| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
29 Jun 2007 02:51:56 PM |
| Object: |
Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit free
speech at the city's homosexual festival this weekend after fighting
off complaints they are creating unconstitutional "free speech
zones."
Instead, the city will limit some signs and banners to an area
"adjacent to the Permitted Street Closure Area."
The issue is that generally, court opinions have held "free speech
zones" do not meet requirements of the First Amendment. Thus, the city
is no longer calling the area a "free speech zone," although the same
zoning restrictions will apply.
According to a permit for the weekend's events, anyone who wishes to
use "amplified sound and/or hand held signs and banners that extend
beyond the torso of the person holding them," and "signs/banners on
sticks, or other rigid objects," will still be relegated to a
designated area "adjacent" to the actual event area.
"The forgoing," states the permit, "is not to be considered a
limitation on individuals using any area outside of the Permitted
Street Closure to exercise their First Amendment rights in any lawful
manner."
Despite the disclaimer, organizations from both sides of the political
debate see the restriction as a clear limitation on freedom of speech
and contend the permit is not the only problem; the ordinance allowing
for its enforcement is the root issue.
A St. Petersburg spokesman told WND the city's only concern is for
public safety.
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Participants in the festival were furious; some pelted the preachers
with beads and drinks and nearly incited riots.
In an attempt to curb a repeat clash, the city council met to create a
system governing outdoor events and proposed a "free speech zone" at
the event, where protesters and demonstrators would be allowed.
The resulting ordinance allows the city to create prior restraints of
speech on an event-by-event basis, with virtually no predictable
limits. It also criminalizes certain free speech behavior around
public events and authorizes the police to enforce breaches of permits
- the penalty for such breaches being arrest.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance
Defense Fund, the ordinance and the permits are far too broad.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent a letter Monday to
St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and Police Chief Charles Harmon
calling for changes to both the city's ordinance regarding the "free
speech zones" and event permit enforcement.
"This ordinance essentially gives the city the power to violate
people's rights on an event-by-event basis. It's especially unlawful
to tell people where they can speak or can't, simply based on the
viewpoint of the speaker or the content of the speech," said Rebecca
Harrison Steele, director of the ACLU of Florida's West Central
Office.
"The streets and sidewalks of the entire city should be a free speech
zone for everyone," Steele said.
Larry Keffer, a Tampa-based street pastor present at last year's
event, contacted the Alliance Defense Fund for legal counsel after
hearing of the proposed restrictions. ADF is a non-profit public
interest law firm focused on First Amendment issues.
In a letter sent to the St. Petersburg mayor and police chief, ADF-
allied attorney Jonathan Scruggs informed the city it could not
"change the character of a traditional public forum simply by creating
a parade permit scheme."
Additionally, stated Scruggs, the protection of public safety should
not require prohibition of all hand-held signs and banners and sound
amplification equipment.
"The ban is simply too broad," he said.
The city responded to pressure from all sides with assurances it would
revise the permits to resolve all of the First Amendment trespasses.
"I can assure you that we're not going to have a free speech zone,"
Bill Proffitt, spokesman for the St. Petersburg Police department,
told WND Wednesday, as the permits were being revised. "I don't think
we ever had them."
"There's been a whole lot of discussion - the city council passed an
ordinance a few months ago that came into play - but the bottom line
is that people can protest anywhere they want as long as they do so
lawfully," Proffitt continued.
But when the text of the permit was finalized, City Attorney John
Wolfe informed WND it contained only two changes:
Only during the parade and for a few minutes before and after,
demonstrators may use amplified sound and wave banners of any size,
even in the permitted street closure area. At other times they are
restricted to a single zone.
Additionally, signs that do not extend beyond the torso and are not
mounted to sticks are permitted anywhere on the festival grounds.
Other signs are limited to the protest zone.
Keffer, unsatisfied with the changes, believes city officials are
submitting to the homosexual agenda.
"I'm disappointed," he told WND. "The permit sounds essentially the
same. The most coveted right we have is the ability to express
opinions on public property, and the local government cannot usurp the
Constitution."
WND spoke to the ACLU after the revisions were announced, and
officials called the effort a good first step, but said there still
are concerns about the process.
"A city simply can't shut down all of its streets to free speech
because of a streets closure permit," Scruggs concurred. "Religious
speech is not second-class speech. Even if what they have to say is
offensive, citizens have a right to present their opinions."
Regardless of the restrictions, Keffer, 45, says he has no plans to
confine his protest to a designated area.
"We don't consider ourselves protesters. We will do whatever we need
to do to get the Gospel out," he said.
As WND reported a week earlier, the city of Atlanta faced a similar
question over its pride festival, where a year ago police threatened
protesters on public property if they did not put away signs critical
of homosexuality.
