[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I find it hard to believe that no president has ever given a speech with protesters present.

The people have a right to be heard. And the president has an obligation to listen.

Nope. The people have a right to voice dissent, but there is no guaranteed right to be heard. That's the listener's choice.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the President to make himself available to any and all packs of protesters.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nope. The people have a right to voice dissent, but there is no guaranteed right to be heard. That's the listener's choice.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the President to make himself available to any and all packs of protesters.

All obligation (even in government) does not arise from the constitution. The president's job is to represent the people. He can't do his job properly unless he knows what they want. He doesn't know what they want if he only sees the happy citizens.

The people do have a right to be heard. That is the whole basis of democratic (or pseudo-democratic as is tne case in the US) government.

[Lerkfish]

There appears to be some confusion here (on many people's parts) between the right to peaceably assemble and protest and free speech.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
All obligation (even in government) does not arise from the constitution. The president's job is to represent the people. He can't do his job properly unless he knows what they want. He doesn't know what they want if he only sees the happy citizens.

The President receives daily/weekly briefings on public opinion. They represent the American people as a whole a lot more than a hundred screaming protesters.

[thunderous_funker]

Wait a sec...have the apologists shifted from the strawman of "security" to arguing that now this a matter of Dubya's "right" to not have to be confronted by people he disagrees with?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nope. The people have a right to voice dissent, but there is no guaranteed right to be heard. That's the listener's choice.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the President to make himself available to any and all packs of protesters.

So, does the listener have the right to forcibly move people whose opinions he doesn't wish to hear to a location where he can't hear them?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wait a sec...have the apologists shifted from the strawman of "security" to arguing that now this a matter of Dubya's "right" to not have to be confronted by people he disagrees with?

hehe....you noticed that, too, eh?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The President receives daily/weekly briefings on public opinion. They represent the American people as a whole a lot more than a hundred screaming protesters.

That assumes that his advisors are being honest with him, and honest with themselves.

Do you honestly trust career politicians in appointed positions (no election -> reduced accountability) to voice your opinion for you?

You really are a patsy if you trust the message carrier so implicitly.

Besides, this is only partly about Bush hearing the protesters. This is more about those who gather to listen to Bush being given a chance to hear the other side of the issue, and also for the media gathered to record said other side.

BG

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The President receives daily/weekly briefings on public opinion. They represent the American people as a whole a lot more than a hundred screaming protesters.

small groups deserve the right to be heard as well. we should limit their speech just because the president doesn't find them useful?

i don't think so.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
small groups deserve the right to be heard as well. we should limit their speech just because the president doesn't find them useful?

The post I was replying to stated that the President has an obligation to listen to protesters.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wait a sec...have the apologists shifted from the strawman of "security" to arguing that now this a matter of Dubya's "right" to not have to be confronted by people he disagrees with?

I don't know who these 'apologists' are that you refer to, but myself - when I reply to a post, I am addressing the contents in that post. My subsequent points are not contrary to my initial position - they are in addition to it.

[thunderous_funker]

Which leaves us where?

It can't be security for fairly obvious reasons. What's left?

1) Bush doesn't want to see them.
2) They don't want protestors on camera.

Either one implies some fairly significant infringement on the freedoms of speech, assembly and petition.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Which leaves us where?

It can't be security for fairly obvious reasons. What's left?

1) Bush doesn't want to see them.
2) They don't want protestors on camera.

Either one implies some fairly significant infringement on the freedoms of speech, assembly and petition.

The protesters were still allowed to speak and assemble, just not in the immediate vicinity of the President and invited guests.

In pretty much every case, this was Bush at a private event, which was organized by a private organization, and paid for with private funds.

As for the cameras, where does it say that cameras are required to film protesters? Seems to me that the cameras are there for the actual event, and to film invitees (like the President). The right to speak and assemble does not include the right to disrupt a private event and seize the camera spotlight. If the cameras wanted to film protesters, they'd walk a block away and film them.

And, if the Secret Service, the experts responsible for Presidential security, prefer to position protesters away from the event site in the interest of security, then I trust their assessment and judgement.

Some people need to let the court case play out instead of jumping to conclusions on the basis of one source (the ACLU).

[Face Ache]

From this morning's Sydney Morning Herald:

Why is Bush avoiding the Australian media? Don't ask.

By Mark Riley, Political Correspondent
October 22, 2003

George Bush's word is apparently beyond question. At least, by the Australian press.

The US President has declined a customary joint press conference after his address to the Federal Parliament tomorrow.

The media event, which normally allows two or three questions from Australian media and an equal number from the visiting press, would have been the only official opportunity for Australian journalists to quiz Mr Bush on the Iraq war and its aftermath.

It would also be the only opportunity to ask the US President about the two Australian citizens being detained without charge at Guantanamo Bay.

Australian journalists have also been denied any place in a so-called "close-up media pool" that will follow Mr Bush on all his official stops on the day. All positions in the four-member pool have been allocated to members of the White House press corps.

