[forkies]

for some reason i just think this is funny (from here):

"...police plan to keep demonstrators in a penned-off area dubbed the 'Free Speech Zone'."



just so everyone knows, i'm delaring my backyard as a secondary "Free Speech Zone," but I reserve the right to call you a terrorist and/or silence you, ne?

[dialo]

Funny, I thought the whole country was supposed to be a free speech zone.

[UNTeMac]

Time, place, and means restrictions. It's legal and packed with precedent. My university has a "Free Speech Area" so that any demonstrations don't interfere with the everyday business of classes, etc. What's unfortunate is that terrorists have gotten us to this point.

[BlackGriffen]

Who's idea was this? I believe that Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security are running things there, but it would be nice to know if the Democrats had a hand in this.

Damn self-important.

respect-- for the Democrats pulling the same bull$hit as Bush. Unless someone can demonstrate that they were unaware of this and Ridge acted alone, and that the Democrats at least attempt to rectify the situation.

BlackGriffen

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


Who's idea was this? I believe that Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security are running things there, but it would be nice to know if the Democrats had a hand in this.

Damn self-important.

respect-- for the Democrats pulling the same bull$hit as Bush. Unless someone can demonstrate that they were unaware of this and Ridge acted alone, and that the Democrats at least attempt to rectify the situation.

BlackGriffen

I fail to grasp how moving people one block farther away from the FleetCenter for the first Democratic Convention since 9/11 is such a horrible thing. These people are still going to be covered by their precious news media ("Look at these protestors and where they have to stand!"). The woman who said (having been interviewed by CNN and several Boston-based news outfits) they were being put in concentration camps ought to have her ovaries ripped out by a rabid squirrel. Protest a block farther away than they expected....concentration camp. Sure, same thing.

The left and the right could use this opportunity to remember that political protest need not always disrupt the lives of others to be effective.

[doctorkeyser]

dp

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Time, place, and means restrictions. It's legal and packed with precedent. My university has a "Free Speech Area" so that any demonstrations don't interfere with the everyday business of classes, etc. What's unfortunate is that terrorists have gotten us to this point.

You mean that terrorists made that decision and are imposing these conditions? Really?

And if terrorists were just responding in kind, which leads your government with not much imagination to handle the situation of a potential threath to your country this way?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Time, place, and means restrictions. It's legal and packed with precedent. My university has a "Free Speech Area" so that any demonstrations don't interfere with the everyday business of classes, etc. What's unfortunate is that terrorists have gotten us to this point.

This has been taking place since before Vietnam.

Hardly a terrorism issue.

It just tends to flare up when it's a conservative administration in the whitehouse... they press for it harder... and the free speach people press harder about their opression.


Clinton enjoyed letting people protest, even against him.

Bush doesn't want to see anything negative on the news.


It's just a difference in policy. Our nation swings both ways.

[Invictus]

It's amazing the number of people who really think they do live in a country of free speech.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Invictus:
It's amazing the number of people who really think they do live in a country of free speech.

What's more amazing is how many think the US is the only country with free speech.

Ends up most other countries have more freedoms than the US. Just the US markets itself as a 'free country'.

[voyageur]

My son is one of the people in the "protesters' pen" today. The protesters are only penned when they get near the Fleet Center. Otherwise they are able to march through downtown.

Boston is really battened down: manhole covers have been welded shut, virtually all trash cans and mailboxes have been removed, and hundreds of video cams have been installed. I think at this point they are more afraid of domestic terrorism than foreign.

edit: no pen visible today (Sunday). Apparently protesters will only be limited once the convention begins tomorrow.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Invictus:
It's amazing the number of people who really think they do live in a country of free speech.

Again, I understand and mostly agree with this point. But I must ask again, what is it about moving these people one block away that is hampering free speech?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Boston is really battened down: manhole covers have been welded shut, virtually all trash cans and mailboxes have been removed, and hundreds of video cams have been installed. I think at this point they are more afraid of domestic terrorism than foreign.

