Democrats vs. First Amendment
July 1st, 2008 at 06:25am Matt Margolis
In 2004, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were put into a “free speech cage,” in order to keep them contained and away from delegates.
It looks like they’re planning similar infringements on free speech for their convention in Denver.
The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.
That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.
But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.
The ACLU has said it wants to avoid the conditions that existed during the 2004 convention in Boston, where protesters were caged, infuriating First Amendment advocates.
The first phase of the lawsuit asked the court to compel the city and the Secret Service to disclose the information on protest restrictions.
What really gets me about this is that back in 2004, liberals accused the Bush campaign of kicking out protesters from campaign rallies, while all attempts by Democrats to limit the free speech of protesters who oppose them aren’t criticized at all.
Just goes to show you howl little the Democrats think about the Constitution.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
30 Comments
1. Retired Spook | July 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Can you imagine the reaction of the drafters of the Constitution if, during the discussion of the 1st Amendment, someone had asked, “how do we deal with hate speech? At our institutions of higher learning, how do we deal with those who verbally disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy? Shouldn’t the 1st Amendment also contain a clause about the right not to be offended? Shouldn’t we clarify that part about religious freedom to say that religious freedom is a private matter, not for public discussion or display?”
Good thing none of our Lefties were at the Constitutional Convention. Now if we can just prevent left-wing judges from continually altering its meaning………
2. Bigfoot | July 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Last year I attended two of the Gathering Of Eagles counterprotests to anti-war protests sponsored by Code Pink, ANSWER and assorted Sheehanites. Each side was assigned its own areas to hold their rallies, within sight of each other, but separated by portable barriers. I don’t see how the fences at the upcoming conventions are any different. We all had the right to speak, but not to disrupt or physically impede the other side.
3. Timothy Horrigan | July 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am
I actually volunteered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Not that the facts matter too much here, but these are the facts:
Security for the convention was the responsibility of the state of Massachusetts which at the time was run by that notorious archliberal, then-Governor Mitt Romney. The legendary Free Speech Area was a pathetic looking area under a highway overpass which was about to be demolished, a few yards from Causeway Street where the New Boston Garden is located. The barbed wire was there to keep protestors out of a construction site, not to keep them in.
The Democratic Party is NOT want the Free Speech Area to be located there: they were willing to allow demonstrators on Causeway Street itself, but that was deemed to be a security risk by the state. Demonstrations were allowed just about everywhere else in the city, and some fairly large ones did take place not too far away in Copley Square and elsewhere.
Security precautions were similar in New York City for the Republican National Convention which was held at Madison Square Garden. But of course that is irrelevant: we are not talking about the Republicans here!
4. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
McCain Serial Flip Flopper…
*McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
5. Fredrick Schwartz | July 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
3. Timothy Horrigan | July 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am
Having covered both conventions in 2004 I found this laughable. Does anyone remember “Guantanamo on the Hudson?” good old Pier 57 even a press pass wouldn’t get you out of there in less than 12 hours.
The “pack pens” used by the NYPD to put 40 protestors in a space where only 20 should have been were the fruit of many a fertile mind at RNC HQ. Children being detained even when their parents came to get them in order to “teach them a lesson about government.” Yeah that lesson has been heard loud and clear. In the end it cost the Big Apple nearly a quarter million dollars in civil suit payouts to the sickened and injured at Guantanamo on the Hudson.
But you’re right Tim we’re not talking about the Republicans here. If all of America is not a free speech zone then America is no longer a free country filled with free citizens it has become what the right wing and the reactionaries have always wanted a budding fascist state.
6. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Frederick darling,
It was actually Democrat Andrew Young in Atlanta that started the restrictive practice of free speech zones, of which Operation Rescue vociferously protested.
And then there’s this little nugget of truth you omitted:
“Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, “For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election”
But you are really not one to support the truth. That’s become quite clear.
have a super day
peace, neocon
7. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Matt
Didn’t you see the ACLU smack dab in the middle of that post you posted? Haven’t you guys always claimed the ACLU is left wing? Isn’t the ACLU filing a complaint?
Have you read the “Presidential Advance Manual” from the Bush Administration? That manual made it very explicit that every measure should be taken by the organisers to make sure that protesters would not be seen or heard by the president and/or the press. Resulting in protesters placed sometimes half a mile away from the actual venue, their signs made invisible by blocking them with buses, etc. etc. etc.
And not only during campaign-events or fundraisers. Also during events that are paid for by taxpayers.
From your article
On first sight, that’s a really big difference right there.
8. Danish Artist | July 1st, 2008 at 11:39 am
HeyHey, obviously you can’t seem to stay on topic, here is the response.
In just the past WEEK Barack Obama has changed his mind on several key issues. We just thought you might want to keep score.
He was against granting immunity to telecom companies that aided our government in eavesdropping on telephone messages to and from known terrorist operatives overseas. Now he is for granting this immunity to the evil telecom corporations.
Some time ago Obama said that he wholeheartedly supported the ban on the private ownership of guns in Washington DC. Then, after the Supreme Court came down with their ruling last week, suddenly Obama is a supporter of the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Earlier this year Obama said that he was going to accept public financing of his presidential campaign after the convention. Now that he has seen he could get more money from private contributions than he would from public financing, he changed his mind.
NAFTA? Barack was going to immediately renegotiate all of the evil NAFTA treaty. Now … well, let’s just say “not so much.”
“Change we can believe in” turns out to be “I believe I’m going to change my mind.”
Obama’s flip flops span DAYS or WEEKS between issue stances. McCain’s span YEARS over his extensive experienced Senate career.
Goes to show that Barak Hussein Obama is an inexperienced rookie! AND, protesters should be allowed access for their protests (as long as it is civil).
