Uechi-Ryu.com

One of the worst things about GWB's presidency, in my opinion, is the degree of legislative doublespeak and the suppression of dissent. Here's a decent summary of the latter for anyone not aware just how ridiculous the situation is.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

The best thing in my opinion is all the liberals getting their panties in a wad over W. Almost as good as my right wing brothers somehow thinking W was a classical conservative.

It's called security, not suppression of dissent. It happens with every administration.

Yeah, man...Bush *****...

Get a new war cry, will ya?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec19 ... _prn.shtml

Seattle police have arrested about 200 activists protesting at the world trade talks as they tighten security ahead of a speech by President Bill Clinton.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec19 ... _prn.shtml

City and state officials, pointing to incidences of window smashing and looting, claimed the state of emergency and mass arrests were made necessary by the violent actions of a section of the demonstrators. President Clinton backed these claims and gave tacit support to the actions of the police in two public appearances in Seattle on Wednesday.

[/url]

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’?”

Now that's a judge.

F.

More on Judge Shirley

http://www.cjdpa.org/decisions/jd96-07.html
http://www.cjdpa.org/decisions/fulltext ... 01-op.html

Still like her!

Cross: "He held this kid in the, in the, in the house?"

Trkula: "In his house! I said, after the hearing, I told him, I said, if that was my son, I'd have been down there with a gun."

Tough lady.

Valkenar wrote:suppression of dissent

You mean like at the
2004 Democratic National Convention?

One of the most controversial "counter-terrorism" measures was the declaration of a designated free speech zone for protesters, limiting where and when protesters could exercise their first amendment rights.

Doug Erickson wrote:

Valkenar wrote:suppression of dissent

You mean like at the
2004 Democratic National Convention?

Yes, just like that. It's reasonable to want to provide security measures, but it makes no sense to believe that anybody with the intent of serious harm is really going to be affected in any way by the use of a "free speech zone". The term itself is offensive, because it implies that elsewhere speech is not free. The only legitimate reason to quarantine anybody is because of the possibility of fights breaking out between opposing persons. For that reason, it is legitimate to, say, prevent people with signs opposing your cause from entering the building where you're having your convention.

As for the WTO talks, what happened there is also relevant, though somewhat less-so. Protests had been violent previously and there was good reason to believe there was the danger of rioting. However, much of what was done was inexcusable I believe, and should very much be condemned.

Whether it's Bush, Clinton, the Pope or anyone else, I don't think it's right to cordon protestors off so far away that it's clearly intended only to silence dissent.

Valkenar wrote:The term itself is offensive, because it implies that elsewhere speech is not free.

You just keep telling yourself that it is...

As someone who had a political radio show for a number of years (not liberal, not conservative... pro-freedom)... well... let's just say that those who speak out against "the powers that be" (Demopublican or Republicrat makes no difference) already have their spot on the train reserved in advance...

Val

Ok, lets open a huge can of worms.

You mention that forceing protesters to stand so far away is done to "stifle dissent."

What about the rights of the people that are intemidated by the angry protesters to speak?

Or the rights of the folks shouted down by the protesters?

I have noticed that the right to "free speech" seems very fluid these days--those that agree with my worldview have the absolute right to speech those they do not must suffer being shouted down.
And oddly enough when the folks shouting down OTHER folks are hauled away--they start yelling about their right to speak being violated---never mind the OTHER people whose rights THEY are violating.

Weird deal all around--folks that have stong opinions and no capacity for self reflection.

I'm not sure I get your post, cxt--you should be free to protest unless you are "angry," or raise your voice? And to protect the freedom of those who might lose a shouting match, we remove those who might win?