Restriction in free speech?

I read an article in my university's newspaper, and I thought the basis of it was intriguing enough to share with all of you.

Basically, it details a suit that the American Civil Liberty Union has filed against the Secret Service and the Philadelphia Police Department for deliberating forcing opponents of President Bush out of the eye of the public and the media by setting up "protest zones" whenever Bush or VP Cheney make presidential visits throughout the United States.

Such "protest zones" have been conveniently located in places out of Bush's sight, such as behind rows of buses and in clearing upwards of a mile or two away from wherever Bush would make an appearance. Protesters would be ordered to stay within the boundaries, and when they didn't they were arrested regardless of intentions and detained until Bush had left. The Secret Service claims such zones are set up as a safety precaution, but it makes you wonder when Bush supporters are allowed to riddle the streets with signs of approval while dissenters aren't.

Yeah, I know it's not verbatim, but it basically boils down to a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The reasons given for said actions are obviously false, and it tends to make people think they know they're crossing the Constitution.

Has anyone else heard about this?

"Nothing is more American than the ability to protest something you don't like, and nothing is more un-American than a government that attempts to hit the mute button when it hears something it doesn't like."

It's not like they're forbidding protest. They're forbidding mobs from forming around the President. There are still a great many forms of protest people can and do use. I don't think Bush is so stupid that the public's opinion can be hidden from him by keeping protestors away on the rare occassions where he travels in public. I know that when the President comes to Pittsburgh, they often shut down the entire highway for a few minutes while he rides past. They likely stop flights at the airport to let him land. Etc. etc. I don't know what the law says though, maybe it really is against the law.

The reasons given for said actions are obviously false, and it tends to make people think they know they're crossing the Constitution. --El Mariachi

Obviously false in what way?

Well, the reason I remember offhand was that the Secret Service was trying to protect protesters from getting hurt by whatever motorcade or whatnot that's passing by through forbidding them from being even within view of it. I really wish I had a copy of the newspaper, because I could give the verbatim quote that way, but I'll get it tomorrow.

Excuse the internet slang and etc: "WTF they should let us walk right up to the president and tell him off. Freedom of speech omg I'm allowed to shout racial slurs and incite mobs and shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre".

"Freedom of speech" and "infringment of citizentry rights" are two concepts at play here, and fortunately for the well-being of society, citizen rights is more important. Citizens have a right to be safe, last I checked, and if any act has the potential to negate that safety, it will be dealt with. There's nothing wrong with what's going on here, and anybody who thinks otherwise simply has a different sense of acceptability, which is hardly grounds for an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
It's not like they're forbidding protest. They're forbidding mobs from forming around the President.

---

No. They're not. If they were, they'd be restricting proponents of Bush in the same way. Now, instead of 2,000 equally divided people around him, there's 1,000 for around him, and 1,000 against a full mile away.

It MIGHT be different if these "zones" were put within eyeshot and earshot of the president...but not where they can neither see nor hear him, and where he can neither see nor hear them...because that's the whole POINT of protest. To make sure your voices are heard*. It kind of defeats the point of protest if the protestee can't see or hear the protesters...

*Yeah, SURE they're seen and heard by TV cameras, but TV cameras don't enforce laws.

I think there's a difference between regulating free speech and regulating what is done with free speech.

Free speech is inherently limited, that's why you can sue for defamation. However, the right to protest peacefully against one's own democratic government is important too.
Once a leader decides he's bored of criticism and starts shielding himself from those doing the criticising, it's a pretty bad sign - surrounding oneself with yes-men and living in a state of denial about the full spectrum of the public's emotions.

Not saying that this is what's happening here.

You might be over-reacting. The government is not disallowing free speech, but is preventing the expression to potentially incite harm against the citizentry. The only problem with this is that fundamentally speaking it is punishing without solid empirical evidence (like preventing a blind man from driving because we assume s/he will die, but there's no evidence because the act is prevented), but such a concept isn't so foreign. I see nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps Bush just has a problem people disagreeing with him and thus, has asked that all those that disagree please not tell him because it'll hurt his integrity?

In all seriousness now, this is an ongoing problem with the Freedom of Speech. Since the US Constitution is so very broad and vague, it really gives few guidelines and restrictions for this. due to this, both sides can claim they are correct because there is no rule as to what you can say or who you can say it to, yet in that same vein, there's no rule about allowing this right to be exercised, only away from other people.

Really though, what is the Secret Service really afraid of? That the protestors will say something meaningful and the President will be so impressed he won't be able to finish what he was saying? I'd say that the President should attempt to let protestors speak their peace and then explain why he is disagreeing with them.

I think becoming President means you NEED a thick skin and can stand up for yourself, and not be afraid to have critics. No human will ever be so supreme that all their actions are beyond debate, and restricting the power to speak out so that those who have the power to make changes might hear this and be swayed is really losing sight of the ideals of a Democratic nation and Republic. In a Monarchy or a Dictatorship, this sort of thing was common. It shouldn't be the same case here.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Captain
Really though, what is the Secret Service really afraid of? That the protestors will say something meaningful and the President will be so impressed he won't be able to finish what he was saying? I'd say that the President should attempt to let protestors speak their peace and then explain why he is disagreeing with them.

---

They're afraid that someone is going to just walk up to the president with a knife or gun, and attempt to assassinate him. It happened with Lincoln, McKinley, and Reagan, didn't it? It's not really an infringement of freedom of speech if the protestors are simply told to move elsewhere. Telling them they couldn't protest would be, though.

This isn't a matter of shielding someone from opposing points of view, it's a matter of protecting someone's life.

That's another logical and sensible argument. Those who dislike a particular politician are more likely to want to protest, but are also more likely to want to kill him or her. Bush's intent here isn't to disallow protest, rather it keeps him safe from a large number of potentially hostile individuals.

Granted, someone protesting against another is more likely to be hostile, but couldn't a supporter attack just as easily and frankly, because of that, have more access?

I think all people should be allowed to be seen and heard in front of the President, just perhaps not able to stand next to him, or to have a real chance to attack.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Big D
Once a leader decides he's bored of criticism and starts shielding himself from those doing the criticising, it's a pretty bad sign - surrounding oneself with yes-men and living in a state of denial about the full spectrum of the public's emotions.

Not saying that this is what's happening here.

---

As far as I'm concerned, it is.

And Mark David Chapman was a fan of John Lennon. Chew on that.

I've always complained that the justice system is reactive: we have laws to guide us to do good to each other, or at least follow a common convention so that there isn't chaos. However those who break convention are punished after the act. I've often questioned the point of capital punishment as a means to punish a criminal who has already caused enough damage that it is irreversible. It doesn't make sense, so a better alternative is to augment the preventative measures. Have police everywhere and have an Orwellian society. Or like Minority Report or any other similar notions, punish people prior to the act if there is evidence pointing them to do wrong.

The problem with the latter two solutions is that they punish people prematurely, regardless of how likely the crime is going to happen. I'm not saying this is happening here, because we lack foresight. However being overly cautious is safer than letting the President come into harms way before we perform reforms.

Actually now that some of you have pointed out presidential assassination attempts and other such things, I'm surprised such reforms has not happened. I'm going to be cynical here and blame it on people who insist on having their constitutional rights regardless of how it is abused.

:)