Would a Democratic President have "free-speech zones?"

[raccoon]

This worries me from time to time. The current administration is so blatantly corrupt, bullying, arrogant, etc., that's it's easy to fall into thinking that a Democratic President would be like FDR resurrected. But of course both parties belong to big business.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what others think on this question.

[Atman]

1. Yes. They're called "borders."

Inside the US's is a "free speech zone." Unless you're a republican. Then you can only crit the CIC from the safety of a cage under a highway underpass four miles from the president.

[raccoon]

2. Maybe I should've been more clear.

Would a Democratic President have protesters caged in a so-called free speech zone such as that--"the safety of a cage under a highway underpass four miles from the president."

[Toots]

17. Didn't they establish them at the Democratic Convention?

I would hope not but I think precedent has been established.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. No other president ever needed them.

[jonnyblitz]

4. the DEM convention in Boston in 2004 had them,

i think it was bullshit but many here said "why would anybody want to protest the DEMS?"

I guess that isn't the same as the "DEM president" but still interesting to note..

[Judi Lynn]

5. What leads you to this claim?

The current administration is so blatantly corrupt, bullying, arrogant, etc., that's it's easy to fall into thinking that a Democratic President would be like FDR resurrected.

Has it been so long since Bill Clinton that you cannot remember conditions only 6 years ago?

What would be so bad about having "FDR resurrected?" What is it you are trying to imply about that President? What do you want to say about FDR but won't? We can't read your mind. From anything I've ever heard, he didn't have free speech zones, either.

[raccoon]

9. Looks like I need to do some clarifying.

"Has it been so long since Bill Clinton that you cannot remember conditions only 6 years ago?"

The current junta makes Clinton look like St. Bill.

What would be so bad about having "FDR resurrected?"

Nothing--in the past few years, I've come to have great respect for FDR. For the record, I never disliked him, but it wasn't until the past 5 or so years that I came to really appreciate him. In fact, I think we need a DIGITIZED FDR as president.

If he were President now, there'd probably be a program such as the CCC to rebuild New Orleans already.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Thanks for the clarification. FDR, dealing with Bush's problems would

risen to the occassion, no doubt whatsoever. n/t

[Dhalgren]

6. Yes. We aren't in "America" anymore, Toto...

[htuttle]

7. They pre-date Bush, actually

They had one at the WTO protest in 1999, and their origin stems from a ruling allowing the restriction of anti-abortion protestors to an area a certain distance from abortion clinics (initially it was to prevent them from blocking the sidewalk in front of the clinic).

They weren't used as extensively as they are today, and Bush expanded their application so that the President now emits an 'anti-free-speech-sphere' around him at all times, but the legal precedent was already there, and had been used from time to time.

[baldguy]

14. They are fundamentally different.

The anti-choice nut cases were excluded from protesting within an area around the clinics. This was done mainly because these protesters threatened violence and perpetrated violent acts, including assault & murder.

Anti-Bush activists are excluded from protesting anywhere except within a particular area - usually far, far away from the object of their protest. There have been no acts of violence, or even threats of violence from these people. This is done mainly to establish & maintain the propaganda that Bush is a popular & much-beloved leader.

The first type of "free speech zone" maintains the civil rights of extremist elements in our society, balanced by the need to keep the peace.

The second allows the government to restrict & silence dissent, and targets as criminals those who dare to protest the regime. This is an authoritarian tactic without even lip service paid to the concept of "balance".

[htuttle]

15. I agree

But the same legal precedent is used to justify both cases, as far as I know.

[raccoon]

19. And this admin is VERY intolerant of any dissent. nt

[ixion]

8. freepers would be howling like banshees if a dem prez tried

to enact 'free-speech' zones. You just watch. If, by some miracle, a dem wins in 2K8, just watch the freepers back-peddle on things like free-speech zones, the unitary executive, and 'respecting the office' and all this CRAP we've been hearing from them for the past six years.

[raccoon]

10. They sure would. The hypocritical morans (sic). nt

[Judi Lynn]

13. Sure they would, without a second thought.

That's one group which refuses to accept the consequences of its own bad choices. The ultimate flip floppers, being hypocrites at the core, always.

[bullimiami]

12. i remember clinton coming to speak at the temple around the corner.

the protesters were allowed to stand across the street behind a police line. well in view and hearing of the main entrance and where clinton came and went.
pens, around the corner, out of sight and sound, are a bush thing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. "Free speech zones" were created by Bill Clinton

I was present when it happened, at the WTO demonstrations in Seattle in 1999. At the demand of President Clinton, and during the time he was in Seattle for the WTO ministerial, it was a crime to demonstrate in any way against the WTO anywhere within the downtown area. People were actually arrested for just carrying issues of The Stranger, a weekly paper that, during the ministerial, had a blatantly anti-WTO cover illustration.

[raccoon]

18. Two heads of the same snake, the two parties are.

Only the Democrats give the people a few crumbs.

Thanks, TechBear.