protesters = terrorists ?

[low_delta]

article by James Boward at SFGate.com

Can anyone provide any sort of rationale at all for removing protesters from the general vicinity of the president?


Here are some quotes from the article that I thought were especially interesting:

Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

And finally...

But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

I would guess that that charge is a felony offense, removing the offending liberal from the voter rolls.

Comments

Re: fascism

[acedia.livejournal.com]

The current use of the phrase 'free-speech zone' might be an ironic play on what was being talked about in that link, but it's not the same thing - it's not really even the same subject. If you've experienced this kind of censorship from a politician using similar tactics, I'm surprised you're so willing to apologize for it. I would have been pissed. There's nothing new about what the administration is doing, I guess I just find the pervasiveness and gall of it fairly novel (I want to say, 'in this day and age' but I guess if so many Americans are willing to hand over their freedom to disagree, maybe this day and age ain't what I thought they were).

And again, please refrain from trying to school us on the Sole True Definition of Free Speech. I know the interpretations, and their origins - I just disagree. The only caveats of the 1st amendment specify the few instances of what we ought not to say - there's absolutely nothing in it to dictate what we SHOULD be saying. 'Common courtesy' and 'common sense' are con men's phrases; meaningless cyphers used to justify all sorts of horrific thought and action. If a responsibility ever were to come attached to the freedom of speech, it should simply be that we always speak freely. That would be MY first tenet. I think it's good to know, too.

My freedoms are not pretense. They were granted to me by my creator and they are unalienable. All laws are a product of, and subject to, these freedoms, not the other way around.

Rosa Parks wasn't looking to change the law either. Her feet just hurt.

Re: fascism

[dwivian]

Actually, it's exactly the same thing - a place you go to speak on whatever, cordoned off from decent law-abiding folk. It was created in Hyde Park, London, 300+ years ago, and many colleges use it today so that they can isolate the chanters from areas where education is happening....

I was pissed when I got pushed to the side. I also know why it was done, and I have written letters calling for the practice to cease. I don't apologize for it, but I do recognize it. I don't see things changing, really, but at least I went on record for it.

And I will not refrain from reminding people that the first rule of free speech is that you MUST accept responsibility and consequences for what you say. That means you may self-censor, or not, but whatever you choose to do will color how others see you, and you have no right to demand respect from me. Too many people claim the right to free speech, then get offended when people tell them they are idiots (which is their free-speech right, donchaknow). You may disagree, and you have the right to whatever opinion you want, but where it differs from reality...

Rights always have limits -- when your rights and mine conflict, why should yours take precedent? They don't, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll bet you will disagree. Rights collide all the time, and each is arbitrated casewise. They won't be alienated (removed by the government), but there is no reason to expect that your rights are without response, without action, and without suppression when appropriate.

You're wrong about Rosa Parks. We in the south were taught a lot about her. She is quoted as saying, "The only tired I was, was tired of giving in." She also wasn't sitting in the front of the bus, but in the middle, where the dividing line floats depending on bus demand. It's not like she stopped in the first seat, but she moved to a valid seat, and got incensed when asked to move to allow a white man to sit down. She was tired of complying with a stupid rule. She wanted it changed.