Author Topic: First Amendment Rights too much for Bush Administration? (Read 1436 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:10:45 AM »

You guys all taking it as granted that the ACLU is telling the truth about this? Because they are nonprofit means they're interested only in truth, justice, and the American way, right?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:12:58 AM »

I think the protestors should be caned like the Indian protestors were when Clinton visited India. (And banana, if you're in the IS/IT business, you can thank Clinton for loss of your jobs to India too: Source: http://www.dawn.com/2000/03/25/int4.htm )

Wanker · « **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:15:10 AM »

Wait a minute, Lazs. You support my right of free speech, but not of career choice. What kind of crazy logic is that?

You know, Lazs, it is ironic how I now wish you had been there fifteen years ago to dissuade me from becoming a teacher. It would've saved me a lot of stress.

Too late, though. I've already poisoned the minds of countless of impressionable little kids with the evil virtues of the first amendment to the US Constitution, sorry.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:28:04 AM »

Three points:

1. The limited right to free speech imparted by the First Amendment does not equate to a right to be heard, by the President or anyone else.

2. The article does not state with specificity where any of the alleged infractions occurred. If GWB comes into my house (or auditorium) to speak, even though I may let some friends attend, I surely don't have to admit some whacko who wants to intrude and throw a tantrum.

3. In considering the propriety of a restraint on expression, the limited right to free speech will always be weighed against the liklihood and potential severity of resultant harm. For example, one cannot simply yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I suspect that there are few potential harms more grave than that of bodily injury to the President. This case is a dog, particularly considering that there are alternate forums in which the discontented groups can (and do) express themselves.

Batz · « **Reply #19 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:34:56 AM »

Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.

After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm

Wanker · « **Reply #20 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:43:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.

After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm

Wotan, is that you?

Anyway, I agree. Peaceful protest against or for any president should never be denied. Note the word "any" in italics:

Quote

Eagler, as long as they are peacefully protesting by use of signs, then they should be allowed to get as close to the President, any president, as the President's supporters.

AKIron · « **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:47:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.

After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm

Did I read that article too fast? I couldn't find where the ACLU flew to the rescue.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #22 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:47:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
Wotan, is that you?

Anyway, I agree. Peaceful protest against or for any president should never be denied. Note the word "any" in italics:

So, the question is...were you outraged enough to post on a BBS or a newsgroup back then? (Ref: Batz link) Or, is this just another example of desperate Dems looking for *anything* on Bush because Clinton was such a joke of a president that Dems are looking for anything on Bush for a payback?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #23 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:48:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Did I read that article too fast? I couldn't find where the ACLU flew to the rescue.

Gee! I wonder why! Hehehe!

They really should change their name to what their acronym stands for...

American Civil Liberals Union

Wanker · « **Reply #24 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:50:03 AM »

Rip, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".

Stop changing the subject. This thread is not about what I did or did not do five years ago. It's about what the Bush administration is doing now.

Now then, please continue. But stay on topic.

Rude · « **Reply #25 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:51:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
Wait a minute, Lazs. You support my right of free speech, but not of career choice. What kind of crazy logic is that?

You know, Lazs, it is ironic how I now wish you had been there fifteen years ago to dissuade me from becoming a teacher. It would've saved me a lot of stress.

Too late, though. I've already poisoned the minds of countless of impressionable little kids with the evil virtues of the first amendment to the US Constitution, sorry.

Don't you mean your own personal interpretation of the first ammendment?

One common thread which seems to run thru the liberal persona is fear and hatred.

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:52:12 AM »

I thought it was about what the ACLU claims the president is doing. Refuting their objectivity is very much on topic.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #27 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:52:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
Rip, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".

Stop changing the subject. This thread is not about what I did or did not do five years ago. It's about what the Bush administration is doing now.

Now then, please continue. But stay on topic.

Nice way to by-pass the question, Senator banana.

"Next question please?"

Wanker · « **Reply #28 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:59:50 AM »

Quote

Don't you mean your own personal interpretation of the first ammendment?

No, I don't think so, Rude.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty clear to me, but then again I'm a firm believer in letting my opponents state their opinions, and trying to refute their arguments with logic and common sense. Something I wish Ripsnort would give a try.

Batz · « **Reply #29 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:02:54 AM »

Yes I was wotan......

Well I dunno about allowing any one to get "close" to the president. There are too many nuts.

But either way free speech doesnt mean you have a "right to be heard". You just have the right to say what ever you want. If folks dont wanna hear you they dont have to. That goes for the president.

These people are clearly aggitated, upset, angry or whatever to protest to begin with. There nothing wrong with the Secret service keeping them away from the president. Abortion protesters have to abide by certain rules, when kkk types protest and march they are segregated etc......

There is nothing new or unique about the situation described in your link. The secret service folks in charge of the presidents security (no matter what party the president is in) have an obligation to protect him. Given the situation in the world why is it surprising that they should try to isolate the president from protesters?

I remember Clinton, in I believe Washington St. and in a rain storm behind armored glass, giving a speech with the crowd kept way back because of threats against him. I remember Bush Sr. throwing out a ball at a baseball game in full body armor so much so he couldnt rotate his arm enough to throw it. I am sure there are a few Bush = Hitler types that have made threats etc. Not to mention any president would be a prime target for any terrorist, nut whatever.

We dont know the situation surrounding the descision and we shouldnt just jumped to the conclusion that free speech over rides everything else. Their speech wasnt curtailed, just where they stood and where they said it.