• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Bush & Freedom of Assembly

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
President Bush likes to speak to crowds.H e has public appearances all over.The only thing is these are screened crowds. They are called ' public ' appearances,but. Only pro Bush people are allowed at them.Doesn't this violate the first amendments freedom of assembly clause ?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
re-re-re-post


"Free speech zones" (how Orwellian) affect peaceable demonstrators with permits. They are unAmerican and disgraceful.


Here. Maybe this will help advance the conversation.
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/syllabi/alreynol/j300/notes6.html
Time, Place & Manner Restrictions
~a form of prior censorship, but not based on content
~the idea is that the government has a right to limit the time, place and manner of communication that interferes with the basic functions of society.

The government can impose reasonable regulations about when, where and how individuals or groups can communicate with other people.

The courts have developed a set of rules to help us determine when time, place & manner restrictions are OK.

~Is the restriction of expression truly content neutral?
~Are reasonable, alternative channels of communication still available?
~Is the restriction justified by a substantial government interest?
~Is the restriction no broader than necessary to serve the government’s purpose? (Is it narrowly tailored)

Types of Forums

Traditional public forum: public places that have long been devoted to assembly and speeches, places like street corners and public parks. Highest level of protection.

Designated public forum: Places created by government that are to be used for expressive activities, among other things. City-owned auditorium, state fairgrounds, community meeting halls and sometimes student newspapers, because they're open to all students. Government has greater power to use TPM restrictions to regulate speech.

Public property that's not a public forum: Public places, but they're generally off-limits for expressive conduct. Examples include prisons, military bases.

Private property
: No FA guarantees, private owners are generally free to regulate. Most common areas of contention are shopping malls and private residences.​
More details on the different types of forums.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tradforum.htm
Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.​
Segregated "free speech zones" appear to fail "substantial government interest" test and dramatically fail the "content neutral" test.
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13694&c=86

Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation.

Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President’s policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone. These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer. Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.

Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.

Evansville, Indiana
On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading “Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man.” When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a “protest zone” more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested. Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President’s policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair’s constitutional rights

Kalamazoo, Michigan

At President Bush’s appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election (“Welcome Governor Bush”). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a “protest zone” behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there. The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President’s policy on Iraq were ordered into a “protest zone” approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President’s foreign policy were sent to a “protest zone” located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking.[/i] Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone. One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, “We Love You President Bush.” She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.​
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
JOHNYJ said:
President Bush likes to speak to crowds.H e has public appearances all over.The only thing is these are screened crowds. They are called ' public ' appearances,but. Only pro Bush people are allowed at them.Doesn't this violate the first amendments freedom of assembly clause ?
While the practice may be wrong, it does not violate freedom of assembly because it's Bush's speech, and he has the right to allow who he wants to be a part of it. If someone wants to hold an anti-Bush meeting, they are allowed.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
JOHNYJ said:
President Bush likes to speak to crowds.H e has public appearances all over.The only thing is these are screened crowds. They are called ' public ' appearances,but. Only pro Bush people are allowed at them.Doesn't this violate the first amendments freedom of assembly clause ?
Depends on the speech. During the campaign, Bush was in Central PA a few times. Just as I drug my daughter's to John Kerry's rally in Harrisburg, I also took them too Bush's speech in Hershey. When I went to the local Repub headquarters, I wasn't asked for proof that I was a member of the party, or that I was voting for Bush.

So a blanket "only pro Bush" people are allowed is untrue, because if someone who doesn't back Bush, wants to give their money to him to attend a fund raiser, are they going to give them a "test" to get in the door? I don't think so.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by debate_junkie:
Depends on the speech. During the campaign, Bush was in Central PA a few times. Just as I drug my daughter's to John Kerry's rally in Harrisburg, I also took them too Bush's speech in Hershey. When I went to the local Repub headquarters, I wasn't asked for proof that I was a member of the party, or that I was voting for Bush.

So a blanket "only pro Bush" people are allowed is untrue, because if someone who doesn't back Bush, wants to give their money to him to attend a fund raiser, are they going to give them a "test" to get in the door? I don't think so.
Well, I certainly don't see any "swiftboat" pricks asking him why he was too pu$$y to serve his last two years of military service!
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Billo_Really said:
Well, I certainly don't see any "swiftboat" pricks asking him why he was too pu$$y to serve his last two years of military service!
And what does that have to do with Freedom of Assembly?
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I respect Kerry's service to our country. However, what he did to his fellow brothers when he came back from Vietnam was reprehensible. The fact that he could make a speech implicating himself taking part in these "atrocities" and not be charged for war crimes is beyond me.

Maybe it's because he was full of crap and these "atrocities" weren't so commone place and rampant as he made it out to be. Otherwise he should be in prison for admitting to such horrific acts.

Lastly, I don't think what the Swiftboat veterans did was a good thing, but I'm still more inclined to believe a vast majority over the minority.