But ***** Christensen, an urban missionary familiar with the situation
in Atlanta, reported to WND that last weekend's festival was without
incident.
"It was a total about-face from last year" and a "victory for
Americans everywhere," he said.
Rev. Billy Ball, another Atlanta Festival missionary, says he will try
to "help out the boys in St. Petersburg" this weekend.
"We have free speech zones in America," said Ball. "There are 50, and
they're called states."
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 06:20:18 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions2@aol.com> writes:
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
According to a permit for the weekend's events, anyone who wishes to
use "amplified sound and/or hand held signs and banners that extend
beyond the torso of the person holding them," and "signs/banners on
sticks, or other rigid objects," will still be relegated to a
designated area "adjacent" to the actual event area.
<snip>
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
Aside from the question of why gays should not be able to hold their
own event without being harassed (one can only wonder how Young would
react if some atheists gathered outside a church on a Sunday morning
and used bullhorns to make enough noise to be heard inside), one might
note that "free speach zones" were instituted by George W. Bush, who
expects to be treated like royalty and not be subjected to any
criticism in public.
Regardless of what the rules should be, I see no reason as to why
the president should be sheltered from dissenting opinions any more
or less than the general public. After all, there is no exemption
to the first amendment for the president.
So, when I read J Young's whine, a Bush supporter as I recall, I see a
hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 06:26:17 PM |
|
|
No One:
J Young <youngopinions2@aol.com> writes:
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
According to a permit for the weekend's events, anyone who wishes to
use "amplified sound and/or hand held signs and banners that extend
beyond the torso of the person holding them," and "signs/banners on
sticks, or other rigid objects," will still be relegated to a
designated area "adjacent" to the actual event area.
<snip>
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
Aside from the question of why gays should not be able to hold their
own event without being harassed (one can only wonder how Young would
react if some atheists gathered outside a church on a Sunday morning
and used bullhorns to make enough noise to be heard inside), one might
note that "free speach zones" were instituted by George W. Bush, who
expects to be treated like royalty and not be subjected to any
criticism in public.
Regardless of what the rules should be, I see no reason as to why
the president should be sheltered from dissenting opinions any more
or less than the general public. After all, there is no exemption
to the first amendment for the president.
So, when I read J Young's whine, a Bush supporter as I recall, I see a
hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
To view this item online, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit free
speech at the city's homosexual festival this weekend after fighting
off complaints they are creating unconstitutional "free speech
zones."
Wish I could be there and meet you J. Thanks for calling it to our
attention even if you did plagerize the item.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 11:06:08 PM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe J Young <youngopinions2@aol.com> chipped
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit free
speech at the city's homosexual festival this weekend after fighting
off complaints they are creating unconstitutional "free speech
zones."
The bigger the bigot, the bigger the closet. Come out!
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 04:36:33 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jun., 21:51, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
To view this item online, visithttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
Ah... the usual balanced and unbiased source...
If you want to be taken seriously (but we all know you couldn't care
less that you're the laughing stock of alt.atheism), how about using
credible sources?
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit free
speech at the city's homosexual festival this weekend after fighting
off complaints they are creating unconstitutional "free speech
zones."
"limiting free speech"... No surprise you like it so much...
Funny that when it comes to propaganda for your sect, you're totally
in favor of unlimited free speech...
How do you spell "hypocrit"? J-Y-O-U-N-G
Any reason why you're systematically on the side of homophobes, nazis,
racists and bigots?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 06:15:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:51:56 -0700, J Young wrote:
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit
violence provoked by Christianist extremists.
That's about right...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a
way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna
live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else
pours dirt in their holes.
"Climb out of your holes people!"
- Dr. House, on faith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
01 Jul 2007 06:52:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:51:56 -0700, J Young wrote:
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
St. Petersburg, Fla., officials are sticking with plans to limit free
speech at the city's homosexual festival this weekend after fighting
off complaints they are creating unconstitutional "free speech
zones."
Instead, the city will limit some signs and banners to an area
"adjacent to the Permitted Street Closure Area."
This is terrible. You really have to dig deep to find out that
homosexuals are not universally respected and accepted in the USA.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 05:17:02 PM |
|
|
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
To view this item online, visithttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56433
[most of article is snipped above and below quoted text]
The resulting ordinance allows the city to create prior restraints of
speech on an event-by-event basis, with virtually no predictable
limits. It also criminalizes certain free speech behavior around
public events and authorizes the police to enforce breaches of permits
- the penalty for such breaches being arrest.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance
Defense Fund, the ordinance and the permits are far too broad.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent a letter Monday to
St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and Police Chief Charles Harmon
calling for changes to both the city's ordinance regarding the "free
speech zones" and event permit enforcement.
