Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess when Bush (I mean Obama) is speaking at a private engagement, students aren't allowed on particular areas. Now get back in your free speech zone!
I guess when Bush (I mean Obama) is speaking at a private engagement, students aren't allowed on particular areas. Now get back in your free speech zone!
Seems to me this guy is just doing his job. You do realize the president is a pretty protected guy, and they probably want to be extra cautious against those protesting against him. This guy is a fringe nut case (the one who got arrested) because he is clearly trying to cause trouble, and all the other press/protesters seem to be fine with staying within a respectable distance to prevent people from running up on the building where the president would be at.
Dan MCarthy had press credentials. He had a right to be on a sidewalk at a public University that his taxes paid for. He wasn't threatening with a gun or a knife. He was protesting. That's his right.
Dan MCarthy had press credentials. He had a right to be on a sidewalk at a public University that his taxes paid for. He wasn't threatening with a gun or a knife. He was protesting. That's his right.
Let me ask you something. Would you be fine with the group of protester, all of them, moving out from their area and going up to those main steps, linking arms and completely blocking the main entrance? There were plenty of people there, probably all wishing to be in the best view of the of the building up the steps (I'm assuming thats where the engagement was taking place). If they all got up there and blocked the primary exit route probably then the secret service is going to have something to say about that and an appropriate location will be designated for the protesters like there was across the street. This guy seemed to be the only rebel who wanted to test the power of the police and apparently lost.
I'm all for protest, just don't **** around when the president is inside the building your protesting outside of.
Let me ask you something. Would you be fine with the group of protester, all of them, moving out from their area and going up to those main steps, linking arms and completely blocking the main entrance? There were plenty of people there, probably all wishing to be in the best view of the of the building up the steps (I'm assuming thats where the engagement was taking place). If they all got up there and blocked the primary exit route probably then the secret service is going to have something to say about that and an appropriate location will be designated for the protesters like there was across the street. This guy seemed to be the only rebel who wanted to test the power of the police and apparently lost.
I'm all for protest, just don't **** around when the president is inside the building your protesting outside of.
I would have a problem with the bolded thing above, but that's not what happened. He was standing on a sidewalk, talking to people in the crowd and debating. He also was not the only protester. I think that 4 or 5 people got arrested. It just seems like overbearing police to me.
Why is protesting ok except when the president is inside a building? What difference does that make? How about a governor? A senator? A mayor?
Personally, I feel that restricting free speech to a "zone" is symptomatic of a growing loss of freedom that is occurring with the interaction with politicians we have to deal with.
Personally, I think the concept of "free-speech" zones is ridiculous. I recognize that people like the President and other political figures require security. And I recognize that locations where these public figures are appearing have other functions that must be met. But I think that security corridors could be established where free-speech is limited in order to assure security parameters are met, and I think the locations/institutions can legally establish similar "corridors" to assure that their other functions are served. A university can have policies where protesters cannot impede students on their way to classes or pursuing their education otherwise, a hotel can have policies where protesters cannot impede guests and other persons using hotel facilities. But cordoning people into "free-speech" zones seems to me to be the antithesis of free speech as protected by the Constitution.
How does being a supporter of the ACLU make one a socialist ???????
I don't see any connection at all.
thank you for the good laugh this morning! LOL!
no connection between the ACLU and socilism. Thats a good one!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems to me this guy is just doing his job. You do realize the president is a pretty protected guy, and they probably want to be extra cautious against those protesting against him. This guy is a fringe nut case (the one who got arrested) because he is clearly trying to cause trouble, and all the other press/protesters seem to be fine with staying within a respectable distance to prevent people from running up on the building where the president would be at.
