Bush and the Secret Service ignore first amendment.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:34 pm

An interesting article I found in the opinion column. It talks about numerous instances where people were escourted away from Bush's speeches for protesting, wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, and even for having "No blood for oil" bumper stickers.

Discuss away.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:56 pm

Our govt. does exactly the same thing here in the UK.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:39 am

Pretty naive if you think this is a new trick.

Mirrormere · Post by **Mirrormere** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:22 am

Sigh

He has a point, you know.

"My God! Was a human involved?"

Post by **Best First** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:52 pm

Leatherneck wrote:Pretty naive if you think this is a new trick.

pretty stupid if you think thats a reason not to draw attention to it.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:59 pm

We're all on our way to totalitarian-hell in an apathetic handcart.

The UK has essentially made it illegal to protest about anything without first getting a licence from the police! Because of the threat of terrorism, of course. Christ, it's basically illegal to carry and use a megaphone in public in the UK now. How's that gonna defeat terrorism?

They've spent hundred of thousands of pounds trying to remove and prosecute one protester in Parliament Square. Yes, apparently because of the threat of terrorism

http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/

Once upon a time, people in the USA would be screaming if anyone tried to mess with consitutional rights. Now you're virtually giving them away.

In the UK everyone is lining up to give away civil rights on the basis of a 'threat from terrorism', when we've lived with it for decades anyhow!!

Both the UK and the USA are lining up the population for ID cards, vehicle tracking systems......

Frankly, it scares me sh**less how much power we are prepared to hand to our states. And how much power we are happy for them to take, even when it is illegal.

And don't even go there with the 'if you've got nothing to hide' bulls**t. ARGH!

Anyway, sorry. Rant over.

(edited to make it readable!

)

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:25 pm

Scraplet wrote:We're all on our way to totalitarian-hell in an apathetic handcart.

The UK has essentially made it illegal to protest about anything without first getting a licence from the police! Because of the threat of terrorism, of course. Christ, it's basically illegal to carry and use a megaphone in public in the UK now. How's that gonna defeat terrorism?

They've spent hundred of thousands of pounds trying to remove and prosecute one protester in Parliament Square. Yes, apparently because of the threat of terrorism

http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/

Once upon a time, people in the USA would be screaming if anyone tried to mess with consitutional rights. Now you're virtually giving them away.

In the UK everyone is lining up to give away civil rights on the basis of a 'threat from terrorism', when we've lived with it for decades anyhow!!

Both the UK and the USA are lining up the population for ID cards, vehicle tracking systems......

Frankly, it scares me sh**less how much power we are prepared to hand to our states. And how much power we are happy for them to take, even when it is illegal.

And don't even go there with the 'if you've got nothing to hide' bulls**t. ARGH!

Anyway, sorry. Rant over.

(edited to make it readable! )

I feel ya. Next thing you know they'll make us bend over at the airport so they can check for bombs up our arses. And make us pay cash for it.

Mirrormere · Post by **Mirrormere** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:30 am

[quote]Scraplet Wrote:
Both the UK and the USA are lining up the population for ID cards, vehicle tracking systems...... [quote]

Um...this has already been done. In the US the population ID cards are known as "Social Security Numbers" and "Drivers' Licenses." See Onstar for vehicle tracking systems, not to mention GPS on cell phones. Rental companies can now charge customers more or impose penalties because they now have tracking systems that can tell if a rental car went over the speed limit. Lining up? Hell, we are already there.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:40 am

Scraplet wrote:We're all on our way to totalitarian-hell in an apathetic handcart.

The UK has essentially made it illegal to protest about anything without first getting a licence from the police! Because of the threat of terrorism, of course. Christ, it's basically illegal to carry and use a megaphone in public in the UK now. How's that gonna defeat terrorism?

They've spent hundred of thousands of pounds trying to remove and prosecute one protester in Parliament Square. Yes, apparently because of the threat of terrorism

http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/

Once upon a time, people in the USA would be screaming if anyone tried to mess with consitutional rights. Now you're virtually giving them away.