By they way Billo, I remember O'Reilly actually sticking up for Kerry on this issue. He definietly didn't take the conservative stance on this issue. Why is it that you have such an animosity towards him? As far as I can tell (I haven't watched him in a while) he doesn't tow the party line like other demagogues such as Rush and Hannity. Please don't bring up the phone sex
ordeal, I didn't care about Clinton's BJ so all that is irrelevant.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by debate_junkie:
And what does that have to do with Freedom of Assembly?
I'll tell you exactly what it has to do with it. First, the original proposition by JOHNYJ:
Originally Posted by JOHNYJ
President Bush likes to speak to crowds.H e has public appearances all over.The only thing is these are screened crowds. They are called ' public ' appearances,but. Only pro Bush people are allowed at them.Doesn't this violate the first amendments freedom of assembly clause ?
Then you replied:
Originally posted by debate_junkie:
So a blanket "only pro Bush" people are allowed is untrue, because if someone who doesn't back Bush, wants to give their money to him to attend a fund raiser, are they going to give them a "test" to get in the door? I don't think so
Which started me thinking that if what you said was true, how come no one in those town hall meetings ever asked him a tough question? All the questions I heard were far too sterilized? Then I think of the way these Swiftboat vets go after someone who actually went to Vietnam, and then in contrast, turn a deaf ear to someone who, not only did not go, but walked out on the last two years of his obligation to his country. This is the kind of hypocrisy that slaps me in the face. So if I was at one of those meetings, it would be these type of questions I would be asking. That is, of coarse, it was a true Freedom of Assembly. But since it wasn't, all the people that would ask these tough questions, got weeded out!
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Connecticutter said:
While the practice may be wrong, it does not violate freedom of assembly because it's Bush's speech, and he has the right to allow who he wants to be a part of it. If someone wants to hold an anti-Bush meeting, they are allowed.
A number of these incidents don't involve people attending the rallies. they'r just eople nearby. Some with demonstration permits.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Billo_Really said:
I'll tell you exactly what it has to do with it. First, the original proposition by JOHNYJ:Then you replied:Which started me thinking that if what you said was true, how come no one in those town hall meetings ever asked him a tough question? All the questions I heard were far too sterilized? Then I think of the way these Swiftboat vets go after someone who actually went to Vietnam, and then in contrast, turn a deaf ear to someone who, not only did not go, but walked out on the last two years of his obligation to his country. This is the kind of hypocrisy that slaps me in the face. So if I was at one of those meetings, it would be these type of questions I would be asking. That is, of coarse, it was a true Freedom of Assembly. But since it wasn't, all the people that would ask these tough questions, got weeded out!
I guess now that you've explained your thinking it makes some sense. Prior to your explanation it was a little puzzling for me.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Billo_Really said:
I'll tell you exactly what it has to do with it. First, the original proposition by JOHNYJ:Then you replied:Which started me thinking that if what you said was true, how come no one in those town hall meetings ever asked him a tough question? All the questions I heard were far too sterilized? Then I think of the way these Swiftboat vets go after someone who actually went to Vietnam, and then in contrast, turn a deaf ear to someone who, not only did not go, but walked out on the last two years of his obligation to his country. This is the kind of hypocrisy that slaps me in the face. So if I was at one of those meetings, it would be these type of questions I would be asking. That is, of coarse, it was a true Freedom of Assembly. But since it wasn't, all the people that would ask these tough questions, got weeded out!
I understand your thinking... but I think the same is for both sides. I don't recall Kerry being asked tough questions when he had "townhall" type settings. I think weeding out of questions is done beforehand for candidates to make sure they have a chance to speak, and not have to be on defense all evening. Things like, in example the last election, military service... while important to perhaps showing leadership as commander in chief, shouldn't define a candidate's ability on ALL issues. Like I said in my rant over in Liberalism is a mental disorder, political campaigning has come down to scouring through someone's past and finding ANYTHING that can be exploited.

It's prevention really... giving candidates a chance to speak and answer on the issues. I don't agree with it. I think the candidates SHOULD be challenged by the people... but I don't run the RNC or the DNC.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by debate_junkie:
I understand your thinking... but I think the same is for both sides. I don't recall Kerry being asked tough questions when he had "townhall" type settings. I think weeding out of questions is done beforehand for candidates to make sure they have a chance to speak, and not have to be on defense all evening. Things like, in example the last election, military service... while important to perhaps showing leadership as commander in chief, shouldn't define a candidate's ability on ALL issues. Like I said in my rant over in Liberalism is a mental disorder, political campaigning has come down to scouring through someone's past and finding ANYTHING that can be exploited.

It's prevention really... giving candidates a chance to speak and answer on the issues. I don't agree with it. I think the candidates SHOULD be challenged by the people... but I don't run the RNC or the DNC.
I would have to agree. People think I just hate Bush. But I don't think Kerry would have been any different. In my book, they both suck!

And if Kennedy doesn't lose some weight, he's going to look like a float in a Macy's parade!
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
When did the secret service get made head of all police departments in the USA ? is that some part of the Patriot act we don't know about ? where is the ACLU, they go nuts over Nativity scenes,but.Blatent violations of the Constitution they don't notice ?
 
Top Bottom