"This ordinance essentially gives the city the power to violate
people's rights on an event-by-event basis. It's especially unlawful
to tell people where they can speak or can't, simply based on the
viewpoint of the speaker or the content of the speech," said Rebecca
Harrison Steele, director of the ACLU of Florida's West Central
Office.
"The streets and sidewalks of the entire city should be a free speech
zone for everyone," Steele said.
As everyone knows, Young is constantly railing against the ACLU. And
yet, he says nothing about them in this case. Probably because he is
a hypocrite (among other faults), and the ACLU works with anyone that
has an apparently valid case, even when they do not agree with the
message that the people of the case are promoting.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 04:30:39 PM |
|
|
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment. Ya know, the church my neighbor attends
sometimes holds sunrise ceremonies on the beach. Maybe a bunch of
gays should get together and exercise their 'free speech' by showing
up on that beach with bullhorns.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 04:49:10 PM |
|
|
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
Ya know, the church my neighbor attends
sometimes holds sunrise ceremonies on the beach. Maybe a bunch of
gays should get together and exercise their 'free speech' by showing
up on that beach with bullhorns.
If it's a public beach, that's their right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 05:28:28 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
That's been going on for years - people can't even quietly hold up a
sign critical of him or his policies in his presence, and people
have been either arrested or forcibly evicted for doing that.
Basically, whenever the cameras are rolling, they don't want any
signs critical of him in sight because it would intefere with the
marketing message he's pushing. And that includes when he is
merely driving somewhere along a previously announced route.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 09:58:08 PM |
|
|
In article <87y7i1cc1f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
That's been going on for years - people can't even quietly hold up a
sign critical of him or his policies in his presence, and people
have been either arrested or forcibly evicted for doing that.
Basically, whenever the cameras are rolling, they don't want any
signs critical of him in sight because it would intefere with the
marketing message he's pushing. And that includes when he is
merely driving somewhere along a previously announced route.
That's absolutely wrong. I've been to dozens of presidential visits in
the past two years and I've seen literally thousands of people standing
along the various motorcade routes and at the various sites holding
signs protesting the war and everything else under the sun. No one got
arrested, no one got segregated off-camera. If anything, it's been my
experience that the media covering the events lavish their attention on
the protesters and rarely, if ever, show any of the *other* hundreds of
people holding up signs supporting the president.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 10:54:09 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87y7i1cc1f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
That's been going on for years - people can't even quietly hold up a
sign critical of him or his policies in his presence, and people
have been either arrested or forcibly evicted for doing that.
Basically, whenever the cameras are rolling, they don't want any
signs critical of him in sight because it would intefere with the
marketing message he's pushing. And that includes when he is
merely driving somewhere along a previously announced route.
That's absolutely wrong. I've been to dozens of presidential visits in
the past two years and I've seen literally thousands of people standing
along the various motorcade routes and at the various sites holding
signs protesting the war and everything else under the sun.
You don't know what you are talking about. I'll give you three
sources. One is
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL>
(and don't try to claim "liberal media bias" as the article was
written by a bona fide conservative who is not on the newspaper's staff).
A second is <http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs20030923.html>
which points out that the number of incidents of this sort of thing
skyrocketed under Bush.
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration, as described in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone>:
Free speech zones are created by the Secret Service for
President George W. Bush and other members of his
administration.[1] The stated purpose of free speech zones is
to protect the safety of the dignitary, or the protesters
themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are
"Orwellian",[2][3] and that authorities use them in a
heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them
literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as
well as visiting dignitaries. The Secret Service denies
specifically targeting protesters, but, on a number of
occasions, these denials have been contradicted by local
police officers who have stated under oath that Secret Service
agents specifically ordered them to target protesters. The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a number of
lawsuits on the issue. While free speech zones existed in
limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it
has been during Bush's presidency that their scope has been
greatly expanded.
No one got arrested, no one got segregated off-camera. If anything,
it's been my experience that the media covering the events lavish
their attention on the protesters and rarely, if ever, show any of
the *other* hundreds of people holding up signs supporting the
president.
Right now, Bush possibly doesn't care - he can't run for another term,
but his administration has in fact limited free speach far more than
any other president in recent times.
Also from the URL above:
Prominent examples of recent free speech zones are those set
up by the Secret Service, who scout locations where the
U.S. president is scheduled to speak, or pass
through. Officials will target those who carry anti-Bush signs
and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during
the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from
displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them
within the zone.[14] Protesters who refuse to go to the free
speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing,
disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[15][16] A
seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and
knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off,
or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where
the President or other person protected by the Secret Service
is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.