In the UK everyone is lining up to give away civil rights on the basis of a 'threat from terrorism', when we've lived with it for decades anyhow!!

Both the UK and the USA are lining up the population for ID cards, vehicle tracking systems......

Frankly, it scares me sh**less how much power we are prepared to hand to our states. And how much power we are happy for them to take, even when it is illegal.

This is something I could never get. Terrorism has existed forever, yet only now does the government call attention to it so that they can scare the populace into giving up their rights. And people are falling for it!

And this stuff about the "War on Terror". How do you defeat a feeling? It's like saying "I'm going to fight a battle and stamp out "sadness". It's ridiculous.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:28 am

If i was holding a transformers rally, and some guys at the back kept shouting "gobots rule" - what should I do.

I keep posting threads on websites, and these 'trolls' come in to just kick up a fuss, shoul i ban them?

I personaly think each situation needs to be judged at the moment, if someone is disrupting a speech, they are in theroy in-fringing on speech makers right to 'freedom of speech' - so should I not stand by the law and remove the guilty party?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:32 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:If i was holding a transformers rally, and some guys at the back kept shouting "gobots rule" - what should I do.

I keep posting threads on websites, and these 'trolls' come in to just kick up a fuss, shoul i ban them?

if someone makes analogies that are so simple as to be meaningless, should i ignore them?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:26 pm

If they are so simple then answer them.

Actually, you just high-lighted my point, you are in fact a 'troll' - your contribution to this thread offers nothing but to mock myself, you are trying to enter a debate that is off-topic and not relevent.

And my question remains, and leads to, should you be removed? or are you entitled to your opinion. trolling or not in this instance?

simple to question, easy to answer?, no; dont be so obtuse to the point in hand, it would be easy to say that anyone removing a protestor from his right to freedom of speech is wrong but it doesnt protect the person making the speech in the first place, they to have rights of an equal value, without it, we would not have politics.

Unfortuantly I think alot of this is lost in the case that its 'G.Bush, making a speech, so hes fair game for anything, its hard to get your voice heard beyond his own etc.. but unfortuantly, I dont think it does the protestors cause any good, all you end up with is a debate on national security and freedoms in general. Im pretty sure the protestor had somthing else to say, unfortuantly, he missed the point.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:29 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:If they are so simple then answer them.

why, when it would be facile and pointless to do so?

And its not trolling to point that out.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:48 pm

It would be ultimately far more interesting to hear your opinion, then some lame insults that have nothing to do with the topic.

Lets see, everytime you ask a question from now on, ill just say its a pointless question, and that its not trolling, as im just pointing out my own superior opinion on the subject. how mature.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:13 pm

my opinion is that reducing debates to such STUPIDLY simple analogies renders debate itself pointless.

nothing is going to be resolved.

its why i don't usually bother with the religous debates anymore, because some people are so reductive in their reasoning that it capsizes any notion of intelligent debate and when people bother responding to the overly simple arguements put forward they are just faced with more of the same.

Lets all debate the New Labour way. Woo!

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:31 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:If i was holding a transformers rally, and some guys at the back kept shouting "gobots rule" - what should I do.

Simply ignore them and move on.

I keep posting threads on websites, and these 'trolls' come in to just kick up a fuss, shoul i ban them?

Yes, because trolling is against the rules on nearly every board. They're breaking rules while protesters have a legal right to protest.

I personaly think each situation needs to be judged at the moment, if someone is disrupting a speech, they are in theroy in-fringing on speech makers right to 'freedom of speech' - so should I not stand by the law and remove the guilty party?

This is open to interpretation, but like I said, the speech maker should simply ignore the protesters and move on. If anyone can ignore anyone, Bush can.

My two cents.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:36 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:If i was holding a transformers rally, and some guys at the back kept shouting "gobots rule" - what should I do.

