Judge: Denver Can Restrict Protests At Convention

Source: Reuters

Protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver can be restricted to fenced-in areas, federal judge ruled on Wednesday, saying that security needs outweighed curbs on their rights.

A dozen groups who intend to protest at the August convention sued the U.S. Secret Service and the city of Denver over plans to confine their activities to a parade route and fenced-in zone, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Friends Service Committee and others argued that the rules would keep them too far away from delegates to get their message across during the convention, which is scheduled for Aug 25-28 at the city's downtown Pepsi Center.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement on their freedom of expression but said those interests had to be balanced with security concerns.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-denver-protests.html

Are they protesting the Republican conventin.

and defending the people who want to protest

Dem or repuke.

There is plenty to protest at the Democratic Convention.

protests have been banished from the designated protests areas.

Upon further reflection, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Is it a bad idea to keep delegates from seeing citizens protesting whatever it is that citizens will be protesting? Maybe. Is it a bad idea to reduce the chances that protestors/instigators will create some Limbaugh-fantasy disruption of the convention? Definitely not. Is this abridgement of the right to free speech? I'm not sure.

Is this what I like seeing happen in America? No. But the reality is that with crowds like those that will be present at the Convention anything could happen.

What think you?

Anarchists - this group protests at every large gathering, they have no agenda other than to cause chaos. Is it wrong to want to control them? I'm ambivalent, but then I live in Denver and work downtown, will be very near the whole thing all week.

Many of those who call themselves anarchists are simply people who support a voluntary and egalitarian social order. These included people like Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement and the late folk singer Utah Phillps.

Don't equate "anarchist" with "window breaking Seattle berserker". Those people were just a small, Eugene-based nihilist cult.

For the record, I haven't become an anarchist, I just don't like to see good people unjustly maligned.

Then they are not anarchists. Words and titles have meanings.

They don't support chaos. They want people to work together and run society and life together without coercion. That's a lot different than what you're thinking of. You're still confusing anarchism with nihilism.

Read some Emma Goldman sometime.

and discuss again after the convention. If the anarchists truly do present only peaceful protests, with no window breaking, firebomb throwing, general destruction of public and private property, then all will be good.

If they are really nihilists, identifying themselves as anarchists, and all the above destruction comes about, I don't know how we will settle the argument. In the meantime, I'll research Emma Goldman.

We only have permission to speak - when and if our rulers give it!

A "right" that can be limited is not a right, it's a permission.

All its doing is limiting somewhat where they can do their protest for a limited amount of time, partly I assume for security reasons and lets be honest and admit that there is a risk some nutjob might try something plus some of its probably having to do with trying to keep it from evolving into some sort of riot which again can happen when a large group of people get together, look at those soccer riots they have on in europe for example? Perfect example I think of mob mentality at work.
Also this does not limit what they say, when the government tries that like they did when they arrested that couple with the anti bush tshirts then I'll have a problem with it.

We can't fight fascism if people continue to agree with the government systematically stripping away our freedoms. I don't care if its the RNC or DNC, people should not be herded off to government designated "free speech" zones.

It was wrong when the NYPD did it in 2004 at the RNC and its wrong now.


Mmmm "freedom". :patriot:

http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/living/livingabroadin/living_abroad_moving_to_china.shtml

You'll feel as safe as can be.

Jay

It's time to tell it like it is, sports fans. If someone's going to pull out a gun on unarmed persons or lob a bomb into a crowd, it's going to be a conservative whack job. Look at who gets assassinated: Martin Luther King or Jerry Falwell? Bobby Kennedy or Jesse Helms?

Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln....Princess Di (j/k). Don't think that many nuts take on political affiliations. :evilgrin:

And Lincoln was done in by a reactionary actor, who couldn't come to terms with his beloved Confederate States of America losing the Civil War. The fact remains in America that if someone's going to pick up a gun and dispense some rough justice, it's probably going to be someone on the conservative side of the aisle.

Sara Jane Moore, Lynette Fromme, The Unibomber, Lee Oswald, Jim Jones, ALF?

You aren't reciting facts ("The fact remains . . ."). You're just spinning your own web of nonsense.

doesn't make there crimes any less egregious. I think that "crazy" doesn't discriminate between ideologies.

Since BushCo has established the precendent that security concerns trump free speech, the judge is following precendent.

It's up to the Supreme Court to rule if this is a violation of the Constitution. I do not think they have had a case that they've accepted on this issue yet.

that should be an embarrassment to a democracy --

Along with free speech we have the right to freedom of assembly ---

and as I recall it, interference with that right is what finally brought on

the revolution first time round --


Further -- these are PROTESTS which are intended to make clear dissatisfaction with

those in power. It is the public demand to end corruption of high officials.


On the other hand -- I think concentrating this energy in one place doesn't make

much sense to me ---

I'd just as soon see the protests away from the convention ---

and done differently.

Boston did the same thing in 2004 and the same arguments were made then. Restrictions on time, place, volume, etc. have always been permitted, though. No right is absolute.

If you can only do something if and when I say you can, do you have the right to do it at all?

Thus have rights to access public areas to practice free speech.

the courts have in the past sided with the government, this does not mean the courts get it right all the time though but this time I think they did.

That's how you got the "Patriot Act" --- !!!

after 9/11 and no one wanted to be accused of supporting Bin Laden.

Congress didn't get that . . . really?

They didn't understand they were being pushed --- not even when Anthrax came in?

But all we're both saying is, there's a lot of FEAR around which leads to some pretty

bad decision making ---

Your rights are ONLY those things I cannot legally keep you from enjoying. If I can legally keep you from enjoying them (whatever they are) then they're not rights, they're permissions.

In this case the founding fathers in general just decided to try and impose as few as possible but that does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater nor post some other things which society has found repugnant like child pornography.

The classic "fire in a crowded theater" is almost universally misunderstood. You *CAN* yell "fire" or whatever the hell else you want to. Nobody has the right to, for example, break your jaw or knock you unconscious to stop you. The most they can do is bring charges against you afterwards, if someone was injured or killed and there is some statute criminalizing acts that lead to such outcomes. And that's the most - if there actually WAS a fire, or even if you honestly thought there was, they can't even do that (they can try).

The only thing you demonstrate with your example of child porn is that we do not, in fact, have any rights in the USA. We only *think* we do because we've become so servile that we confuse permissions with rights. In a society with the actual right to free speech, the person who posts kiddie porn might well suffer severe social consequences, but would not and could not be subjected to arrest or criminal prosecution.

Restrictions on time, place, volume, etc. have always been permitted, though. No right is absolute.

Yes, if only we could get restrictions limited to what is actually needed to preserve public safety.

to keep them out of view or the press and our royalty????

getting into these areas to interview people?

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
— Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

For example, could a group of protesters block up all the entrances not allowing anyone to enter? So, I can see where there needs to be restrictions on at not protesting in the delegates travel paths in & out of the building.

I can see a need for some buffer space between the protesters and the delegates/officials. To me the question is how much buffer? 1 foot is a little close for practical security measures. 1000 feet is obviously going beyond security and actually infringing on being heard.

Soon we'll have Free Speech Friday.

Then Free Speech Hour (2:27pm - 3:27 pm, every second Tuesday)

Then Free Speech Minute.

Then....