Note the phrase "pass through" - people have been arrested for merely
holding signs in view of Bush as his car drove by, which in no way
interfered with any speach or event he was participating in.
Also, read the following:
The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James
Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters
to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters
access to more areas.[16] According to the Chicago Tribune,
the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court
in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping
anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances
while allowing supporters to display their messages up close,
where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[16]
See the wikipedia article for the citations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
01 Jul 2007 01:12:03 AM |
|
|
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87y7i1cc1f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
Basically, whenever the cameras are rolling, they don't want any
signs critical of him in sight because it would intefere with the
marketing message he's pushing. And that includes when he is
merely driving somewhere along a previously announced route.
That's absolutely wrong. I've been to dozens of presidential visits in
the past two years and I've seen literally thousands of people standing
along the various motorcade routes and at the various sites holding
signs protesting the war and everything else under the sun.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Really? I do this for a living. Odd that I wouldn't know more about it
that some reporter from SFGate.com or random Wikipedia writers. The USSS
doesn't set up "free speech zones". Such things are against Secret
Service policy.
I'll give you three sources. One is
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGP
Q40MB81.DTL>
This article is so full of nonsense, I don't even know where to begin.
The first sentence is flat-out wrong: "When President Bush travels
around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead
of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or
"protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies."
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up protest zones. It does the
exact opposite. They tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go, a protester can go.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order" the local police to do
anything. The USSS has no legal authority to order them to do anything.
It's their city/state. They police operate under their own state laws,
city ordinances and regulations. This Hollywood idea that federal agents
can just swoop in and order local cops around like underlings is pure
idiocy.
"The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated
free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a
third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech."
The local police did what they did ON THEIR OWN based on their own
policies and based on their own local ordinances. They do the same thing
during local parades or other events that draw protesters. I was at an
event once in North Carolina where a protester was arrested for wearing
a mask. Apparently in North Carolina it's against the law to appear in
public with one's face covered unless it's Halloween or done for
religious purposes. The cops arrested the guy but no one from the USSS
asked them to. They saw a violation of state law and acted on it. If the
cops set up protest areas based on what they feel local laws allow or
require, that's on them. No one is asking them to. In fact, the USSS
goes out of its way to make it clear that the federal government is
*not* asking them to.
Of course when the local cops get nailed for overstepping the bounds of
the law, they always say, "Well, the USSS told us to." That's why
meetings with the police are documented so that when issues like this
come up, the USSS can point to what was really said about protester
policy. But reporters like this fellow from SFGate.com never do the
follow-up piece where they find that out.
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton Administration. There
were such "zones" in place during the Democratic National Convention in
Los Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even president. It was
as a result of ACLU lawsuits stemming from that convention that the USSS
has a strict policy against such things now.
as described in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone>:
Maybe if you got your information from a source other than an online
encyclopedia for which anyone can write articles (regardless of accuracy
or bias) you'd have an accurate picture of what goes on.
Bush just visited Wichita, Kansas, recently and there the protesters
were, right along the motorcade route, even those Westboro Baptist
folks, holding signs saying all sorts of nasty things about the
president and about America. No one was arrested. No zones were set up.
Nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
01 Jul 2007 01:37:52 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87y7i1cc1f.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
Basically, whenever the cameras are rolling, they don't want any
signs critical of him in sight because it would intefere with the
marketing message he's pushing. And that includes when he is
merely driving somewhere along a previously announced route.
That's absolutely wrong. I've been to dozens of presidential visits in
the past two years and I've seen literally thousands of people standing
along the various motorcade routes and at the various sites holding
signs protesting the war and everything else under the sun.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Really? I do this for a living. Odd that I wouldn't know more about it
that some reporter from SFGate.com or random Wikipedia writers. The USSS
doesn't set up "free speech zones". Such things are against Secret
Service policy.
Do what for a living? Do you think "Secret Service policy" matters?
All it takes is a few political types doing what the president's aides
tell them to do, with everyone else kept in the dark.
Also, the "random wikipedia writers" had a whole load of citations to
back up what they are saying (which you ignored), and the "reporter
from SFGate.com" was not a reporter from SFGate.com, which you somehow
missed in spite of me telling you that explicitly.
I'll give you three sources. One is
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGP
Q40MB81.DTL>
This article is so full of nonsense, I don't even know where to begin.
I'll begin with you (and note that the article was written in 2004, so
it describes the situtation at that time.
The first sentence is flat-out wrong: "When President Bush travels
around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead
of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or
"protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies."
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up protest zones. It does the
exact opposite. They tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go, a protester can go.
