![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
protesters = terrorists ?
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.
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.
Re: fascism
In fact, here's a 1997 article about a free speech zone:
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v102/fa/n041/opinion/opn-mclemore.html
It's been around for a while -- it's a place you go where you are allowed to say what you will, and be heckled if necessary. It's not a new thing, even inside the protest community (I know - I got put in one in 1990, away from a politician I was protesting).
I think it is good to know the tenets of free speech, and no, they aren't included in the Constitution because they were considered normal to civilized discourse when it was written. Things like "free speech issues are part of public policy, and differs from commercial or corporate speech" and "expression of opinion will not get you arrested (except slander) but can cause lost of employment, companionship, and respect". There are others, which can be found easily enough with google. That it requires common courtesy and common sense means it is a very uncommon thing, indeed.
The necessary obligation of responsibility is held within that second point -- that you may hold whatever opinion you desire, and express it as you like, but be assured that you will be held responsible for that opinion, and the consequences may be undesirable. You cannot pretend to have free speech without paying for it with accountability.
And, I know that the Secret Service has controlled many things since Nixon, including PR issues. It isn't hard to find the complaints by the media, either. Google is our friend, there.
Finally, the creators of this country considered democracy a thing to avoid, calling it one of the worse evils of society. Or, as James Madison said, "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted, "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." And, John Adams, President, wrote, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Let us be assured, then, that we work under laws first, and if the laws are in error, we must work to change them, not flaunt and deride them. Though, as we have also discovered, civil disobedience is often the only way to bring change to a beginning. Bursey was no hero, because he was not opposed to the law, but instead attempted to protest where he was not allowed. Had he been doing it to get the law changed, I'd think differently. As it is, he was just indifferent to the fundamental basis of our country - a republic is a rule by law, not by the people, and no one should ever be above the law.
Heaven help us if we can ever convince our politicians of the truth of that.
Re: fascism
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
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.