The US Secret Service rejected an application from the Canberra press gallery for equal access, on the basis that the journalists did not have the required US security clearances. The Secret Service then declined to allow the journalists to apply for those clearances; no reason was given.

A marquee has been set up in the grounds of The Lodge to allow the American journalists to file their stories. No Australian media will be allowed on the grounds.

A member of the team put together by Mr Howard's department to make press arrangements for the visit conceded yesterday that Australian media will learn of events at Government House and The Lodge from news reports filed in the US.

Asked why there would be no joint press conference with Mr Bush and Mr Howard, the spokesman said: "Because it isn't on the itinerary."

Mr Bush and Mr Howard had joint media conferences both times the Prime Minister visited the US this year.

The Chinese President, Hu Jintao, has agreed to participate in a joint press conference, with two questions from the Australian media and two from the travelling Chinese press, after he addresses Parliament on Thursday.

The American president is a tool.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
The American president is a tool.

Let me guess...because he is the one with over 4400 posts in this forum?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Let me guess...because he is the one with over 4400 posts in this forum?

What the **** are you on about?

What are you doing here?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The protesters were still allowed to speak and assemble, just not in the immediate vicinity of the President and invited guests.

In pretty much every case, this was Bush at a private event, which was organized by a private organization, and paid for with private funds.

.....

You mean like civic centers, universities, airports....

So why were people who carried signs that were pro-Bush allowed outside the zones?

President making a public appearance:

1) if you have a pro-Bush sign, you are allowed to attend and hear the speech
2) if you have an anti-Bush sign, you are relegated to a remote area away from the public appearance

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The protesters were still allowed to speak and assemble, just not in the immediate vicinity of the President and invited guests.

This is, as I understand it, an infringement of the right to peaceful assembly, since others *were* allowed to assemble in said vicinity - discriminating factor being their visible political message.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
From this morning's Sydney Morning Herald:

The American president is a tool.

Mother(ship) Superior comes to visit her docile sheep.

You will hear of our decisions when the Overlord decrees it.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

*click*











-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
What are you doing here?

I'm discussing issues and not calling people tools (except maybe those who call other people tools).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You mean like civic centers, universities, airports....

Yup...see all those fundraising luncheons and dinners. A bunch of hotels and arenas on that list as well...many more than the one university and one airport you mention.

So why were people who carried signs that were pro-Bush allowed outside the zones?

I don't know the numbers. I see mentions of hundreds protesters , but there are no numbers given as to how many 'supporters' were present. Maybe for the same reason you mentioned airports (though there was only 1), and universities (there was only 1), but conveniently left out the numerous hotels and arenas.

There are numerous mentions of 'neutral' passerbys being allowed to walk by the facility. This leads me to believe that the security precaution has to do with the hundreds of protestors versus an individual or family strolling the city streets.

Regardless of if I am right or wrong, I'm willing to wait for the hearing and allow both sides to present their cases before concluding a party is guilty. I won't base my determination only on the accusations put forth by the accuser.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In pretty much every case, this was Bush at a private event, which was organized by a private organization, and paid for with private funds.

How does that matter? Is the 1st Amendment suspended in that case?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
How does that matter? Is the 1st Amendment suspended in that case?

I'm not sure to be honest. But if it were a private event that I organized (a lucheon, wedding, retirement dinner, etc.), I'd definitely be upset if hundreds of protesters surrounded the facility and hassled all my guests. It could be a security concern as well, especially if the attendees are high-profile personalities.

I've been to ballgames and concerts, and seen cops patrol the parking lots directing non-ticket holders to leave the premises. I have yet to see a group of lot dwellers claim the "right to assemble" in these instances.

Awards events (Oscars, Golden Globes, etc.) also have cordoned-off areas where the police organize spectators and non-attendees. Some of these events will allow a limited number of non-attendees to gather close (by the red carpet for example), but the overwhelming majority of non-attendees are positioned well away from the facility entrance and roadways.

Again, this is just y assessment based on some thought and the single source (ACLU) of the accusations. Hopefully, the hearings will be covered and made public so we can see where the law stands on this issue.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm not sure to be honest. But if it were a private event that I organized (a lucheon, wedding, retirement dinner, etc.), I'd definitely be upset if hundreds of protesters surrounded the facility and hassled all my guests. It could be a security concern as well, especially if the attendees are high-profile personalities.

Why? If I were in such a situation, I would try to talk to the protesters and see what's wrong with my relation towards them: it's really a simple thing, if you have nothing to hide. Of course, if you have quite a lot of things to hide (or, maybe, if you don't want to share your views, policies, etc. at a reasonable level, due to several irrational constraints), there might be problems - big problems...

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
How does that matter? Is the 1st Amendment suspended in that case?

No, it just doesn't apply. The bill of rights amendment is binding on the government only. The government is not allowed to censor speech, but private entities are. Thus tv and radio stations can censor the things they broadcast, and you don't have to let anyone who wants to assemble peacefully on your front lawn.

[BlackGriffen]

True, however the sidewalk in front of your house, and your neighbor's lawn (assuming he granted permission), etc, are all fair game. This isn't a case of just, "Get on the other side of the property line," this is, "Get out of sight and out of mind."