Yeah, sure. And next you'll claim that the CIA's "family jewels" show
that the CIA was never involved in any domestic spying.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order" the local police to do
anything. The USSS has no legal authority to order them to do anything.
It's their city/state. They police operate under their own state laws,
city ordinances and regulations. This Hollywood idea that federal agents
can just swoop in and order local cops around like underlings is pure
idiocy.
ROTFLMAO! You don't think that happens? And I'll note that you
managed to snip the ACLU citation
<http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs20030923.html> which
provides an independent statement of the same situation, and the ACLU
filed suit over it in a court of law. Are you going to claim that the
ACLU made the whole thing up? Or was it that having the facts
corroborated by two independent sources was a bit more than you could
handle?
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton Administration. There
were such "zones" in place during the Democratic National Convention in
Los Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even president. It was
as a result of ACLU lawsuits stemming from that convention that the USSS
has a strict policy against such things now.
That is simply a lie on your part - while there had been similar
incidents in the past on a much smaller scale, and some involving
private groups, the term "free speach zone" first entered the lexicon
during the Bush administration.
Bush just visited Wichita, Kansas, recently and there the protesters
were, right along the motorcade route, even those Westboro Baptist
folks, holding signs saying all sorts of nasty things about the
president and about America. No one was arrested. No zones were set up.
Nothing.
Big deal - the guy is now a lame duck and the incidents I was refering
to occurred before the 2004 election, when controlling protesters to
make it look like he had more support than he really did had some
political payoffs. Since that point, the publicity plus lawsuits has
no doubt had an effect and may have made the repression less
attractive politically - there's no real benefit to Bush when he
can't run for reelection. Plus, we now have both the House and Senate
controled by Democrats, who are going to be a lot more likely to
investigate any funny business than a Republican controlled legisature
was willing to do.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to "protect" the administration
from the political consequences of its abysmal behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
01 Jul 2007 11:10:34 AM |
|
|
In article <87wsxkfwyq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up protest zones. It does the
exact opposite. They tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go, a protester can go.
Yeah, sure. And next you'll claim that the CIA's "family jewels" show
that the CIA was never involved in any domestic spying.
I have no knowledge of what the CIA does and does not do. I don't work
for them.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order" the local police to do
anything. The USSS has no legal authority to order them to do anything.
It's their city/state. They police operate under their own state laws,
city ordinances and regulations. This Hollywood idea that federal agents
can just swoop in and order local cops around like underlings is pure
idiocy.
ROTFLMAO! You don't think that happens?
I'm sure it does happen from time to time but when it does, the local
cops laugh and tell the feds to kiss their *****. There's no legal
authority for a federal agent to order a cop around. Federal agents
aren't their superiors or their bosses. And when it comes to matters of
state law and jurisdiction, a local cop actually has *superior*
authority to a federal agent. In many states federal agents have no
power to enforce state law whatsoever.
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton Administration. There
were such "zones" in place during the Democratic National Convention in
Los Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even president. It was
as a result of ACLU lawsuits stemming from that convention that the USSS
has a strict policy against such things now.
That is simply a lie on your part
No, it's not. I was there. I saw the protester pens and I heard what
they were being called. Your Wikipedia article doesn't change reality.
But hey, since you love Wikipedia so much, here's an article on the 2000
DNC that describes the "protest zones" at the convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Democratic_National_Convention#The_prot
ests
They were called everything from protest zones to free speech zones to
demonstration areas by the media and convention organizers.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/062300-03.htm
Bush just visited Wichita, Kansas, recently and there the protesters
were, right along the motorcade route, even those Westboro Baptist
folks, holding signs saying all sorts of nasty things about the
president and about America. No one was arrested. No zones were set up.
Nothing.
Big deal - the guy is now a lame duck and the incidents I was refering
to occurred before the 2004 election
You started this whole thing out by saying it happens wherever the
president goes. Now you've backed off that claim with this whole "maybe
it doesn't happen anymore" position.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to
"protect" the administration from the political
consequences of its abysmal behavior.
LOL! I didn't even vote for the guy. I couldn't care less about
protecting the reputation of him or his administration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
01 Jul 2007 04:57:22 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87wsxkfwyq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up protest zones. It does the
exact opposite. They tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go, a protester can go.
Yeah, sure. And next you'll claim that the CIA's "family jewels" show
that the CIA was never involved in any domestic spying.
I have no knowledge of what the CIA does and does not do. I don't work
for them.
And you'll also claim that you had no knowledge about how A CIA agent's
identity was leaked to the press in violation of U.S. law, and how the
White House tried to cover up - one person is now facing a prison term
as a result - no doubt a sacrificial lamb for his superiors.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order" the local police to do
anything. The USSS has no legal authority to order them to do anything.
