Democrats try to muzzle free speech at boston convention

The Dems have a bad history with protesting and the conventions. They should be careful. I don't know the lay of the land at the convention area, but it seems that it would be ok for protesters to be close enough to be seen and heard. I wouldn't go to Katy to protest something going on at the Astrodome.

 

How is this different from the Republican convention?

 

I think the point is that it's not different.

I wish it were different, but they are the same.

 

So this is a misleading title - it should be Republicans and Democrats try to muzzle free speech outside their conventions, but we're only surprised at the Democrats? It's just one more notch in the grand Republican tradition of political hate speech.

There is one difference. The Bushies are using the Patriot Act to intimidate protesters here and there.

 

basso, you deserve an award. It's not just about this thread, but I intend more of a lifetime achievement award.



Your thread titles are hard to beat.

If I spilled some of my lunch, you'd write "All physicists terminally clumsy."

If you saw the injured pigeon I saw on my walk to work this morning, you'd write "All birds now trying to fly with one wing."

If a busdriver decided to turn away a single drunk person at a single bus stop, and that person just happened to be, say, Chinese, you'd write "City of San Francisco now bars Chinese people from all municipal transit."

It was amusing, but it's getting old. Let our news media **** up the headlines. We can do better.

 

I would be willing to bet that the many of the same protestors will be at both events.

Republicans and Democrats have far more in common with each other than they do with those who protest their policies on either side. There are many issues they both ignore or only pay mild lip service to, usually in the interest of providing an arbitrary contrast with one another.

 

The Secret Service has not yet disclosed its plans for the convention. One can only assume they would protect the President as well or better than potential nominees, and the announced plans sound no different from Boston's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/nyregion/23protest.html
.
.
.

Complicating things for protest organizers, the police, the Secret Service and convention planners have revealed little of their plans. The police have not said where they will allow protesters to demonstrate, though they have said that protest areas would be within "sight and sound" of the convention, a legal threshold. "We're working with protest organizers already,'' said Deputy Police Commissioner Paul J. Browne, "and we will work with them throughout. We want to give them sight and sound proximity, while allowing R.N.C. participants uninterrupted access to and from the convention.''
.
.
.



However the history of the NYPD means they are already being sued to make sure they live up to the letter of the law, since they did not respect that last year.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local...3,0,6353640.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-crime



Suit: NYPD Denied ThemFree Speech

By Daryl Khan
STAFF WRITER

February 13, 2004


A civil rights organization announced a federal lawsuit against the Police Department on the steps of City Hall yesterday for what it described as unlawful arrests and aggressive police tactics designed to discourage protests and free speech.

The lawsuit comes as dozens of organizations prepare for rallies and protests for both the upcoming Republican National Convention and the anniversary of the "Shock and Awe" campaign that marked the beginning of the Iraq war.

Filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the lawsuit is asking for an unspecified amount of money and a declaration from the court that the Police Department violated the First and Fourth Amendment rights of 52 anti-war demonstrators arrested at a protest last year.

"The real concern for our clients is not money," said Nancy Chang, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. "They want to know that this will not happen again. When they protest the Republican National Convention, or anywhere else, they want to know they will not be swept off the streets by police for lawfully picketing."

Yesterday, about 20 people from various organizations stood on the City Hall steps holding banners to show support for the suit.

On April 7, at 8 a.m., about 100 anti-war demonstrators assembled in front of an office building on 56th Street near Fifth Avenue and about 20 members of the M27 Coalition lay down on the sidewalk.

Meanwhile, the suit contends, police barricaded dozens of protesters. Police then arrested them and questioned some of their political affiliations at One Police Plaza, the suit alleges.

At the time police said that anyone who was arrested was breaking the law. A police spokesman declined to comment on the suit, deferring to the Corporation Counsel, the law department for the city.

Kate O'Brien, a spokeswoman for the Corporation Counsel, said it had not seen the court documents yet, and so did not comment on the suit's substance.