But we all know and experience time and again the liberal politician intolerance for truth.
Freddie, as usual, you also are intolerant of the truth, especially when it goes against Comrade Barak Hussein Obama and the Party.
Journalists are supposed to be unbiased - something that is lost amongst yourself and your fictional hell’s newspaper.
9. Fredrick Schwartz | July 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Deleted - off topic.
10. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“We just thought you might want to keep score.”
Oh, I am keeping score DA . McCain has Obama beat in the Flip Flop department. In fact, McCain is clobbering him. Some people choose to ignore it, some don’t.
11. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
The topic should read ‘Republicans and Democrats vs. the First Amendment’. There is so much to sling around on both sides of the aisle on this one. To say that one party is the only one doing it is extremely disingenuous.
“It was actually Democrat Andrew Young in Atlanta that started the restrictive practice of free speech zones, of which Operation Rescue vociferously protested.”
Not really. Free speech zones have been around before Andrew Young’s in Atlanta. My point is that nothing has stopped the Republicans or the Democrats from doing it . Both Parties are equally guilty of this the way I see it.
12. js | July 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
actually hey hey, your misrepresenting things only testifies that you are not much higher than a liberal lemming that doesnt have the intelligence to seek out the whole truth, and is much more comfortable believing everything from clod central so you dont have to think for yourself….
we got your ticket….
then again, most of what you posted was way off topic anyways…and has nothing to do with what the blog is all about…
typical lemming, eh?
13. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Uh, js my last post in which I talk about free speech zones IS the topic. Where did I misrepresent something? the fact that you can’t address the topic or form a basic sentence says alot about your intelligence.
Yes, I agree. You are a typical lemming js.
14. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
ROTFLMAO!
JS accusing HH from “misrepresenting things”?
JS, I just caught you in a lie telling people here that Obama sat beside Clark when Clark told Schieffer the truth.
15. OhioOrrin | July 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
is “heyhey” actually olbermann?
same talking points fm last nite.
keith “heyhey” will u pls get 2 the point faster w fewer indirect clauses.
damn obtuse style of speechifying.
16. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Ohio,
Sorry to disappoint Ohio but I’m not Olbermann and I don’t watch his show(but apparently you do). Is pointing out McCain FlipFlops a talking point? No, it isn’t. I concede it was off topic but I have addressed the topic in another post. You, on the other other hand, have added nothing.
17. Fredrick Schwartz | July 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
6. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Neocon my sweet,
I don’t see any mention of that in that post by Mr Margolis do you? The goal of these right wing sites is to paint Progressives with a single brush and not get any of that muck on conservatives. That’s impossible because they are both politicians.
18. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Pointing at Republicans instead of acknowledging Democrat faults is cowardly. Stand up and be honest you trotskyites. So your excuse is that WE did something? How changy of you. So glad to see you leading the way.
Now explain the “fairness doctrine”.
19. OhioOrrin | July 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
heyhey - the whole subject of “flip flopping” is disingenuious.
as Colbert noted of W’s “consistency” - “he’s the same on wednesday as he was on monday, no matter what happens on tuesday.”
emerson - foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds.
20. Danish Artist | July 1st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Thanks for proving my point Freddie!
Wow, personal attacks, religious attacks, bias and outright lies all rolled into a single post!
Obama is only second to you!
21. HeyHey | July 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I clearly stated above that both sides are equally guilty of these so called ‘free speech zones’.
“heyhey - the whole subject of “flip flopping” is disingenuious.”
That is rich. Now it’s disingenuous because McCain flip flops all over the place. 4 years ago, Republicans were singing a different tune.
22. Tractatus | July 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Pointing at Republicans instead of acknowledging Democrat faults is cowardly.
Then why don’t you start acknowledging Republican faults instead of pointing at Democrats? Or are you more comfortable being a coward?
23. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
When I post on YOUR sites, maybe I’ll give it try. Or you might try some research here.
But why let facts fill your head when hates does the job so nicely?
You um, admit that the Ted Kennedy law restricting windmill projects should be overturned?
24. js | July 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
14. Willem van Oranje
Why do you liberals prove, time and again, that you are a little less than mental midgets?
Clarks the US Commander in Kosovo that let the bombs go on thousands of civilians. Thats been rehashed by liberal tree hugging enemy sympathisers for almost a decade, so doing wave no flags and stomp like a patriot you morons. He is not qualified to rate McCain. McCain is just as qualified as JFK was, nobody insulted Kennedy for not being qualified….your full of horse poop, make that orange horse poop wilem.
Clarks a ball less wonder..he dropped out of the Race in 03 because…..he is a fool. If he was a gage or even qualified to determing who is or isnt qualified to be President, then we are all sucking wind and our media is insulting our intelligence for waving this ignorance in front of our eyes.
25. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Kahn,
“You um, admit that the Ted Kennedy law restricting windmill projects should be overturned?”
I know you weren’t making your comment to me, but yes, the law should be overturned. And while I can’t speak for other parts of the country , they seem to be building windmills like crazy here in Wyoming and Colorado.
26. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Casper - thanks for that. Watch and learn and see who else will agree.
The Kennedy Law doesn’t make the projects impossible. Just very difficult to get approved.
27. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
actually, the government has no business telling private individuals that they can not build windmills (or drill for oil on thier own property)
the constitution never intended for congressmen to have that kind of power….
28. Ricorun | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
What law are you referring to, Kahn?
29. Tractatus | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
But why let facts fill your head when hates does the job so nicely?
I don’t know–you’d have to explain that one to me as I much prefer the realm of facts. So…why do you prefer hatred instead?
30. AR-15 | July 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Romney objected to putting windmills up there too. We shall now call it the Kennedy/Romney Windmill law.