It's their city/state. They police operate under their own state laws,
city ordinances and regulations. This Hollywood idea that federal agents
can just swoop in and order local cops around like underlings is pure
idiocy.
ROTFLMAO! You don't think that happens?
I'm sure it does happen from time to time but when it does, the local
cops laugh and tell the feds to kiss their *****. There's no legal
authority for a federal agent to order a cop around. Federal agents
aren't their superiors or their bosses. And when it comes to matters of
state law and jurisdiction, a local cop actually has *superior*
authority to a federal agent. In many states federal agents have no
power to enforce state law whatsoever.
Well, it happened enough during the Bush administration for the ACLU to
file a lawsuit about it, and the lawsuit wouldn't have been filed if
local cops had told federal agents to "kiss their *****".
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton Administration. There
were such "zones" in place during the Democratic National Convention in
Los Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even president. It was
as a result of ACLU lawsuits stemming from that convention that the USSS
has a strict policy against such things now.
That is simply a lie on your part
No, it's not. I was there. I saw the protester pens and I heard what
they were being called. Your Wikipedia article doesn't change reality.
The reality is that the term "free-speach zone" was created during the
Bush administration - that's when the term first appeared in the press.
But hey, since you love Wikipedia so much, here's an article on the 2000
DNC that describes the "protest zones" at the convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Democratic_National_Convention#The_prot
ests
They were called everything from protest zones to free speech zones to
demonstration areas by the media and convention organizers.
As I said, there were some related incidents in the past on a much
smaller scale, and did not involve arresting people who held signs
up along a route that the president was going to be driving along.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/062300-03.htm
Bush just visited Wichita, Kansas, recently and there the protesters
were, right along the motorcade route, even those Westboro Baptist
folks, holding signs saying all sorts of nasty things about the
president and about America. No one was arrested. No zones were set up.
Nothing.
Big deal - the guy is now a lame duck and the incidents I was refering
to occurred before the 2004 election
You started this whole thing out by saying it happens wherever the
president goes. Now you've backed off that claim with this whole "maybe
it doesn't happen anymore" position.
I said it's been going on for years, which was true last I checked. You
then claimed that you never saw it happen and I pointed out that it
might be fairly recent change (due to there being less incentive given
that he's a lame duck). There was plenty in the press about the free
speach zones, but nothing about the practice being ended.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to "protect" the
administration from the political consequences of its abysmal
behavior.
LOL! I didn't even vote for the guy. I couldn't care less about
protecting the reputation of him or his administration.
Since you claim it is somehow part of your job or something (you were
kind of vague), maybe you are supporting him as a professional courtesy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
02 Jul 2007 01:51:00 AM |
|
|
In article <87lkdzdby5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87wsxkfwyq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up
protest zones. It does the exact opposite. They
tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go,
a protester can go.
Yeah, sure. And next you'll claim that the
CIA's "family jewels" show that the CIA was
never involved in any domestic spying.
I have no knowledge of what the CIA does and does
not do. I don't work for them.
And you'll also claim that you had no knowledge about
how A CIA agent's identity was leaked to the press in
violation of U.S. law, and how the White House tried
to cover up - one person is now facing a prison term
as a result - no doubt a sacrificial lamb for his
superiors.
You're right. I will claim that. I know nothing about that case beyond
what any other citizen knows by watching the TV. As I said, I do not
work for the CIA and so have no special knowledge of what they do. I'm
not sure why you seem intent on believing otherwise.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order"
the local police to do anything. The USSS has no
legal authority to order them to do anything. It's
their city/state. They police operate under their
own state laws, city ordinances and regulations.
This Hollywood idea that federal agents can just
swoop in and order local cops around like underlings
is pure idiocy.
ROTFLMAO! You don't think that happens?
I'm sure it does happen from time to time but
when it does, the local cops laugh and tell the
feds to kiss their *****. There's no legal authority
for a federal agent to order a cop around. Federal
agents aren't their superiors or their bosses. And
when it comes to matters of state law and jurisdiction,
a local cop actually has *superior* authority to a
federal agent. In many states federal agents have no
power to enforce state law whatsoever.
Well, it happened enough during the Bush administration
for the ACLU to file a lawsuit about it, and the lawsuit
wouldn't have been filed if local cops had told federal
agents to "kiss their *****".
The ACLU filed their lawsuit against the USSS during the CLINTON
Administration, stemming from the zones set up during the DNC in Los
Angeles.
After that, the ACLU's suits rightly targeted the local police because
during their discovery, they found it was the cops, not the USSS, who
violated the law.
