Free Speech in a Demockracy
Page 1 of 1

Author:  jebba [ Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Free Speech in a Demockracy

For the Democratic National Convention, protestors were locked in "Free Speech Zones" as if free speech were only permitted in authorized locations... The pictures say it all...


Author:  stevo32 [ Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

What is the world coming to?! I'm glad I live in Canada where there is no DMCA or anything like what is shown there. And I'm not going to let it happen. To people in the Boston area: TAKE ACTION! And please, please, don't go in the free speech cage. And remember: nobody can take away free speech!

Author:  Jason [ Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:05 am ]
Post subject: 

You are right the pictures say it all. Animal Farm anyone....

Author:  magnet [ Wed Aug 04, 2004 10:15 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, having a designated 'Free Speech Zone' was pretty damn ridiculous. Here in America, we're supposed to have free speech anywhere. Such is not the case, outsiders who only know the term 'free speech' would probably be surprised at how much you must censor yourself almost anywhere you go.

Author:  psychomantum [ Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

And to think... This is coming from the Democrats!

God, where's Rage Against the Machine when you need them?

Author:  jebba [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:21 am ]
Post subject: 

Oh, since we're talking demockracies....Allawi (interim dictator of iraq) shut down al jazeera's office in baghdad. So much for even the pretense of free speech....

Author:  stevo32 [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:02 am ]
Post subject: 

I think Canada's next :evil: What on earth happened to Democracy and Free Speech?!

Author:  Jason [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:32 am ]
Post subject: 

stevo32 wrote:
I think Canada's next :evil: What on earth happened to Democracy and Free Speech?!

Doesn't exist. People think TV shows like Big Brother are merely game shows. Unfortunately it happens to us all daily. We are all puppets to the governments ideals of free speech, democracy and any other fancy word they throw up to convince us they aren't evil.

Author:  stevo32 [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:42 am ]
Post subject: 

true, but its not as bad as it is in the US...yet. i would *really* not be surprised if my ISP spied on my activities, and watched everything I did online.

Author:  bearon50 [ Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  "freedom"

Like there ever was such a thing whether Canada or USA. What we have is freedom of choice. You choose and live with the consequences. With all the political correctness nonsense going around one can get arrested for stating ones views. The govt. has been reading internet stuff for years. The NSA has been getting around restrictions by routing emails to England where they are monitored and then sent on their way. Freedom never existed. The demos are just as bad. To believe that the repubs are some horrible group of monsters compared to the saviour demos is so ridiculous as to be laughable. They are both politicians and they make their money from staying in power and taking money from big corporations. When was the last time that a poor person was president, or senator etc.?
They claim to feel our pain while they give themselves midnight raises. All they want is our votes so they can take our money. When did servants ever earn more money than their employers? We are the enslaved masses. I say these things as a conservative individual who grew up in the sixties and protested in the streets. Remember Chicago in 68? Big brother is alive and well in the entire world. I do not say these things as a cynic but, as a realist. I just do not think that there is much hope for mankind. Just enjoy each day and live life to its fullest is all there is to do. Like Pete Townsend put it "meet the new boss same as the old boss". Ron

Author:  slick50 [ Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:53 am ]
Post subject: 

Politicians are like the weather, talk about it but can't change a thing. Bastards :evil:

Author:  observer7 [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:46 am ]
Post subject: 

stevo32 wrote:
true, but its not as bad as it is in the US...yet. i would *really* not be surprised if my ISP spied on my activities, and watched everything I did online.

The FBI's Pre-Emptive Interrogations Of "Possible" Demonstrators:
Chilling Political Speech
Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2004

The FBI, no longer content with working to maintain order at political events, is now preemptively identifying and interrogating ("interviewing") possible demonstrators. It has summarized this strategy in a memo.

To make matters worse, the Department of Justice blessed the FBI strategy in its own memo - suggesting that no First Amendment concerns are raised by the interrogations.

As I will explain in this column, however, the truth is quite to the contrary: The strategy, as outlined in the memo, is a serious threat to free speech.

Back When Politics Was Fun, Protest Was Part of It

Throughout the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, and even to some extent during the Nixon years, politics was fun. At least, political protesting had its lighter moments. (Nothing was really fun during the dour Carter Administration, and George H.W. Bush's presidency was, well, pretty boring except for the First Gulf War.)

Who can forget the great costumes and Nixon face masks that appeared at many political rallies and other events during the 1960s and early 1970s? Reagan and Clinton masks, the latter sometimes adorned with long, Pinocchio-type noses, added color and a bit of levity to political demonstrations throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. There was, in a word, tolerance.

Reagan, with his constant good humor, almost always disarmed protesters with his wit. Conservatives wearing anti-Clinton T-shirts frequently showed up at Clinton rallies. The worst they might face from the then-president's supporters were scowls.

