OT: So Much For Freedom of Speech

Maybe we should start making sure that they do get _all_ of us on their list of "people who dislike the government" etc.: churn them crazy by filling their "lists of terrorists" with the names of millions of ordinary people.

I find myself thinking of the famous story of the Norwegian response to being invaded by the Germans in W.W.2 - upon being ordered to require all Norwegian Jews to wear the Nazi-specified yellow star emblem, the King of Norway said, "Okay, we're all Jews here. Everyone shall wear the yellow star - I will be the first.

-dave w

Not that I am an ardent supporter of The Shrub, but the current deterioration of our basic rights is rooted a lot further back in time, when "strict constructionists" began to be appointed to the Supreme Court. These justices hold the opinion that the only rights we have are those SPECIFICALLY granted by the government. I guess they never read the Constitution of the United States, or they would have encountered this little gem.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Dubbya is only continuing in the same tradition of his predecessors.

Ad Astra! Bill Sullivan

Lead plumbing.

len.

I believe Rome started to fall when Caesar tried to regulate all rocket motors with over 62.5g of propellant...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I'm ashamed of you Bob. You don't know your history.

It was clearly when the Roman Senate refused Nero's classification paperwork from the DOT (that's Departmentus ofus Transportationus). From there, it was all downhill.

David Erbas-White

More like hundreds of millions, but who's counting. ;)

:)

theres a man with the courage of his convictions

no doubt the Nazi's regarded his attitide as being "unproductive"

- iz

The actual story is a bit more interesting:

Indeed. Fine example of history in the making. Point of view is everything... and nothing. Just like the "six million Jews" saga that began long before the WWI, yet still permeates today's views of WWII.

I have love for all people. But I love truth more.

Truth is amazing. It is always more interesting than fiction. I look forward to the day and pray when it will reign supreme, and all people hold it more precious than life.

As for freedom of speech: The case of Bush visit vs. naysayers is a classic of "Freedom of Speech" vs. "Freedom to not listen". Are all Bush visits to anyplace to be considered "public access", and therefore allow all persons of any opinion to be present?

I don't like the characterization reported given by officials that naysayers are potential terroristic supporters. I also don't like the report about media members not being allow access to the "official" naysayers zone.

But I also would not want to be forced to listen everything everyone has to say. Don't just jump on the "Free Speech" bandwagon so quickly.

The problem is in nomenclature, not implementation of freedoms.

If I as a group leader (type of group is un-important to the illustration) organize time and resources to deliver or provide a conference promoting "widgets", shall I be forced to hear and deal with at my expense my competitors naysaying my "widgets" in contrast to his "gidgets", essentially using my personally organized pow-wow/media time?

Bush visits should be understood as "Bush political policy rallies", and are technically a private party, by invitation or exclusion. As long as exclusion is not based on gender, race, religion, etcetera. "Supporters are allowed, unsupportive are not".

On the other hand, "Free Speech Zone" should not be labeled as such, and should instead be, "the place where party-crashers (naysayers) are directed to"... in other words, "go find your own party... here, we even have a place set up where you can do this now."

In making this characterization, I am neither putting forth support or dismissal of Bush policy or administration. While I do have opinions on these policies, this point is not about those policies.

Freedom should be had by all as long as it does not infringe upon anothers' freedom. Freedom to say things of ones' own conscience does not include the freedom to inflict such views on another. Freedom of speech was originally intended to keep one from going to jail when having, expressing, printing, or otherwise disseminating opposing views, NOT the freedom to force others to listen to ones' views.

The true prize of winning the US Presidency seat is in the nearly unrestricted use of this freedom, and all the tools on call to send ones' views around the globe, the major feature of which is, what is said can turn into enforceable policy, instantly, and as such has a much higher chance of convincing others in high places to commend such views as "policy", on others, whether or not they listen.

The hope and prayer of the people is that a person elected to such office will weild this power _wisely_.

~ Duane Phillips.

They're not advertised as "Political Policy Rallies." They are supposed to be open to all Americans. Past precedent is that all Americans, regardless of viewpoint, are permitted at these rallies.

There's never anything said that you have to agree with Bush to attend these rallies. People are excluded simply for what their signs or shirts or whatever might say. That is clearly a violation of freedom of speech.