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton
Administration. There were such "zones" in place
during the Democratic National Convention in Los
Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even
president. It was as a result of ACLU lawsuits
stemming from that convention that the USSS has a
strict policy against such things now.
That is simply a lie on your part
No, it's not. I was there. I saw the protester pens
and I heard what they were being called. Your Wikipedia
article doesn't change reality.
The reality is that the term "free-speach zone" was
created during the Bush administration - that's when the
term first appeared in the press.
The day something appears in the press and the day something comes into
being are not necessarily the same thing.
But regardless of the nomenclature, it's indisputable that these zones
were conceived and created during the watch of the liberal darling Bill
Clinton, not George Bush.
There was plenty in the press about the free
speach zones, but nothing about the practice being ended.
Gee, I wonder why?
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to
"protect" the administration from the political
consequences of its abysmal behavior.
LOL! I didn't even vote for the guy. I couldn't
care less about protecting the reputation of him
or his administration.
Since you claim it is somehow part of your jo
or something (you were kind of vague), maybe you
are supporting him as a professional courtesy.
And maybe monkeys will fly out of your ***** at midnight on July 4th.
Either event is equally likely.
And FYI, the word is "speech", not "speach". I thought it was a typo at
first but you've been consistently using the latter throughout this
discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
02 Jul 2007 07:01:46 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87lkdzdby5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87wsxkfwyq.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <87odiw22v7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
The USSS doesn't order the police to set up
protest zones. It does the exact opposite. They
tell the cops that as far as the USSS is concerned,
anywhere a member of the general public can go,
a protester can go.
Yeah, sure. And next you'll claim that the
CIA's "family jewels" show that the CIA was
never involved in any domestic spying.
I have no knowledge of what the CIA does and does
not do. I don't work for them.
And you'll also claim that you had no knowledge about how A CIA
agent's identity was leaked to the press in violation of U.S. law,
and how the White House tried to cover up - one person is now
facing a prison term as a result - no doubt a sacrificial lamb for
his superiors.
You're right. I will claim that. I know nothing about that case
beyond what any other citizen knows by watching the TV. As I said, I
do not work for the CIA and so have no special knowledge of what
they do. I'm not sure why you seem intent on believing otherwise.
What I was pointing out was your argument - you appealed to some
official policy regarding what the Secret Service can do. I pointed
out laws about outing CIA agents and/or lying under oath that were
apparently violated.
And just for the record, the USSS doesn't "order" the local
police to do anything. The USSS has no legal authority to
order them to do anything. It's their city/state. They
police operate under their own state laws, city ordinances
and regulations. This Hollywood idea that federal agents
can just swoop in and order local cops around like
underlings is pure idiocy.
ROTFLMAO! You don't think that happens?
I'm sure it does happen from time to time but when it does, the
local cops laugh and tell the feds to kiss their *****. There's no
legal authority for a federal agent to order a cop
around. Federal agents aren't their superiors or their
bosses. And when it comes to matters of state law and
jurisdiction, a local cop actually has *superior* authority to a
federal agent. In many states federal agents have no power to
enforce state law whatsoever.
Well, it happened enough during the Bush administration for the
ACLU to file a lawsuit about it, and the lawsuit wouldn't have
been filed if local cops had told federal agents to "kiss their
*****".
The ACLU filed their lawsuit against the USSS during the CLINTON
Administration, stemming from the zones set up during the DNC in Los
Angeles.
After that, the ACLU's suits rightly targeted the local police because
during their discovery, they found it was the cops, not the USSS, who
violated the law.
Explain <http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs20030923.html>
(near the top of the list for a google search for free speach zones
ACLU):
Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush
Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented
Nationwide Lawsuit (9/23/2003)
Note the term "unprecedented". The ACLU has lots of lawyers associated
with it and they know what the term "unprecedented" means.
There was a report of a "free speach zone" set up by the city of Boston
due to the presence of the Democratic National Convention in 2004. That
apparently was an action of the city. The DNC certainly had no authority
to set up such a zone. The city no doubt used the practices of the
Bush administration as justification (or rather tried to since a judge
was not amused).
Now for the third: the term "free-speech zone" was created under the
Bush administration,
No, it wasn't. It was created during the Clinton
Administration. There were such "zones" in place
during the Democratic National Convention in Los
Angeles for the 2000 campaign before Bush was even
president. It was as a result of ACLU lawsuits
stemming from that convention that the USSS has a
strict policy against such things now.
That is simply a lie on your part
No, it's not. I was there. I saw the protester pens
and I heard what they were being called. Your Wikipedia
article doesn't change reality.
The reality is that the term "free-speach zone" was
created during the Bush administration - that's when the
term first appeared in the press.
The day something appears in the press and the day something comes into
being are not necessarily the same thing.
