NYC through its Republican mayor Bloomberg has banned a planned national anti war march for February 15, 2003 in New York City.. Interestingly Britain also tried to ban a similar march in London for the same day. The Blair crowd was forced to give in and allow the march in London. So far ,and to me surprisingly,a Federal District Judge has upheld the ban which they say is due to possible terrorism concerns. The ACLU is appealing. What a blow for freedom of expression this will be if the Republican dominated courts uphold this. This is third world dictatorship type stuff. I wonder if even you pro war guys support banning anti war demonstrations for such nebulous reasons. NYC bans rally
In Denmark we will have a very large and well organized demonstration called against war on iraq. I have read that many journalists are surprised that their are no antiwar-movement in the us. Like their was with Vietnam and you also had the Civil rights movement. Are these days forever dead in the US or will the people rise again. It is funny to think about that what you americans call anti-americanism actually started in USA and was then adopted by european countries. I think it is still living in Europe but it seems to be very dead in the US
I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-americanism". Just like there are people who support Israel that accuse anyone who goes against Sharon of being "anti-semite", we have conservatives who always brand anyone who opposes or ciriticizes certain US policies as being "anti-American." I'm not sure what it looks like from Denmark, but roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans aren't really supporting Bush's rush to war. There is an anti war movement in the US. The best way to look at it here in the US is like many of the European countries, Britain, Italy, Turkey where you have a conservative politican backing the war so you might mistakenly think everyone is for it. So don't forget that roughly half of Americans oppose this folly, too. By the way, what is going on in Northern Europe? One story I read shows the Dutch and the Norwegians as being backers of Bush and Blairs war? Is it just another case of a conservative government going against the majority of the people?
If the only reason they banned this protest was because it was Anti-War then I would defintely agree with you. However, I don't see any proof of that. All I see is the NYPD, who is going to have to incur the headache of overseeing the protest, recommending that certain protests do not take place and a judge taking their word for it. Yet from this you've concluded (presumably) that the NYPD is pro-war and we will soon be living in a third world dictatorship. Wow.
Glynch...my guess is (I could be wrong) is that you haven't been anywhere near NYC recently. You can't enter or leave the place without passing army vehicles and guys with machine guns. All this ban is doing is helping the city in its efforts to protect the people. If these people really want to march and protest the war...let them go somewhere else. Whats the difference where they march? The media will find them and put them on the news whether they ar marching down 5th avenue or on the Cross Bronx Expressway. They will get their point across regardless of where they protest won't they?
Bush's "rush" to war?! We must be a nation of turtles then. Bush's war-preparedness and -readiness is the <b>only</b> thing that will budge Saddam. Saddams has jerked the UN around for more than a decade at last count.
btw, the protesters are allowed to protest...they just cant tie up 1st avenue while doing so...they can stay in one place and protest the war all they want also...the original protest said they could march from 49th street north on 1st ave...this obviously would make for a TON of traffic south of 49th street. Glynch...do you know what is about 10-15 blocks south of 49th street on 1st ave? Its a big building called the UN. Im sure its hectic enough down there lately and it would become a security nightmare with gridlock traffic to boot.
NJ, how come I dont feel the same way as you do about how it is in NY. sure there is a bit of a "presence" at the bridges and tunnels, but come on its not like there are tank colums rolling across Houston street. I personally thing "peace demonstrations" are pretty stupid and useless, but i sure as hell dont want my right to be involved in one infringed upon. NYC lets the KKK march on city hall, so they damn well better let a bunch of people wo are loking for a beter work a more peacefull world get their march on. If our rights as citizens are infringed upon and we accept it, then we have already lost any war on terrorism. War sucks and protesting it makes sense. This country is awsome and I cheer for its national soccer team. however how can i have national pride if our nation changes into the things it was founded to oppose. we supposedly want the meek, the poor the huddled masses of the world to be part of our nation however we now dont want your muslim, or arab looking masses any more. we were founded on fredom of speach, but if your message is against the current government we dont really want to hear it anymore. In fact you risk imprisonment if you protest against the governments actions. Well I have to go back to being productive at work. Look I am part of the reason America is slipping in productivity on the world market. Damn internet. PEACE
I'm fairly sure that any major protesting group would have had the same ban imposed. The ban is a security thing...not a pro-war thing.
The ban on marches (regardless of motive) was already in affect. It has nothing to do with war. "United for Peace and Justice" knew this full well when they tried to get approval. They also knew full well that it would be denied. This was simply a way to get even more publicity. Pretty smart move actually as it could really help motivate some of the ignorant masses who might be on the fence. Of course, as per usual, Glynch took their spin and spun it out of control and off into the cosmos. Glynch, most of your takes are so ridiculously "out there"--don't you have any concern that you might actually be hurting the causes you purport to hold dear?
That is the exact verbiage used to ban protests in other states we consider to be 'oppressed'. Seriously.
first amendment rights are always met with qualifiers. it's been like that for as long as the constitution has been interpreted. you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater and rely on the first amendment to protect you when people trample each other and get hurt. there are certain time and place restrictions for free speech. it's been that way for a while. this is nothing new.
2 things... 1) a parade is not a protest and other than a bunch of drunkards, there isnt a lot of potential confrontations 2) if the country, and NYC in particular, is dealing with similar circumstances on ST Patty's day, then i would think, and expect, the parade to be cancelled if it poses a risk to the city's security
I think we understand that, it's just whether or not this rises up to that standard. I personally don't think it does.
Mayor Bloomberg is simply trying to support his president's foreign policy. The whole point of free speech is to allow it when you don't support what it is advocating. It should be interesting to see if they cancel the St. Patrick's day parade.
See, that's what scares me. NYC is essentially censoring people because of their viewpoint is unpopular, if they're doing it for this reason you just stated.
fire in a movie theater is an extreme case...if i cared enough i could go to lexis and post some case law where situations were much less hazardous and much less volatile, and the restrictions were deemed reasonable.
