As far as I know, Ms Ronstat never did anything to prevent anyone from expressing an opposing opinion, so I don't understand how her case compares.

As I stated, I have attended a number of GOP conventions where the same treatment being meted out here was given there. Again I say, if they don't like it, then they should keep their fascist cop squads from harassing the Democrats who come to their conventions. Also, we have numerous cases in Texas where the ACLU has filed on the the Texas DPS for arresting sidewalk protestors in the Austin when Mr. Bush was governor, and on arrests of protestors in Crawford, and most recently two weeks ago where two kids wearing Kerry T-shirts at Bush rallies, arrested for trespassing. If they want different treatment at DNC functions, they need to extend the same courtesy to us. I guarantee you the Republican governor and mayor of New York will treating the Democrats who arrive in NYC no different than this. We'd love to tolerate their right to free speech, and we will do it as soon as they stop throwing democrats into jail for exercising their free speech rights.

Kirk Democrat me stupid independent Bot republican "I think" hmmmmmmmm probably dosn't matter nohow!

William Rogers......

Mr Rogers, you are deeply insightful, as usual.

Kirk,
Your brief analysis of why Clinton is thought of as a "republican" is also a good argument for divided government. When the executive and legislative branches are run by opposing parties they seem to do less harm than when one ( either) party controls both.

Kirk, you always try to slam us when we use previous demoratic admins for an example why do you get the free pass saying the "The repos did it first?"

Its like when a kid gets caught passing a note in class. The kid always says that somebody else passed it to him, first.

Now some teachers would bust the kid and move on. Other teachers who fancy themselves junior administrators and holders of truth, would first enter into a lengthy enquiry to ferret-out the culprits--no doubt a conspiracy to usurp class authority. This could take days, but its important to get the whole truth out so that new rules can be carefully crafted. Innocent students have nothing to fear.

The teacher then sets-up a whole new system of rules clearly defining note passing and its consequences.

Of course, not much teaching of curriculum gets done, though every student takes an interesting lesson from the experience that will surely shape his future behavior. Some will learn the teachers legalistic tendancies and note that the new rules have undefined areas. Knowing the legalistic behavior of the teacher, the student knows that these grey areas represent opportunities to influence other students through undefined message passing.

Then the teacher busts the students and finds that the rules were not designed to cover the real problem. The teacher uncovers a new conspiracy among the students. A new round of investigative inquiry ensues with a whole new expanded set of rules.

And so forth.

Dang B I was going to say almost exactly the same, maybe a couple words would be different but still pretty much the same.

So you guys are saying that if I lease a piece of property and don't want you on it, you have a right to come on the property anyway, so you can exercise your right to free speeh? My, what odd right wingers you are.

Political issues have absolutely nothing to do with the running of the world they are just the pictures on the back of a cereal box...........

William Rogers......

WTF are you talking about?

Oh, the subject of the thread! Dang, how'd we get back on that?

B

I'm not right wing I'm independent.


Anyway, i'm not saying what they are doing is wrong at all, I'm just pointing out that it's not just a republican thing .

If this were in an election prior to 9/11 when we didn't pay attention to Al Queda, then I'd be outraged by the suppression of free speech and civil disobedience.

But there are murderous ba$tards out there that will dynamite folks. They are not stupid. They will do their best to look like zaney political demonstrators dressed as baby harp seals or something. At this juncture its more important to protect the political party conventions than it is to worry about free speech expression.

I don't know when concern gets too high and civil liberties are endangered. Probably not a perfect solution.

B

This is sideshow stuff. The real problem will be in New York. The party in power during an unpopular war tends to attract a crowd. Between the repubs and the demonstrators, you are talking about a nice fat target. I for one think the police need to be cut as much slack as possible, given that they don't whip out the tear gas and fire hoses, well, even then we need to give them a little leeway. Given the current environment, they need to keep the streets cleared for emergency vehicles and/or mass evacuations if the worst does happen. That is actually what is going on in Boston - I don't think there is any conspiracy to deny people free speech rights.

I agree with is: "Given the current environment, they need to keep the streets cleared for emergency vehicles and/or mass evacuations if the worst does happen. That is actually what is going on in Boston - I don't think there is any conspiracy to deny people free speech rights."

But it reminds me of the USA Patriot Act. Both are extremely dangerous because they provide an excuse to infringe on personal liberty. Nothing has happened yet that has manifest itself in either case, but we just have to watch the gov really closely when times are dangerous. Don't need no Riechstag bombings in the USA.

Well, Boston is not exactly a bastion of police authoritarianism and the surpression of free speech. Giving a guy a ticket for running a red light is enough to get a crowd to gather yelling "fascist!", to whom the cop usually yells back "**** you!". I really doubt you will see much in the way of heavy handed police tactics. New York is a different story. If the NYPD cops are a all carrying toilet plungers, watch out.