Bush administration curtailing free speech?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
At least according to the San Francisco Gate news.



Does anyone know if these are isolated incidents rather than active policy? Personally I think that if it's true, that it's a concerted organized effort by a president and his administration rather than over-zealous cops, then I'm inclined to consider it treasonous.



Does anyone think these types of activities are conscionable? Reasonable? Is there any legitimate defense of a policy like this? I can't think of one.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    God that's unbelievable. Everyone should peacefully protest that numbskull and see if he can throw half the country in jail.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    yeah, but after he tosses you in jail he'll try and make you a felon and take away your right to vote too.



    to me 100 or 200 yards would be the max distance i'd expect protestors to have to stand away from an event. half a mile away is a joke.



    idiots.
  • Reply 3 of 39
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    God that's unbelievable. Everyone should peacefully protest that numbskull and see if he can throw half the country in jail.



    Actually, this is now standard practise at any event where Bush happens to be. Conservatives are outraged as well as liberals.



    A similar version of this story here:

    http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
  • Reply 4 of 39
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    damn, that kind of makes me angry, I especially don't like how media can't go to the protest zones, that's' pretty heinous media control right there.
  • Reply 5 of 39
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    If true, this is seriously fvcked up. SDW, have anything to say about this?
  • Reply 6 of 39
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Why weren't you guys posting when the DNC set these up around the convention?



    Oh wait oh wait this is an anti-Bush thread. Time to stop thinking!
  • Reply 7 of 39
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I know where are the protest when pro-life folks can't walk on the same block as the clinic with their signs and chants? Likewise I have been to Democratic events and seen these protest zones as well. I went and saw Clinton when he spoke in Orange County in 1996. Not only did they bus in all his supporters, they set up a huge area that you couldn't get in to protest or anything without a pass. You couldn't even walk into the parking lot or stay on the same block.



    Cuts both ways boys and girls,



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 39
    <--- conservative



    Outraged.



    That is positively un-American.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I want this stopped now as well. I especially want it stopped at the Democratic convention.



    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 39
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I know where are the protest when pro-life folks can't walk on the same block as the clinic with their signs and chants?



    I guess no you know has had a miscarriage and had to go through the taunting, name calling and images of dead babies just to get to the clinic to get the body removed.



  • Reply 11 of 39
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    I guess no you know has had a miscarriage and had to go through the taunting, name calling and images of dead babies just to get to the clinic to get the body removed.







    That's bull. My wife had an ectopic pregnancy and did not have to go to an abortion clinic to get treatment.



    Find for me the percentage of scenarios that meet that criteria since they apparently are worth coughing up the first amendment to protect.



    But you show the thinking that leads to the Bush examples you mentioned above. It started with the abortion clinics, not with Bush. Heck as I mentioned I know it started before Bush because I saw Clinton doing it in 1996. The protesters were not even allowed on the same block.



    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 39
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Personally I'm against any limits, but I'm not surprised if there are some to keep waring factions from attacking each other. But what I see in that article is far more extreme than a little bit of space.



    I'm really concerned about police keeping the press away from people in public spaces and I'm really concerned about the Feds moving in to press charges when the state drops theirs. I would consider these extreme measures that are not common and not used by 'both sides'.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    That's bull. My wife had an ectopic pregnancy and did not have to go to an abortion clinic to get treatment.



    Nick, don't be an asshole. Not that we could expect more.



    It's not bullshit, and it's my understanding it was normal procedure, at least in New Jersey and probably in any comparable area where abortion clinics are the best equipped for it.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Nick, don't be an asshole. Not that we could expect more.



    It's not bullshit, and it's my understanding it was normal procedure, at least in New Jersey and probably in any comparable area where abortion clinics are the best equipped for it.




    You are sidestepping the issue. Are you honestly trying to tell me that any hospital would be worse equipped than an abortion clinic? The point is that medical treatment for a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as an elective abortion. You cloud the issues to justify supression of free speech. It doesn't work, and it is sickening that you would endorse speech limits for groups that you disagree with.



    Nick
  • Reply 15 of 39
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    What amazes me is that the media hasn't expressed more outrage. If the various media outlets were doing their jobs right, any news report on such a Presidential event would include, at the very least, a mention to the effect "A few/several/many protesters showed up, but were required to stay at least one-half mile from the President, and we were not allowed to photograph or interview them. Presidential supporters were not subject to the same restrictions."
  • Reply 16 of 39
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    What boggles my mind is that they supposedly have cops reading political signs and determining who has to go. What if I had a sign that said "Reduce the deficit now!" Would I be in the "free speech zone" or not? How is some cop going to decide? Should cops really play that role?



    About the abortion clinics - do you know what the courts have said? As I understand it, state laws requiring a boundary of 8 feet, 8 feet, have been upheld. They're right there protesting. That seems to me to be quite a bit different than putting people on the other side of the city.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    At least according to the San Francisco Gate news.



    Does anyone know if these are isolated incidents rather than active policy? Personally I think that if it's true, that it's a concerted organized effort by a president and his administration rather than over-zealous cops, then I'm inclined to consider it treasonous.



    Does anyone think these types of activities are conscionable? Reasonable? Is there any legitimate defense of a policy like this? I can't think of one.




    Well this certainly doesn't surprise me. Mr. Bush has always been a little bold in the way he treats our personal rights.



    This is just one more log on the fire.



    This is why I say Bush is dangerous.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that any hospital would be worse equipped than an abortion clinic?



    Apparently.

    Quote:

    The point is that medical treatment for a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as an elective abortion.



    Apparently there are cases where it is, because that's how it was handled in this case and the person involved was told by her physician that it was not that unusual.



    I would actually like to know more about it if anyone out there has any knowledge of it, meaning clearly not you and your jackass and insensitive accusations, trumptman.

    Quote:

    It doesn't work, and it is sickening that you would endorse speech limits for groups that you disagree with.



    That's pretty sad that your imagination is now "sickening" you. You might want to seek help for that.



    My point, which apparently went over your head, is that it's faulty to equate someone carrying a "No War For Oil" sign at a pro-bush orgy with someone carrying a giant picture of a dead baby and yelling at someone while blocking their car from entering a medical facility at a time when the patient is in the midst of perhaps the most traumatic time of her life. Got it? Good.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    If true, this is seriously fvcked up. SDW, have anything to say about this?





    He'd probably say " Well just look where this newspaper came from! You know what they're like in that town. "





    It' the criminal liberal media I tell ya'!
  • Reply 20 of 39
    mlnjrmlnjr Posts: 230member
    For the last 12 years, the American voting public has voted not to put a Republican in the White House. The Republican candidate has lost the popular vote in the last three presidential elections. Can we please make sure that a ridiculous mistake like the Bush presidency doesn't happen again this year?
Sign In or Register to comment.