NYC every new years eve for several years already.

[Saad]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Again, I understand and mostly agree with this point. But I must ask again, what is it about moving these people one block away that is hampering free speech?

The protestors (any protestors) are looking for attention and the opportunity to steal attention from the main events. It is not in the Democrat's interest for the progressive fringe to be the most visible and memorable part of their convention, just as the Republicans would not want theirs to be defined by the same people.

I certainly would rather that the protestors be so close to the Fleet Center rather than as far from the WTO meeting places of meetings past.

[forkies]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
since 9/11 is such a horrible thing

huh?

These people are still going to be covered by their precious news media ("Look at these protestors and where they have to stand!").

i think it's a shame that you see protesters simply as attention seeking low-lifes rather than caring about what they have to say and their right to say it.

Again, I understand and mostly agree with this point. But I must ask again, what is it about moving these people one block away that is hampering free speech?

[BlackGriffen]

Just trying to be consistent. I b!tched to no end about Bush and his "free speech zones." If it's literally only a block, though, I'm less inclined to complain. With Bush's zones the protesters were out of sight and out of earshot. With a block (a city block is about 220 yards, right?), the protesters will be in sight, and can certainly be loud enough to be heard, and they'll be far enough away for any security concerns. IIRC, I raised one to three hundred yards as a possible compromise in the previous debates, and this would certainly fit the bill.

I wonder how far away the protest zones will be for the Republican convention?

BlackGriffen

[OldManMac]

First, it will be one block, then two, then three, then a trip to the police station. Any leader that is afraid of dissent and seeks to squash or limit it is the most dangerous leader.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Funny, I thought the whole country was supposed to be a free speech zone.

Yes.. BUT
you cannot be a racist, hang up Nazi flags or offend people in any way (especially the blacks and Jews)

I think you can still offend the Hispanics though, cause most don’t know English enough to know they are being offended. ( am i allowed to say that?)

You can definitely offend Muslims and Hindus(aren’t they just like Muslims?) cause we are currently making "their people" aware that the US has the biggest set of onions and not to mess with us.

Asians are ok, that’s cause of that whole WWII pearl harbor thing.

Canadians: definitely you can offend them so the first amendment really applies to talking about puppies, ponies, and making fun of Canada

P.S. I know some of you are waiting to be offended so if you cant find the humor in this post, I’m using my first amendment right to tell you to screw off.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Yes.. BUT
you cannot be a racist, hang up Nazi flags or offend people in any way (especially the blacks and Jews)

Where you from ? One is allowed to be a nazi or a racist or whatever one pleases here in the USA. This is certainly not the case in many other countries.

First amendment - Something that does not exist in most countries.

And who was it that had less free speech again you say ?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Yes.. BUT
you cannot be a racist, hang up Nazi flags or offend people in any way (especially the blacks and Jews)

I think you can still offend the Hispanics though, cause most don’t know English enough to know they are being offended. ( am i allowed to say that?)

You can definitely offend Muslims and Hindus(aren’t they just like Muslims?) cause we are currently making "their people" aware that the US has the biggest set of onions and not to mess with us.

Asians are ok, that’s cause of that whole WWII pearl harbor thing.

Canadians: definitely you can offend them so the first amendment really applies to talking about puppies, ponies, and making fun of Canada

P.S. I know some of you are waiting to be offended so if you cant find the humor in this post, I’m using my first amendment right to tell you to screw off.

Well, you can hang a Nazi flag up... though you may find your house burnt down, or threats on your life. We are one of the few countries that still allow it.


But this is a point I've been trying to make for years. Why is it so wrong to do it to one group... but Ok to do to another?

Doesn't make any sense to me. But this is how America works.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
My university has a "Free Speech Area" so that any demonstrations don't interfere with the everyday business of classes, etc.