This atmosphere didn't mean security was absent; it was very present. In the 1960s through the end of Clinton's second term in January 2001, everyone knew if you caused disruption, Secret Service agents would be on you in an instant, as they should be.

But during that period, you didn't feel you were doing something criminal if you simply decided to show up at a rally with a protest T-shirt on, or lugging around a sloppy paperboard sign criticizing the president. You didn't feel intimidated.

The Bush Administration: Squelching Disagreement and Dissent

Now, things are very different. The Administration and campaign of George W. Bush is squelching any possible hint of disagreement or protest at every political rally or gathering.

For example, people with T-shirts that hint at disagreement are not allowed anywhere near the events, nor even on the route traveled by the presidential motorcade. Think what they'd do to you if you showed up in a - shudder -- mask.

But it's gotten even worse than that.

The FBI's Preemptive Interrogation Memorandum

As the New York Times has reported, in an October 2003 memorandum to law enforcement agencies, the FBI expressed great concern over the possibility that marches and rallies in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco might become "violent, destructive, or disruptive."

The memo went on to urge law enforcement to monitor the Internet, because "protesters often use the Internet to . . . coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations." It also urged law enforcement to watch out for protesters who use cell phones to "coordinate . . . or update colleagues."

In the memo, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government are warned to be aware of "possible indicators of protest activity." Moreover, even though the memo does not cite any evidence of violence likely to take place at "possible protests," the Bureau's memo concluded by telling law enforcement agencies to "report any potentially illegal acts to the" FBI (italics added).

The Department of Justice Memo Blessing the FBI Memo

Doubtless, the Department of Justice, aware of the FBI memo, was concerned that it would be seen as urging law enforcement to begin monitoring persons who might be contemplating staging political protests protected by the First Amendment. So several months later, in April 2004 - as the New York Times also reported -- the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, issued its own memo - addressing, and dismissing, these constitutional concerns.

The memo came from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In the memo, OLC concluded, not surprisingly, that the monitoring, interrogating and gathering of evidence on potential political protesters raised no First Amendment concerns. In addition, it went on to conclude that even if, hypothetically, such activities did raise concerns, any "chilling" effect would be "quite minimal" and would be far outweighed by the overriding public interest in maintaining "order."

Evidence Suggests Protesters Are Subjected To Home and Office Interviews

No chilling effect? In the last few months, evidence has been mounting that special agents are showing up at the homes and offices of potential protesters - casting suspicion upon them in front of bosses, colleagues, family, friends and neighbors. This activity apparently has increased as the Republican Convention and the November election draw near.

If that's not a chilling effect, I don't know what is. The price of free speech should not be a high-profile FBI visit that makes all who know you wonder if you may be a criminal.

During these visits, the special agents "interview" the potential protesters to determine if they -- or anyone they know -- might be planning any political demonstrations. Of course, the "anyone they know" is especially worrisome - hints of McCarthyism.

Also according to the New York Times, the final question the FBI agents ask is this: Does the interviewee know that withholding information on whether they know anyone else who might be planning a demonstration or "disruption" is itself a crime?

One can only imagine how this parting shot plays out: "Oh, by the way, ma'am, before me and my armed partner here leave your house, we'd like to remind you that if you haven't told us if you know someone else who might be planning a demonstration, you have committed a crime and we can prosecute you for not telling us that. Have a good night, ma'am."

This, of course, is pure intimidation.

DOJ's Absurd Stance: Interrogation in Home or Office Is Not Interrogation

The FBI, seemingly, takes an absurdly narrow view of what kind of tactics would, in fact, chill speech - a view that excludes its own plainly chilling measures.

For instance, Joe Parris, an FBI spokesman, told the New York Times that, because "no one was dragged from their homes and put under bright lights," interviews of potential demonstrators are not "chilling."

So now we know the Administration's new First Amendment standard: So long as the government agents don't "drag you from your home" and interrogate you "under bright lights," you have nothing to complain or worry about.

The fact of the matter is, tactics such as those contemplated in last year's FBI memo, and approved by the Justice Department this past spring, do chill free speech. They do intimidate.

And, self-justifying memos by government lawyers notwithstanding, such tactics usher in an era of intolerance and fear that has no place in American politics.

Author:  Guest [ Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:51 am ]
Post subject: 

This is news?
America's leftwing academia has done this for years (but only to their conservative students).

I suspect 1 of 2 things:
a. They were expecting conservative protesters.
This is such a rare thing as to almost be an oxymoron though.
Very unlikely.

b. They knew what to expect from obnoxious, vulgar, and violent leftwing rioters...err.."protesters" and didnt want to be embarrassed by their own voters on TV lol.

Judging from the pics, I would have to go with b.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group