"We're awaiting the court papers and plan to evaluate them completely and thoroughly," she said.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

 

I guess I didn't really think about the title of the thread - it is very partisan, and obviously so.

It's funny - like ClutchBBS has a bunch of juniour propagandists interning for positions at FOXnews.

 

I remember the Democratic Convention of '68. I wasn't there, but I have vivid memories of watching it on TV.


From the Chicago Public library archive:

1968, August: Disturbances at the Democratic National Convention

Some of the country's most publicized anti-war demonstrations took place at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Allegations of unwarranted violence and brutality against police, demonstrators, reporters and bystanders abounded.

Police, National Guardsmen, and Federal troops prepared for the arrival of a hundred thousand protesters. The number of persons at any of the protest sites never exceeded six or seven thousand, including a thousand undercover agents and a number of spectators. As the following passage from the city's official report illustrates, animosity was high on both sides:

"Large amounts of hair spray were sold in the Old Town area stores during the time of the Convention. The expulsion of hair spray from a can when set fire to works as a home-made flame thrower. Royal Blue Food Store at 744 Fullerton Avenue reported large groups of Yippies purchasing large quantities of hair spray. It is common knowledge that Yippies have no use for hair spray or other cosmetics for personal use."

Most clashes between the police and demonstrators happened in and about the Grant Park-Michigan Avenue and Lincoln Park areas. Compared to anti-war protests elsewhere in the country, and other riots in Chicago, damage and injuries were minor. However, many of the brief clashes were televised live or delayed to play for years later. 641 persons were arrested and numerous protesters, as well as 198 police officers, reported injuries. The events continued to receive wide public attention, due to the federal government using a new federal law to charge eight persons with conspiring to cross state lines to cause riots. The Chicago Conspiracy Trial also made good theater and continued to draw attention to the convention for many years.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/1968dem_convention.html


Only one view of what happened, to be sure. I laughed when I read the reference to hairspray. Anything to make the protesters look bad!

None of it helped the Democrats in November. It was enough to cost Humphrey a close election, in my opinion. Both of the conventions need to allow people within a reasonable distance. We live in a democracy after all, right? And it's not 1968.

 

Hey, I'm guilty. I'd love a gig working on headlines for The Nation or sound bites for NPR.

 

And they would be a hell of a lot more entertaining!

 

Seems you can't please anyone these days.



http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/102503calendar.html

 

Hey, don't worry! All evidence suggests that you're never too old to parrot the conservative cause! Just tow the line, and everything's fine, whether you're nineteen or ninety-nine.

 

Basso likes.......no no LOVES America.

 

Few phrases piss me off more than "free-speech zones." It's America, damn it -- the whole place is a free speech zone. If a politician is too scared to even see constituents who disagree, then he's not strong enough to represent anyone.

 

The Republicans had plans to anchor an enormous cruise ship at Manhattan to use as a hotel for the delegates. That way, the demonstrators wouldn't be able to picket outside. They dropped it when word leaked out of the plan. (you can imagine the reaction of the New York hotel industry!) I wish I could remember which ship it was... sorry.

 

They also would not contribute money to largely democratic New York...

I have way too much time on my hands.

The Norwegian Dawn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03BOAT.html?ex=1077771600&en=46ccfe3427c7bead&ei=5070


They'll Take Manhattan: Republicans Drop Ship Idea

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

Published: December 3, 2003

Representative Tom DeLay of Texas will not go ahead with his plan to use a luxury cruise liner as a floating entertainment center for members of Congress, lobbyists and contributors during the Republican National Convention next summer, an aide said yesterday.

Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, had insisted earlier this week that he was still planning to use the 2,224-passenger Norwegian Dawn in the Hudson to accommodate Republicans who will be in the city for the event, from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2.

As criticism mounted, particularly from Republicans concerned that they would appear elitist if they stayed on a ship away from the heart of the city and its people, he backed off, saying it was not worth the fight.
.
.
.