BlackGriffen

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
No, it just doesn't apply. The bill of rights amendment is binding on the government only. The government is not allowed to censor speech, but private entities are. Thus tv and radio stations can censor the things they broadcast, and you don't have to let anyone who wants to assemble peacefully on your front lawn.

Well, I think the issue is a little murkier than that, and your analogies don't quite fit. If I go on the radio or TV, I'm implicitly giving the FCC the right to restrict my speech by making use of the frequencies they lawfully govern. If the local Republicans invite Dick Cheney to my town to speak, paying for it out of their own pocket, that's entirely different; they have no jurisdiction over me. If the event took place on private property, then the owner of the venue would legally be able to restrict my access and thus, theoretically, my ability to protest. I suppose they could even discriminate against me by keeping me further away from the event than Cheney supporters.

But again, we're moving afield of the issue here. The allegations made by the ACLU and the people they represent are that the Secret Service ordered local authorities to restrict protestors'/demonstrators' access; it does not seem to be a matter of private owners deciding for themselves they don't want any pinko liberals carrying signs on their lawn.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Well, I think the issue is a little murkier than that, and your analogies don't quite fit. If I go on the radio or TV, I'm implicitly giving the FCC the right to restrict my speech by making use of the frequencies they lawfully govern. If the local Republicans invite Dick Cheney to my town to speak, paying for it out of their own pocket, that's entirely different; they have no jurisdiction over me. If the event took place on private property, then the owner of the venue would legally be able to restrict my access and thus, theoretically, my ability to protest. I suppose they could even discriminate against me by keeping me further away from the event than Cheney supporters.

But again, we're moving afield of the issue here. The allegations made by the ACLU and the people they represent are that the Secret Service ordered local authorities to restrict protestors'/demonstrators' access; it does not seem to be a matter of private owners deciding for themselves they don't want any pinko liberals carrying signs on their lawn.

Oh I agree. I wasn't trying to insinuate that this action was justified in any way. The SS is part of the government and therefore bound by the constitution to respect the bill of rights. If the owners of the venue had asked the protesters to leave and been refused, then the interference of the SS might have been justified, but if the SS just forced them to leave, I see it as a violation of the protesters' constitutional rights.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Why? If I were in such a situation, I would try to talk to the protesters and see what's wrong with my relation towards them: it's really a simple thing, if you have nothing to hide.

He knows what's wrong with the relationship - they hate him, they hate his party, they hate his administration, they hate his daughters, they hate his brothers, they hate his mother, they hate his wife, they hate his faith, they hate his friends, they hate his upbringing....they hate everything about him.

Please tell me what you think would be accomplished in a discussion of these folks and the President. My wager - absolutely nothing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Please tell me what you think would be accomplished in a discussion of these folks and the President. My wager - absolutely nothing.

I agree with spacefreak here....so that's the seventh sign of the apocolypse.

but I added: but only because I think nothing will enlighten Bush.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He knows what's wrong with the relationship - they hate him, they hate his party, they hate his administration, they hate his daughters, they hate his brothers, they hate his mother, they hate his wife, they hate his faith, they hate his friends, they hate his upbringing....they hate everything about him.

Please tell me what you think would be accomplished in a discussion of these folks and the President. My wager - absolutely nothing.

More than anyone I know, spacefreak, please read this:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/...ns/7044874.htm

Quote:
"Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice that their policies are disastrous for people in this country? Quite a thought, isn't it? Grown-ups can actually do that -- can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it. Lyndon B. Johnson comes to mind -- a great president who was disastrously wrong about Vietnam."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but only because I think nothing will enlighten Bush.

en�light�en __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(n-ltn)
tr.v. en�light�ened, en�light�en�ing, en�light�ens
To agree with liberal thought and practices.




That HAS to be the definition.

Having said that, nothing GOOD comes from HATE.

These people are just down right venomous and dishonest.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Having said that, nothing GOOD comes from HATE.

These people are just down right venomous and dishonest.

well, I bow to your expertise.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I bow to your expertise.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
He knows what's wrong with the relationship - they hate him, they hate his party, they hate his administration, they hate his daughters, they hate his brothers, they hate his mother, they hate his wife, they hate his faith, they hate his friends, they hate his upbringing... they hate everything about him.

Please tell me what you think would be accomplished in a discussion of these folks and the President. My wager - absolutely nothing.

But why do they "hate" (exaggerated!) him? And why is he so apathetic on those matters? One could wonder about many similar questions, indeed.

Probably, anyway, you are right that not much would be accomplished in such a discussion - but mainly because this is a system not made (and neither open) for discussions on a direct, peer-to-peer level, as the word "democracy", on the contrary, would suggest (in its originary meaning). The result is that the protests are almost completely useless, and the government's policies (IMO) continue to be disastrous for society as a whole - all this because of some form of lack of deeper consciousness and practical projects on both sides of the fence.

(The protests of the '60s, OTOH, were much more successful because of a different mentality, and, so, a stronger ideality.)