But regardless of the nomenclature, it's indisputable that these zones
were conceived and created during the watch of the liberal darling Bill
Clinton, not George Bush.
While some people apparently kept protesters separated from things like
political conventions so that the conventions wouldn't be disrupted
from the business they were engaged in, Bush extended that to keeping
protesters out of sight even along the route the president took to
travel from one point to another. At least that is what you'll read
about it in the press, and the ACLU in fact filed a suit over the
practice.
The idea that we should blame Clinton for Bush's excesses is simply
comical.
There was plenty in the press about the free
speach zones, but nothing about the practice being ended.
Gee, I wonder why?
Because the press tends to report what is happening, not what is
not happening? But, since I based my comments on what was reported
in the press, and given that Bush avoids the area I live in (near
San Francisco) like the plague, why would you expect me to know
about a change in state. The facts are that the Bush administration
tried to clamp down on free speach far more so than any other
administration in recent times.
It sounds to me like you are simply trying to
"protect" the administration from the political
consequences of its abysmal behavior.
LOL! I didn't even vote for the guy. I couldn't
care less about protecting the reputation of him
or his administration.
Since you claim it is somehow part of your jo
or something (you were kind of vague), maybe you
are supporting him as a professional courtesy.
And maybe monkeys will fly out of your ***** at midnight on July 4th.
Either event is equally likely.
What's really likely is that you are putting out BS about your "job",
which you refer to in rather vague terms. If it is relevant to the
discussion (and you brought it up), then you should say what it is.
And FYI, the word is "speech", not "speach". I thought it was a typo at
first but you've been consistently using the latter throughout this
discussion.
Nope - it's a typo. I make errors typing that I don't make when
writing by hand, particularly when I try to type fast.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 09:07:00 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
He already practically has. Do you remember the so-called free
speech zones?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
Ya know, the church my neighbor attends
sometimes holds sunrise ceremonies on the beach. Maybe a bunch of
gays should get together and exercise their 'free speech' by showing
up on that beach with bullhorns.
If it's a public beach, that's their right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 09:55:27 PM |
|
|
In article <9%Dhi.3830$%K1.3483@newsfe21.lga>,
Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <1183239039.537200.243450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nafc@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
He already practically has. Do you remember the so-called free
speech zones?
Yeah, I remember they were big during the Clinton Administration. Due to
the ACLU lawsuits filed at the time, they're no longer allowed. Now the
rule during a presidential visit is that wherever a member of the
general public can go, a protester can go.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 05:03:17 PM |
|
|
On Jun 30, 5:49 pm, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1183239039.537200.243...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
n...@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
The president is a public offical that gets to where he's going at
taxpayer expense. Protesters are there to protest his policies. The
people at the festival are private citizens. See the difference?
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
Ya know, the church my neighbor attends
sometimes holds sunrise ceremonies on the beach. Maybe a bunch of
gays should get together and exercise their 'free speech' by showing
up on that beach with bullhorns.
If it's a public beach, that's their right.
It is a public beach and no it would not be their right because that
would be harrassment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
30 Jun 2007 10:00:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1183240997.777822.297450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On Jun 30, 5:49 pm, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1183239039.537200.243...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
n...@snet.net wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, J Young <youngopinio...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
At last summer's festival, preachers from the Biblical Research Center
in Tampa trailed the parade and paced the festival calling festival
attendees "sodomites," held signs that declared homosexuality an
"abomination," wore T-shirts and shouted slogans through bullhorns
that condemned homosexuality.
Obviously J 'Lying for Jesus' Young can't tell the difference between
free speech and harrassment.
Really? So the president could order anti-war protesters who do the same
thing wherever he goes jailed (or at least muzzled) as harassers?
The president is a public offical that gets to where he's going at
taxpayer expense. Protesters are there to protest his policies. The
people at the festival are private citizens. See the difference?
Nope. And more importantly neither doesn't Supreme Court and 200+ years
of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
The distinctions you raised are irrelevant to citizens who wish to
express their views on the public streets and sidewalks. The fact that
their views either do or do not relate to public officials are
absolutely irrelevant to the legal right to express those views.
Interesting interpretation of the 1st Amendment...
Ya know, the church my neighbor attends
sometimes holds sunrise ceremonies on the beach. Maybe a bunch of
gays should get together and exercise their 'free speech' by showing
up on that beach with bullhorns.
If it's a public beach, that's their right.
It is a public beach and no it would not be their right because that
would be harrassment.
Not according to the highest law of the land, as interpreted by the
highest court of the land.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Public gagged at city's homosex-fest |
29 Jun 2007 03:11:23 PM |
|
|
Still trying to crawl out of the closet, Gay Young?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