The whole point of a demonstration is to interfere with everyday business! By the time you're angry enough to take your protest to the streets, you want to shove it in people's faces; not sit in a "Free Speech Zone" preaching to the converted! Sheesh, none of the students at my University (WITS University in Johannesburg) would ever have accepted this sort of thing. That would have been the only place on campus where no one protested!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Troll:
The whole point of a demonstration is to interfere with everyday business!

Also because many demonstrators sincerely believe that "everyday business" is a corrupted way of acting, and so on. But, as long as some demonstrators don't try to lead others by example (instead of being thugs), the purpose itself of a demonstration - i.e., active dialogue, in order to go beyond negatively crystallized forms of behaviour, both in politics and society - becomes corrupted itself, and we are back to square one.

What is lacking today, obviously, is also the ideal thrust to base propositive action on...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Just trying to be consistent. I b!tched to no end about Bush and his "free speech zones." If it's literally only a block, though, I'm less inclined to complain. With Bush's zones the protesters were out of sight and out of earshot. With a block (a city block is about 220 yards, right?), the protesters will be in sight, and can certainly be loud enough to be heard, and they'll be far enough away for any security concerns.

Nope - DNC speech pen is out of earshot and sight. A little research could have saved you some time on that post.

Abandoned, elevated rail lines and green girders loom over most of the official demonstration zone that slopes down to a subway station closed for the duration. To avoid hitting girders, tall protesters will have to duck at one end of the 28,000-square-foot zone. Train tracks obscure the line of sight to much of the FleetCenter. Concrete blocks were set around streets in the area, a transportation hub on the north side of downtown.

Protesters likened the site Saturday to a concentration camp as they complained it is too far from the FleetCenter to get their messages across, even though the site is next to a parking lot where many delegates will pass on foot en route to the arena.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
The whole point of a demonstration is to interfere with everyday business! By the time you're angry enough to take your protest to the streets, you want to shove it in people's faces; not sit in a "Free Speech Zone" preaching to the converted! Sheesh, none of the students at my University (WITS University in Johannesburg) would ever have accepted this sort of thing. That would have been the only place on campus where no one protested!

NOw here is my problem...

In NYC, the convention itself is interfering with everyday business (thousands and thousands of commuters will need to find alternate routes thanks to Penn Station chaios)....

Boston has similar issues.

Now if the convention itself is allowed to disrupt everyday business (and cost many companies money)...

Why can't protesters?

Heck there are companies just taking a few of the days off, rather than try and get employees to find a way into the city (or sleeping in the office).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nope - DNC speech pen is out of earshot and sight. A little research could have saved you some time on that post.

Nowhere in that article do they mention earshot, hearing, or anything ear related. Also, "Train tracks obscure the line of sight to much of the FleetCenter." is not completely out of sight, either. It just means they won't be visible to 'much' of the visitors. I would have preferred otherwise, but it wouldn't be possible to make them visible to everyone in a cityscape anyway, I don't think. I'll grant that this is less than what I would have hoped for in a compromise, but it's better than nothing.

Here is a map of the area. It looks like they're sticking them behind the Fleet Center. I would have much preferred off to the side in a SW direction. At least they're not behind the freeway, though, with it's noise walls and such.

I will, however, keep this in mind for comparison's sake when the NYC Republican convention happens. If the protesters are treated better, I'll respect Bush and the RNC more, if worse, less.

BlackGriffenn

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I will, however, keep this in mind for comparison's sake when the NYC Republican convention happens. If the protesters are treated better, I'll respect Bush and the RNC more, if worse, less.

BlackGriffenn

Not quite that simple. NYC's streets have been more or less in the same configuration for decades. The entire area around the Fleet Center has been chaos for more than 6 years because of the Big Dig. I was driving through the North Station area less than a month ago and everything over there is re-routed. Some highway is now closed and ready to be torn down, some is new and still faces daily detours and lane closings. There is only so much room to put anything there right now. I've seen the map and I believe I know where they're putting the protestors. It's an area that was used as a parking lot for the Boston Garden, when it existed. It's one of the only sensible places to put a large group of people in that area right now, especially when convention organizers also have to deal with placing even larger groups of people like the media and still have room to get people in and out of the arena.

