The real issue we must face is will we stand up for the right to 'dissent'? If not, why not?

[Blackhatjack]

There is a price we all must pay to live in a free democratic society. That price is that we may be inconvenienced and imposed upon by those engaging in speech we consider ridiculous, insane, irritating, unpopular, wrong, etc.

It has been argued from the time we created a constitutional form of government that we might disagree with what you say, but we will fight for your right to say it.

So when people speak out in opposition to our own views are we going to condemn their right to say it because we disagree with the content of their speech? I hope we will stand by their right to dissent.

WE all need to be concerned about 'free speech zones' set up blocks away from our leaders speaking. Likewise, when our leaders speak as our elected officials, we should be very worried that no one is allowed to attend except the party supporters of the elected officials. And when those licensed to use the public airways adopt and promote a partisan position that marginalizes the opposition position without giving them an opportunity to be heard, we should speak out.

The danger of allowing law enforcement officers to use 'rough tactics' on those espousing unpopular views is that it deters others from speaking out on legitimate issues because of fear they will suffer similar treatment. It also puts a public face on such treatment as being the policy of our government, just like the failure to investigate and punish those involved in torture by our government presents to the rest of the world that we condone it as a country.

There are hundreds of examples that could be cited here, but take a moment and recall that activities as benign as putting up protest posters with city approved materials got two people arrested. And when the White House has a manual which describes clearly unlawful activities as the policy for handling dissenters, should this go unchallenged? And recall the heavy handed tactics at the Repub National Convention in which 'protestors' were swept up and imprisoned overnight en masse?

We need to reject deciding who should be arrested based on the content of what people are saying as the basis for determining whether they should have been arrested.

A democracy without 'free speech' and 'the right to dissent' and 'the right to petition our government officials' is no democracy at all. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will understand just what is at stake in opposing this Administration and its policies.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. If we don't, we're lost. It is very discouraging to see

DUers talking about the incident at UF like posters at conservative boards are. Too many are saying "He deserved it, He was being an asshole," etc.

Does Code Pink deserve it when they stand up and disrupt a committee meeting? If they didn't go quietly, or if the police took a mind to rough them up, would DUers support Tasering Code Pink members? Cindy Sheehan?

EIther everyone has a right to free speech or no one has a right to free speech. The First Amendment says everyone has a right to free speech. Do we care enough to defend that right?

Americans need to wake up and see what's happening, and has been happening for a long time.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

2. Creeping authoritarianism..

That's what I was getting at with my post re: authoritarians vs libertarians yesterday.

If even DU'ers are succumbing to creeping authoritarianism then the general public must be far worse.

[Blackhatjack]

4. There are many examples of just this kind of suppression occurring...

Look no further than Chile, Argentina, etc at how the loss of civil liberties eventually led to thousands 'going missing.'

You have to be vigilant in your opposition when the small freedoms are crushed. If not, those who are intent on taking your freedom away will become emboldened and they will certainly expand their efforts.

[Blackhatjack]

3. We certainly don't have to agree with what people are saying to be outrage at how they are silenced

When you set out to pacify a people, you begin by taking away the small things and justifying the action on the basis that the individual was disreputable, unpopular, and 'deserved' to be disciplined because they do not agree with the view held by the great majority of the people.

Next, you establish a pattern for handling dissenters on the pretext that we must treat all people alike, and you begin to silence those who have some support but are still not part of the majority position.

Once the public gets used to those tactics, you step things up by saying this individual is interfering with the conduct of government business, we cannot allow dissenters to harm our government and its functions in this way.

When you start silencing people who have the support of 50% or more of the people, you tell people there is a very good reason(ie. national security considerations) for silencing the dissenters, but because of requirements of secrecy you cannot tell the people those exact reasons.

When you decide it is time to suppress all dissent that disagrees with the government's position, you bring out the big guns. Use force and publicize the use of force. Characterize the dissenters as traitors to the government. Wrap yourself in the flag and pretend you are standing up for democracy. And the project is complete.

Where do we find ourselves on this list today? It is later than you think.

[malaise]

5. And that's the only issue that matters in

that excessive use of force at UF.

[Blackhatjack]

6. I am outraged when Repubs accuse Dems of 'not supporting the troops' because...

...Dems want to provide the troops with more time at home between deployments, want to make sure our troops have proper protective equipment, want to ensure that contractors actually provide our troops with the services taxpayers are paying for, and want to end this war and bring the troops home.

I am not outraged that they have the right to say these things.

Two very important points. We must weather the stupid and insane content of some speech if we are to preserve the Constitutional right to exercise free speech and dissent. But I would never advocate that those who actually carry around such beliefs should never have an open forum to vent their ideas.

IMHO that is a very important difference today between Democrats and Progressives on one side, and today's Republicans on the other.