More Crushing of Dissent (serious this time!)
Norbizness has written a nice little screed about the "Free Speech Zones" the Secret Service enforces around the President. You know, the fenced-in lot a half mile away, and if you leave it carrying a sign that says "Bush NO!" you get arrested and hauled off for endangering the president with your pointy sharp words.
On the other side of the coin, Eugene Volokh has written a sensible and thought-provoking piece for (of all people) the scenery-chewers at the National Review Online, arguing that it's really not 'the liberals' who are enemies of free speech, at least from a judicial standpoint.
Posted by
Johno
on
| § 3
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Does it spook anyone else out
Does it spook anyone else out that you have to get a PERMIT to protest in Crawford, Texas? Talk about a pile of bullshit.
I can see a law that requires citizens organizing a protest to NOTIFY police that they are doing so, 15 days in advance, if they can. If the 15 days notice aren't given, there better be a darn good reason why.
Where the hell did this notion of "permission" to protest come from?
It freaks me out to NO END.
It freaks me out to NO END. It usedta be that a citizen could waltz into the white house and demand to see the pars-dent. That's no longer true, for good reason.
But what's with this deflection of dissenting opinions?
Don't they realize that any terrorist with half a brain would wrap himself head to toe in "BUSH 2004" regalia the better to get closer to the man?
They must, which suggests that they're not stupid, they're just assholes.
Exactly. There are NO VALID
Exactly. There are NO VALID SECURITY REASONS for removing protesters. It is being done for purely political reasons, by a secret service that ought to know better.