galenrox

Alright, I'm fairly new here, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was debated around election time, but what does everyone think that Bush did not allow people with dissenting signs be around him, but instead blocks away in "free speech zones". Last time I checked, isn't this whole country a free speech zone?

__________________

Simon W. Moon

"Free speech zones" (how Orwellian) affect peaceable demonstrators with permits. They are unAmerican and disgraceful.


Here. Maybe this will help advance the conversation.

http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/syllabi/alreynol/j300/notes6.html
Time, Place & Manner Restrictions
~a form of prior censorship, but not based on content
~the idea is that the government has a right to limit the time, place and manner of communication that interferes with the basic functions of society.

The government can impose reasonable regulations about when, where and how individuals or groups can communicate with other people.

The courts have developed a set of rules to help us determine when time, place & manner restrictions are OK.

~Is the restriction of expression truly content neutral?
~Are reasonable, alternative channels of communication still available?
~Is the restriction justified by a substantial government interest?
~Is the restriction no broader than necessary to serve the government’s purpose? (Is it narrowly tailored)

Types of Forums

Traditional public forum: public places that have long been devoted to assembly and speeches, places like street corners and public parks. Highest level of protection.

Designated public forum: Places created by government that are to be used for expressive activities, among other things. City-owned auditorium, state fairgrounds, community meeting halls and sometimes student newspapers, because they're open to all students. Government has greater power to use TPM restrictions to regulate speech.

Public property that's not a public forum: Public places, but they're generally off-limits for expressive conduct. Examples include prisons, military bases.

Private property: No FA guarantees, private owners are generally free to regulate. Most common areas of contention are shopping malls and private residences.

More details on the different types of forums.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tradforum.htm
Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.

Segregated "free speech zones" appear to fail "substantial government interest" test and dramatically fail the "content neutral" test.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13694&c=86

Following is just a partial list of incidents from around the nation.

Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President’s policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone. These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer. Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.

Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested. People who carried signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.

Evansville, Indiana
On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading “Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man.” When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a “protest zone” more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested. Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President’s policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair’s constitutional rights

Kalamazoo, Michigan
At President Bush’s appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election (“Welcome Governor Bush”). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a “protest zone” behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there. The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President’s policy on Iraq were ordered into a “protest zone” approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President’s foreign policy were sent to a “protest zone” located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking.[/i] Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone. One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, “We Love You President Bush.” She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

vauge

Does anyone remember last year when a little girl was holding a sign that was pro Bush at a democrat rally? The sign was stoeln from her by a guy and ripped up right in front of her. This little girl's parents appearently weren't of the sharpest wit.

The reason for these "zones" is so riots do not pursue. There are STUPID people everywhere, just as there are folks that know how to peacefully protest. Sometimes peaceful protesting can result in a mob from the ones being protestes against. So, this demands protection from themselves as well as to others.

Simon W. Moon

Hogwash. There're any number of ways to prevent riots from ensuing that don't involve infringing on our Constitutional rights.

The KKK gets to demonstrate downtown in major metropolises because fear of a possible riot is not a substantial government interest because there are other methods for preventing riots available to the gov besides limiting our First Ammendment rights of assembly and speech.

shuamort

The free speech zones weren't a Bush-Republican thing only... the Kerry-Democrats had them too and did them first:

Protesters at the DNC were confined to a fenced-in area -- a wire enclosure topped by razor wire outside Boston's FleetCenter, where the Convention was held. They charged that their First Amendment rights were violated by this confinement.


The rest of the linked article deals with this issue and is really worth a read.

vauge

Did you know that folks that protest against the KKK's freedom of speech are fenced off as well?

galenrox

The KKK is allowed, almost whenever they want, to march through Skokie, which has one of the highest per-capita jewish populations in the country. And riots don't ensue. People who disagree are allowed near by, and they yell, and hold signs, and there are no problems, and if someone crosses that line and, say, throws something, they are immidiately arrested.

And can you honestly say with a straight face that free speach zones are there to prevent riots? A president bans the presence of dissenting signs near him, and you say it's for public safety? I really hope your joking.

Simon W. Moon

Disgusting idn it?

ShamMol

That is the problem. This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, this is just basic rights according to the constitution. PRotesting like that has to be allowed whoever they are protesting against. There isn't a safety issue, because they can screen (which they already do).

__________________

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

How communist of you.