Don't be surprised when NYC seems to treat the protestors "better" by putting them on some huge, open New York City block in an area that is being closed to traffic anyway. If you know the Fleet Center area as it is now in the middle of huge road construction, you know they only had so many options.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Not quite that simple. NYC's streets have been more or less in the same configuration for decades. The entire area around the Fleet Center has been chaos for more than 6 years because of the Big Dig. I was driving through the North Station area less than a month ago and everything over there is re-routed. Some highway is now closed and ready to be torn down, some is new and still faces daily detours and lane closings. There is only so much room to put anything there right now. I've seen the map and I believe I know where they're putting the protestors. It's an area that was used as a parking lot for the Boston Garden, when it existed. It's one of the only sensible places to put a large group of people in that area right now, especially when convention organizers also have to deal with placing even larger groups of people like the media and still have room to get people in and out of the arena.

Don't be surprised when NYC seems to treat the protestors "better" by putting them on some huge, open New York City block in an area that is being closed to traffic anyway. If you know the Fleet Center area as it is now in the middle of huge road construction, you know they only had so many options.

Thanks. It's always nice to have a report "from the ground." Judging from the map I posted, though, if they really wanted them out of sight, they could have put them behind the freeway, or even on it (IIRC, they closed that freeway due to, you guessed it, security concerns). The noise walls and/or berm would have been very effective at keeping them out of sight, out of hearing, and out of mind.

We'll see if they permit them to come as close in NYC, though.

BlackGriffen

[davesimondotcom]

I've always been curious why people think that having a mass demonstration at an event like a convention is worth doing. I can see if everyone was protesting for/against a single issue, but having a myriad of voices makes all of them mute.

Writing a letter will probably get you more attention from a politician anyway.

Or start your own blog.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]Nowhere in that article do they mention earshot, hearing, or anything ear related. /B]

You're the one who said the site was within earshot. Where did you find that information, or did you just make it up? As for my article posting, does this sound like they will be within earshot?

...it is too far from the FleetCenter to get their messages across

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You're the one who said the site was within earshot. Where did you find that information, or did you just make it up? As for my article posting, does this sound like they will be within earshot?

I was guesstimating by how far they should be able to get sound to travel.

Also, no, that statement does not imply anything about audible range, AFAICT. Getting one's message across is more than just being heard. They also want people to read their placards, etc.

I have a question for you. Why do you seem to be so against it for the DNC, but so for it when Bush does worse?

BG

[PacHead]

As opposed to many people, I am totally unbiased and non partisan regarding my views on protesters. Regardless of it is the DNC or the RNC, the protesters should be watched and not allowed to do what they please or protest where they please. They are allowed to say what they want, but they are not allowed to disrupt stuff and cause havoc, block traffic etc.

I saw those idiots in Boston today on the news. Those anarchists are both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush, and those protests are merely a gathering for all sorts of wacko people, protesting for all sorts of wacko causes, trying to get attention for their sick causes. They have a right to their perverted opinions, but they don't have a right to shove those opinions and force them upon other people.

[BlackGriffen]

Here's a more detailed map. Just click on the FleetCenter Overview I'm not sure exactly where the protesters will be located, but it looks like they'll be as close to the Media Entrance point as possible. There's a building between much of that land and the point, but not all of it. They're on the opposite side of the convention center from the Media Pavillion, but every media person should see them on the way in.

If the map is accurate, and there's only one road the media will be entering the perimeter through, then they could protest on that road, too, and probably be most effective.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have a question for you. Why do you seem to be so against it for the DNC, but so for it when Bush does worse?

I am not against it for the DNC. I am all for following the security recommendations of those in charge.

What I do take issue with is your insisting that the security parameters for the DNC in Boston are OK and acceptable, but those enforced around the RNC or Bush are not.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I am not against it for the DNC. I am all for honoring the security recommendations of those in charge.

