill on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    I'm really wondering what the RIGHT and in your case Independents considers FREEDOM?

    I'm still waiting for that slightest hint that both you Jim and I have in common. Haven't found it yet but there still is hope.

    Parent

    Right again. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    Neither of us have the slightest knowledge of what their intent was.

    So there was no reason to or point in depriving them of their constitutional rights by ejecting them.

    After all, you don't want to start sentencing people without evidence. Right?

    That would like... well... lynching them.

    Glad you agree. You're making progress today.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    The fact I don't know has nothing to do with what the people on scene believed.

    Please try to be logical.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter what the thugs believed (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    What matters is the suppression of Americans' most basic rights.

    There was no disruption ... except by the thugs kicking Americans out of an event paid for by Americans.

    Parent

    You said it, bro' (none / 0) (#60)
    by LarryE on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    I don't know

    That's it in a nutshell. You don't know! And neither did the goons at the event know. They did not know and could not know the pair's intent. Rather, they took it on themselves to decide to ban from a public meeting anyone who was not a Bush supporter based solely - solely - on an assumption about their purpose in being there.

    And yes, improperly banning someone from a public meeting (and yes, doing it on the basis of presumption is improper), preventing them from fully taking part in public civic activities openly available to others, is a violation of rights.

    I don't know

    Really? You've seemed pretty damn sure for someone who "doesn't know."

    • "they have lost is their right to bother/disrupt the freedom of action enjoyed by others" (comment 17)

    • (misquoting Edger) "they wanted to disrupt the proceedings for publicity purposes ... I agree" (comment 23)

    • "denied the right to disrupt" (comments 36 and 37)

    • "agreeing with me that it [i.e., disruption] was the intent of this pair" (comment 37)

    • "the purpose of their attendance was to disrupt and get publicity" (comment 45)

    Hilariously, these last ones came after you admitted you didn't know their intent! It's wonderfully amusing how you can just make up arguments as you go along or just ignore your own words.

    I don't know

    Yeah, that pretty much sums up all of your arguments, doesn't it?

    Parent

    LarryE (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    It is called an "opinion." I'm sure you are aware of the word. Perhaps it is the shock of finding out that people have opinions that disagree with your world view that is causing you problems.

    BTW - In this case, my opinion has just been bolstered by some facts. Read:

     

    Claw... The truth comes out (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:51:25 PM EST

    for "The Rest of the Story..."

    Parent

    You're getting desperate (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:02:09 AM EST
    It is called an "opinion."

    Opinions usually have some sort of internal consistency, even if only a general one. Instead, from you we got

    I don't know their intent.
    They intended to disrupt.
    But I don't know their intent.
    But they intended to disrupt.
    But I don't....

    That's not an opinion, that's blathering double-talk and champion flip-flopping, abandoning all notions of consistency in favor of spouting whatever seemed useful at a particular moment. Then again, that's nothing new for you.

    You argue like a child, replacing logic with sullen stubbornness and favoring lame stick-your-tongue-out attempts at barbs over dealing with what others actually say. Which is a shame, 'cause you seem like a smart guy. Hopefully, someday your emotional age will catch up to your chronological one.

    Parent

    Exactly, ppj! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:09:11 AM EST
    Booting Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman out of a speech by shrub impinges
    "on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see"
    ...which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech and the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

    In fact it impinges on the rights and the express wishes of about 70 percent of the population, who are strongly in favor of the constitutional civil rights of people like Casper and Klinkerman to voice their opposition
    "without being disrupted by someone who could express/publish/broadcast/blog whatever they wanted"
    ... especially by a sick and twisted little freak like dubya.

    Only peasants would argue differently, so I'm glad you agree.

    When did you comes to your senses and start opposing the war and standing up for constitutional rights, btw?

    It certainly took you awhile, but hey - better late than never, right?

    Parent
    edger is wrong again...sigh (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    Booting Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman out of a speech by shrub impinges
    "on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see" ...which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech and the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

    ...You are saying that these two wanted to see how many showed up... no... they wanted to disrupt the proceedings for publicity purposes. Oh. Okay. Well, yes. I agree.

    In fact it impinges on the rights and the express wishes of about 70 percent of the population, who are strongly in favor of the constitutional civil rights of people like Casper and Klinkerman to voice their opposition.

    The point is, of course, that their freedom of expression has not been removed, no more than the right to scream fire in a theater, or say disruptive things at an airport security location. For example, do you believe you have the right to scream, "I hate Bush!" at an airport security location? Do you understand that others might miss their flights because of your actions? Would you consider this proper?

    The proof of this is displayed vividly in the many forums they have been allowed to speak in, including the legal forum.

    The issue of course is the desire, in general, by the Left to say and do whatever they want to do to attack Bush, the war, etc., irrespective of the place and the desires of others at that place. There are words that describe that attitude. Here they are from a previous comment by you.

    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Hmmm, pretty plain, eh? While emoting over what you see as a loss of rights in this instance, you announce that you will do what ever necessary to disrupt/prevent the excercise of the rights of those you disagree with.