I keep posting threads on websites, and these 'trolls' come in to just kick up a fuss, shoul i ban them?

I personaly think each situation needs to be judged at the moment, if someone is disrupting a speech, they are in theroy in-fringing on speech makers right to 'freedom of speech' - so should I not stand by the law and remove the guilty party?

Not sure I follow your analogy...
...but, if you are saying that a protestor might infringe on other people in the course of their business, then they are likely to be committing some kind of civil or criminal offence. Be it 'breach of the peace' 'obstructing a footpath' or 'loitering with intent' the police and other authorities have plenty of room to manouver.

So why do we have to have the potential of being labled 'terrorist' for exercising a right (ha!) to protest? 20 years ago we were still using these types of arguments to illustrate why communist countries were bad!!

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:40 pm

AT BF

the question opened up the debate to fruther reaching issues, the analogy was perfect, you lack any argument to counter, your simply chucking insults.

Whats stupid about me questioning who has the right to shout louder, and when is someone steping on someone elses freedom of speech, regardless of the speakers subject matter ???

Exactly what is so stupid about that, your the only person who is shutting down the debate with your insults, if its so simple then you tell me who has the right to speak, or who doesnt, or when someones civil rights should be under mined?

Why dont you let ppl who want to talk about these issues continue to do so, if you want to insult me do it via my inbox cheers.

-----------------------------

Post by **Best First** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:01 pm

yeah, whatever.

carry on with your special approach to discussing things.

i look forward to the wisdom that will no doubt emerge from your perfect analogies and your expansion of the debate.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:13 pm

Ok thanks

Dayton3 · Post by **Dayton3** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:38 am

I believe that U.S. courts have generally held that whatever measures are necessary to secure the safety of the president outweight the immediate free speech rights of protesters.

Because the U.S. president is both the head of government and the head of state, any attack on him is by definition an attack upon the U.S. as a whole.

So his security is paramount.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:14 pm

Someone shouting at the president is hardley an attack on the US. and besides, who cares if the president is attacked, he clearly doesnt run the US anyway.

Mirrormere · Post by **Mirrormere** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:15 am

I believe that U.S. courts have generally held that whatever measures are necessary to secure the safety of the president outweight the immediate free speech rights of protesters.

Because the U.S. president is both the head of government and the head of state, any attack on him is by definition an attack upon the U.S. as a whole.

So his security is paramount.

Um...I agree that the President's security is paramount and most countries view attacks on their heads of state as an attack on the country. But how does free speech threaten the President? Is free speech now considered to be lethal force?

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:16 am

People saying what they like to or around the President is just as bad as being a free-thinking individual! The Prez should only be exposed to the thoughts and opinions he already holds or that reinforce good oldfashioned American values like apple pie and children.

Because hearing a view contrary to one you already own is obviously an attack on you, your nation and those apple-pies and children we all hold dear.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:40 pm

this leads back to the point I made earlier, speaking over the president is not an attack, and should not, in that case, be a terroist action, thats such a cop out.

What I do think it is, is rude, and even tho i dont like GWB, its still infrigning on his right to speak.

If I had say travelled 1000 miles to hear what this GWB had to say on a subject I feel strongly about, ie, Iraq, I dont want someone else interupting, I came to hear what GWB (or any other speaker for that matter) has to say on the subject.
Afterwards I will listen to someone elses opinion in the same way, and I would respect GWB not to butt-in either.

So, whilst the protestor should not be removed on the grounds of 'national security' as thats just a cop out, he should be removed for disrupting the peace.

If the protestor feels very strongly about the issues at hand, why not get into politics, isnt that the point of democratically elected governments, and for example, the house of commons.

Obviously im not blind to the point that 'debate' in the house of commons is largely non-existent, im pretty sure all the 'deals' are done behind closed doors, but if u want to be heard on a national level, isnt this the right way to go about things instead of being nuiscance, and more then likely, damaging your own reputation, and point your trying to make at the same time?