What I do take issue with is your insisting that the security parameters for the DNC in Boston are OK and acceptable, but those enforced around the RNC or Bush are not.

It's a matter of degree. The stuff at the DNC seems to fit in with my idea of a fair compromise. Putting protesters miles away, does not.

If you don't like that, then tough. From the sounds of it, they've been put as close as possible whilst still being outside the security perimeter established by Tom Ridge and crew.

Also, don't forget that we don't even know who made this decision - the DNC or Department of Homeland Security or both. Whoever made it seems to have done a fair job of balancing things out given a bad situation.

Reread my knee jerk at the beginning of the thread, though. Until I found out that the distances involved were reasonable, I was torqued.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It's a matter of degree. The stuff at the DNC seems to fit in with my idea of a fair compromise. Putting protesters miles away, does not.

Whatever. Your duplicity is so evident, no matter how much spinning and mapquesting you do.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Whatever. Your duplicity is so evident, no matter how much spinning and mapquesting you do to try and cover your butt.

Please post in another forum to ensure free speech.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Please post in another forum to ensure free speech.

LOL. Why do you think they keep us all penned up in the "Politics Lounge"?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
LOL. Why do you think they keep us all penned up in the "Politics Lounge"?

Guess you are right there...



But politics is politics and everyone is entitled to an opinion and should be allowed to express it wherever they can as long as it is not private property (I guess).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Whatever. Your duplicity is so evident, no matter how much spinning and mapquesting you do.

I thought that I had explained my stand in a clear and straightforward way. Whether your misrepresentation of my stance is willful malice or simple stupidity is beyond my ability to differentiate.

Either way, I'm finished conversing with you, and bid you good day. I'll not be drawn into a flame war with the likes of you.

BlackGriffen

[Sven G]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I saw those idiots in Boston today on the news. Those anarchists are both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush, and those protests are merely a gathering for all sorts of wacko people, protesting for all sorts of wacko causes, trying to get attention for their sick causes. They have a right to their perverted opinions, but they don't have a right to shove those opinions and force them upon other people.

Mamma mia!

How can people be both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush: they must certainly be perverted to think that there are better ways to make politics than the "institutional" ones!

Anyway, don't be fooled by "anarchists" in demonstrations (even if you evidently don't have a clue about what anarchism is): sadly, they often are not all that representative of anarchism; at least, the effect of what they do is rather irrilevant, mostly.

Classical anarchism is a whole other story: maybe read something by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta (and even Chomsky - or the American anarchists, such as Tucker, Thoureau, Spooner, etc.), and others... Many of the things they say are very constructive, to say the least - also and above all in today's context.

It's just that demonstrations aren't really the most powerful context in which to change things...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
As opposed to many people, I am totally unbiased and non partisan regarding my views on protesters. Regardless of it is the DNC or the RNC, the protesters should be watched and not allowed to do what they please or protest where they please. They are allowed to say what they want, but they are not allowed to disrupt stuff and cause havoc, block traffic etc.

That's comical.

I saw those idiots in Boston today on the news. Those anarchists are both anti-Kerry and anti-Bush, and those protests are merely a gathering for all sorts of wacko people, protesting for all sorts of wacko causes, trying to get attention for their sick causes. They have a right to their perverted opinions, but they don't have a right to shove those opinions and force them upon other people.

But what about yours?

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Classical anarchism is a whole other story: maybe read something by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta (and even Chomsky - or the American anarchists, such as Tucker, Toureau, Spooner, etc.), and others... Many of the things they say are very constructive, to say the least - also and above all in today's context.

You are referring to writings other than the Bible!

You commie, liberal-university-schooled, gay, terrorist scum!!!!!!!! You can keep that there learnin' ya got, pinko. I'm-a stickin' mah-sef to the good ol' Golden Rule...whatever that is, I don't much 'member.