    Can you say, "double standard?"

    All in all you just prove again that like a child who can have all the candy in its home, you throw a fit when told you can't have all the candy in the supermarket check out line.

    Parent

    You mean (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    You're NOT making progress?

    All you can do is try to misrepresent what I said?

    Jeeze, and I had such high hopes for you, ppj.

    I guess you're right. I was wrong to hope, obviously.

    Parent
    "no different" (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by roy on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    One involves disrupting others, one doesn't.  That's a big honkin' difference.

    You keep attacking a disruptive straw man.  The men who were removed did not disrupt anything.  Having a bumper sticker or wearing a button is not disruptive.

    And yes, there is a correlation between expressing anti-war sentiments and disrupting pro-war events.  That doesn't strip the anti-war sentiment of its protected status.  By treating it as though it were disruptive, or by acting as though it assured disruption later, the SS agents were in fact punishing expression rather than disruption.  

    When the agents' lawyers claim otherwise, they're just going to extremes to advocate for their clients.  Good for them.  Defense attorneys are supposed to come up with creative legal interpreations to get their clients off.  But they're wrong.

    BTW, I've been near stickers and buttons before, including some that I didn't agree with.  Know what?  I could still hear.  I could still see.  I could still think.  It's fair to assume that the attendees have an attention span greater than that of a gnat with an tragic mental deficiency.

    (I wrote this comment while displaying a Nader campaign poster on my other monitor, thus demonstrating that being near disagreeable text is not disruptive)

    Parent

    Correction -- not SS agents (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by roy on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    But still, as best I can figure, working on behalf of the government.  My argument still applies.

    Damn Nader...

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM EST
    Read edger's comments. He also agrees that they were there to disrupt... Where they? None of us know.
    I'm just using past events, which is an often used method of predicting future events.

    The fact that you and I would not be bothered and act unreasonably proves nothing.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by roy on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    I was not aware that Edger's agreement was adopted as a standard of evidence for government action.  Regardless of whether he thinks that they were going to disrupt (I'm having a hard time deciphering him this morning), the only evidence supporting that conclusion is bumper stickers.  That makes bumper stickers a hell of a lot more important than Edger's opinion.

    I'm just using past events, which is an often used method of predicting future events.

    Yes, Bush events get disrupted.  And yes, they get disrupted by people who disagree with Bush.  But is that really a good enough predictor in a case like this?  If 70% of the people disapprove of Bush, that's about 150 million adults.  How many will ever disrupt an event?  If it's even 1 million (which is so generous to your argument that I'm going to claim it as a donation on my taxes), then it's not just an inadequate predictor, it's a piss-poor one.

    So, do you think there was some other reason to expect that the two men would disrupt the event?  Or will you concede that their professed anti-war attitude was a bad reason to remove them?

    (I know you're thinking to yourself, but, but, but, there is such a strong correlation between being anti-Bush and disrupting pro-Bush events.  Yes, but it's a correlation in the wrong direction.  90% of X may be Y, but that doesn't mean that 90% of Y are X.)

    The fact that you and I would not be bothered and act unreasonably proves nothing.

    That's actually a fair point.  I was trying to be colorful at the cost of precision; half the reason I posted was to make that Nader joke.

    I can only appeal to my personal experience in that I don't know anybody who, while sitting inside a building and listening to a speaker, would be disrupted by a bumper sticker located outside the building.  

    Do you?  Or, if you're like to go beyond mere personal experience, upon what evidence or reasoning do you base your belief that anybody would be bothered by the bumper sticker?

    And yes, you do have to defend the idea that the bumper sticker was disruptive.  If you want to conflate the bumper sticker with direct disruption  like shouting, please address it to somebody else.

    (This comment was written with a picture of the cover of Atlas Shrugged on my other monitor, as a control)

    Parent

    Roy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    There is no evidence to show they were there to disrupt, and I did not in any way agree with ppj's unfounded assertion that they were there to disrupt.

    Both of his claims are intentional dishonest misrepresentations of my earlier comment, a tactic used by him to try to elicit denial of something not said, to attempt to have people responding to his claims rather than ridiculing his support of depriving Casper and Klinkerman of their right to protest with their bumpersticker, and his support of ejecting them from the speech.

    Parent
    edger - shorter (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:22:56 PM EST
    You didn't understand what I thought I didn't say.

    Parent
    PPJ channels Nixon (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    "I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

    RMN


    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    LOL

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:54:55 PM EST
    Well, what was going to cause his "petulant" display that was to be recorded?

    Look, if you want to say your comment was confusing and that you misspoke, be my guest. But short of that, no.

    Of course all of this is opinion, bolstered by the new "T Shirt" information, and since they were asked to leave before they could use them, we have no way of knowing what they would have done, or if their claim of changing their mind is accurate.

    But they didn't accidentally put on the T shirts.. so to paraphrase Jimmy Carter..

    At some point they (at least) disrupted in their hearts.

    ;-)

    Parent

    roy (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    See my:

     

    Claw... The truth comes out (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:51:25 PM EST

    And you didn't know edger was an authority???