When you look at the reasoning - anyone disagreeing with the President is a terrorist in the making - it's even more frightening.

I've actually heard comments to the effect that "There's never anyone protesting Bush - everyone must agree with him" made on the radio. That's probably the desired result from the Bush camp.

At this rate, the "Free Speech Zone" will be located in Gitmo pretty soon.

Zooty

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Try again. You may have had an Internet glitch. I just tried it and it works fine.

Zooty

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:KEcLb.88202$I07.422142@attbi_s53:

I must be naive in my belief that every square inch of this country is a "free speech zone".

len.

i guess. Welcome to "Everwar"-tm(me).

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you Zoot... but that is mostly because the nomenclature is misleading. However, I do disagree that past precedent was so clearly set. In fact, history is rife with exactly the opposite (both good and bad examples). It is not a violation of your right to speech if I choose to not listen to you. Just taking a step back and looking at it for what it really is, it is easier to see. I agree that:

- it is not advertised correctly

- the reasoning given by the enforcers is all fowled up

- "rules" are not apparent to potential attendees until the press is on

- media was reportedly initially refrained from talking to naysayers

For these and a few other reasons, the situation is messed up. Take a step back and look at it for what it really is, and then it clears up some. Problem is, most Americans don't remember to take the salt shaker with them when receiving information/propaganda/labelism. It should never have been labeled a "free speech zone", as people then reference the situation to how they were not free to express themselves where they wanted to. That one will come back to haunt.

Take some other scenarios:

- Repulican campaign signs in a Democrat rally (and vice versa)

- devil worshiping signs in a Christian gathering (and vice versa)

- amateur rocketry signs at a NAR launch

- gay sex/love signs at a Boy Scout convention

- anti-Principal/Administrator signs in a public school

- PETA holding signs in any meat industry gathering (vice versa)

- Linux signs at any Microsoft sponsored event (vice versa)

The list could be miles long. One persons' right to free speech does not grant them the right to force others to hear it. That would infringe on the others' rights to peaceable and common assembly. People focus solely on the right give their own opinion, and not on anothers' right to not have to listen. Communication and tolerance is a 2-way street of respect that often requires forbearance and patience.

On the other side, a person or President who continues to not listen to other viewpoints without valid reasons will eventually fall into trouble. But it is still their right to do so... at which point if it is the President, the people have a right and responsibility to get a new President. Additionally, those holding an event have the right to excuse anyone who doesn't agree... but if they excuse people for the wrong reasons, then the you get responses such as happened in this case. Just like, "anyone disagreeing with the President is a terrorist in the making" will return backlash and public disgruntledness. Claiming to remove people on potential terrorist grounds was an insult to the public conscience, when in reality, it is a policy/Presidential rally, and it only adds to a situation where the people increasingly do not trust the government, and the government increasingly does not trust the people.

~ Duane Phillips.

Bob Kaplow, a message apparently written by you just got zapped from my reader on this thread... did you cancel? If not then please repost. Thanks.

~ Duane Phillips.

'Tis true! But, with the added respect of respecting anothers' right to not listen. If it is party is someone elses, then a naysayer can go make their own party, and not be jailed for it. (But even that depends on the type of party).

~ Duane Phillips.

Already happens.

Depends on if the function is private or not. For the non-private ones, it happens - vice versa, too.

I've seen information about amateur rocketry passed around at a NAR launch.

Scouts are considered private. A gay scout who was close to getting one of the top ranks was expelled simply for admitting he was gay.

While I will work with Boy Scout groups, neither of the groups I've worked with would expel someone for being gay. It pays to know the Scoutmaster.

Did that one myself. Of course, the vice-Principle thought I was saying something nice about him, and for some strange reason, the teachers never explained it to him. I wonder if he ever figured it out. Gosh, I love doing stuff like that.

Private? If not, it's been done.

Someone at Microsoft has a sense of humor. There's an Easter egg in a published Microbloat product a couple years back....

The question is whether it's public or private and whether it's done quietly or disruptively. Signs aren't disruptive.

Of the Bush speeches, they were either public or the protesters were standing on public property. The ACLU us right on this one.

Zooty