http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040721/480/bx11407212244 click on link for picture Wed Jul 21, 6:48 PM ET An area designated for organized protests appears enclosed by mesh and chain link fencing near the site of the upcoming Democratic National Convention, in Boston, Wednesday, July 21, 2004. A new federal lawsuit has been filed against the city over the fenced-in protest area that has been called a 'demonstration zone,' and a 'free speech zone.' (AP Photo/Steven Senne) this looks exactly like the "free speech zones" that the republicans have up at their events. ive never heard of this kind of stuff going on before bush came into office, so someone correct me if im wrong. and dont blame 9/11 because these "protest zones" and "free speech zones" were set up on the night he won the election in downtown austin, which as we all know was before 9/11. are the democrats doing this simply for the "your doing it to us so we will do it to you" factor? i personally think so. i would prefer to see them take the moral high-ground here and let the protesters exercise thier rights. that could be used to political advantage during the debates. while republicans stifle free-speech, the democrats recognize their rights to speak their mind. im curious to see the republican response to this. does the whole concept of "free speech zones" bother you?
Not according to the article you just linked. I'm a little confused. The Democrats are using "free speech zones" at the Democratic National Convention, and somehow this is Bush's fault?
sorry if i was unclear... i said that the democrats should allow the republican protesters there. they should not have "free speech zones". if they allowed protesters they could turn it into a political issue, demonstrating that they support free speech, even if its against them. they could point out how the repulicans have stifled free speech at their events. now, because they have followed the republican lead and set these things up they cannot use it as a political weapon in the election. they lost the moral high-gound.
The concept of "free speech zones" is absolutely insulting to me. If you can't handle the number of protesters at your event, then you should reconsider what you're doing there. Americans have every right to voice their dissatisfaction, and caging them off hundreds of feet from the "good" protesters is morally obscene. Any American can protest about anything anywhere at any time, as safety allows. I don't care if it does cause a "stir" -- this is America, and we're allowed to make a stir, even if it undercuts the event's media exposure. This is very disappointing news.
I happened to be in New York several years ago when the DNC was being held there. They had a similar area set aside just for protestors with police supervision. Is this really that big of a deal? It seems to be the norm from what I can remember.
they did a bit about the free speech zones in Boston on The Daily Show a week or so ago. Pretty funny
The one I saw had a lot of nutjobs. It was a pretty funny site. I will say they didn't use a chainlink fence, just a bunch of NYPD barracades surrounding the area near Madison Square Garden where it was held.
When the RNC was in Houston at the George R. Brown, seems like I remember these back then... In '88. I think they were way over around the 'Dome though, across from it on Kirby or Fannin I believe.. Not new though, not because of 9/11... Reagan's idea at least... perhaps it had happened sooner. Goodness... they do it at the DNC too... stop whining. Next you'll be upset that Bush even has a police escort for his motorcade.
I hate the idea of free speech zones. I think it was Al Sharpton who said the free speech zone should be from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, and add in Alaska and Hawaii.
Very sad news. Is it actually near the convention? I know my major issue is that they set these things up like a half mile away from events.
At the DNC in New York it was on the same block behind MSG. It was almost like a carnival atmosphere. Most of the people there are just for show because they know a lot of media will be around. They come up with elaborate signs and costumes, sing songs, do all sorts of stuff.
I know you're trying to be cute, but yes it is. In America, it is. Peaceful protest is what makes this country great. We don't have to overthrow the government to be heard. We have free speech. It's supposed to mean something. The GOP has spent the last few years trying to quash dissent. Shame on the Democrats for playing the same game.
What do you think of the people that talk during a movie? What if someone got up and started doing a chant during one of your plays? Well guess what, people go to the conventions and want to hear the speakers. They don't want to hear noisy protests. There is a time and a place for everything. How about having the protest zone at the entrance of exit, so the message can be seen/heard, but it does not disrupt what people came to see.
That is the thing. If the protestors wanted to protest a movie, they would do it outside the theater, where their voices could be heard. They should be able to do the same thing by protesting right outside the venue for the convention. I agree with Batman. Shame on BOTH parties for pulling this crap.
No, the real tragedy is when peaceful protestors are not allowed to make their voices heard in a free society.
Of course I'm trying to be cute, but I am at the same time serious. Most of this kind of activity is comprised of drowning out the speaker, distracting from the activity, or generally trying to embarass someone. If you have a legitimate beef, none of this should be necessary and so it need not be tolerated. It's theatre; maybe that's why you like it?!!
For once I think I'm on the side of the "conservatives". Yes, it's fine for anyone to "have their voices heard" in peaceful protests, but more often than not these protests are not very peaceful. These people start pushing past the liberal boundaries they had to begin with, and the police are forced to take action. In the end, whatever they were trying say gets stepped on by the actions they and the people securing the event take. I understand marches in Washington, or something like that, but these people are just trying to distract from the event at hand. Liberal and Conservative. When someone's vote is taken away, call me, when someone is told they can only protest in certain areas for their safety and the safety of others, don't wake me up.
I do not like the concept of "free speech zones" anymore than the rest of you, but if I'm a terrorist, the Democratic and Republican party conventions are prime targets for disruption with maximum media coverage. I was bitterly opposed to the setting up of "free speech zones" pre-911 and do not think it should be necessary in a free society. However, discounting the 911 factor in reference to security at such high profile symbolic events is folly.