    Where have you been?? ;-)

    Hate to have ignored your joke... what are fellow bloggers for??

    uh... And I think you know it wasn't the bumpersticker that would be disrupting....

    Parent

    ouch (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    Were they?

    Parent
    What rights are these? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Al on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    ...hinges on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see

    What rights are these? Where are they enacted?

    And don't trivialize the right to protest against an obscene war by comparing it to smoking bylaw violations and the like. We're talking about life and death here.

    Parent

    The press will report the disruption of the (none / 0) (#9)
    by JSN on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    speech instead of the speech and it cuts both ways. If the speech is in a public place and is open to the public not much can be done about that. If it is not open to the public and is in a private place they probably can exclude anyone. Even the Quakers have caretakers (bouncers) to exclude troublemakers.

    We had a case in Cedar Rapids where two women were arrested who were on a sidewalk across the street from the building where Bush was to speak. It seems to me that a sidewalk is a public place.
    I suspect there was a bomb threat in that particular case.

    Try reading what I said (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    If you read my comment above, it made a simple point: Visible anti-war protesters have a track record of disrupting speeches.  They've done it over and over again, for years.  This is an example of "ruining it for the whole class", nothing more.  

    If I go to give a technical talk at a conference, and there's a track record of people who disagree with the topic yelling and screaming during talks on the topic at hand, what's the appropriate thing to do when some dissenters show up?  Remove them, so that the people who want to hear the talk can hear it?  or let them ruin the day for everyone?

    Everyone has a right to dissent.  That doesn't give them a matching right to spoil events by acting like a 2 year old who must be the center of attention at all times.

    You have it upside down, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    backwards, and inside out, as usual, jarobster.

    It's not so much that "Visible anti-war protesters have a track record of disrupting speeches" as it is that visible warmongers have a track record of disrupting anti-war protests, by depriving protesters of their rights.

    You were close, but you're just looking at it from the RWNJ side of the mirror. Listen to ppj.

    Parent
    Remove them WHEN they disrupt (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by lilybart on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    IF they disrupt the speech, as in your example, then you might be justified in throwing them out.

    But all they did was have the WRONG bumpersticker on their car. there was no evidence of any bad intent.

    Anyone here  arguing that it was right and proper to assume bad intent, is just wrong and this kind of thinking is very dangerous to a thriving democracy.

    And when leaders are sheilded from the people they serve, it is also the people's right to yell out to the president if they can actually find the guy.

    Authoritarians prefer that all is "civil" and no one is allowed to raise a messy dissent in public. How can the others fully enjoy Dear Leaders remarks if someone dares to tell him he is full of it?

    Rumsfeld had one thing right: Democracy is messy.

    Parent

    Lilybart (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    The problem with that is that after they have disrupted and after they have their media event, it is to late.

    Your right to be messy ends ay lap.

    Parent

    Just so we're clear (none / 0) (#63)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    The problem with that is that after they have disrupted and after they have their media event, it is to late.

    I guess that's the problem with any crime.  You have to wait until it's been committed to react to it.  Since this is not yet the Stalinist Soviet Union, we can't put people in jail for what they might think about doing.

    So what's your "solution?"  Arrest everyone before they can commit a crime?  What was it about the attendees in Denver that justified throwing them out?  

    As far as I can tell, and you may correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that their "impure thoughts" were enough, but how did the thugs who threw them out determine the [im]purity of their thoughts?  Shouldn't we find out who authorized these thugs to do what they did and what the parameters of that authority are?

    Seems easy enough.  Just ask them who hired them and what they were told to do.

    I'm fascinated by your allegiance to Stalinist political thought.  I was under the impression that it had been repudiated some years back.

    Are you sure you are living in the country of your choice, since we have that horrible freedom of speech and assembly that you dislike so much?

    Parent

    Repack (none / 0) (#76)
    by Al on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    Since this is not yet the Stalinist Soviet Union

    Actually, it is. That line has already been crossed.

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    If you believe that you have some real problems.

    Parent
    Well, let's see (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Al on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    Secret surveillance of citizens? Check.
    Harassment and jailing of protesters? Check.
    Compliant media? Check.
    Prison where the justice system cannot reach? Check.
    Regime power based on the military? Check.
    Government hierarchy based on ideological cronyism? Check.
    Crazy man at the top of the hierarchy? Check.

    Parent
    Bush Doctrine (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:50:15 AM EST
    At work. The crude art of preemption. Preemptive war, arrests, thought crimes etc.

    The protesters could have been disruptive, that is a crime.....

    Parent

    squeaky smearing again (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    No one and no links provided by anyone who is "pro" the rights of people to not have to put up with protestors preventing them from moving/going about as they please has said anything about the actions being a crime.

    No one was arrested, pushed shoved or detained.

    Why do you make these things up?

    Oh. I forgot.... you need no facts, etc., etc.

    Parent

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    Wow, protest signs (inanimate objects) disrupting events.

    Parent
    Only Those Who Agree With the President May Hear Him Speak | 99 comments (99 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment