As with all things, there are limits. Of course the groups should be able to protest. Obviously, if it gets violent, then action has to be taken. I'm not sure I see the controversy here.
<font size="4">Behavior May Cost Protesters 'Privileges,' Bloomberg Says</font>
<font size="1">By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 17, 2004</font>
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg told a group of volunteers who plan to toil at the Republican National Convention yesterday that he expected most protesters who come to the event later this month would "be reasonable," but he warned that "if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them."
Coincidentally, his remarks followed a protest by a small group of police officers who were told to move away from the doorway of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan or risk arrest. The group was there awaiting the mayor's arrival to address and thank the volunteers.
Mr. Bloomberg has been battling two disparate groups of protesters over the last few weeks: police and fire union officials, who have been trailing him at his public events and yelling at him to give them a raise, and antiwar protesters, who have been wrangling with the city over where they can stage a large demonstration the day before the convention, which will be held Aug. 30 to Sept. 2.
In recent days, as each group has gotten more aggressive, Mr. Bloomberg has been forced to address them in his public remarks as he goes about the city. Last week, during a briefing with police officials on the convention, Mr. Bloomberg suggested that antiwar protesters be mindful of American troops in Iraq.
When asked later if he meant that protesters were being unpatriotic, Mr. Bloomberg said he did not. "If you think the war is wrong you should say so," he said, adding that his point was that "we have freedoms that most other people do not have," including the right to protest.
Yesterday, a small group of police officers were reminded of the limitations they face when they stood outside the college waiting for Mr. Bloomberg to arrive, and handed out leaflets while blocking the entrance.
After being asked to move several times, the leader of the group, Walter Liddy, was told he would be arrested if he did not move to a penned-in area near the school. "I almost got arrested for exercising our civil rights," Mr. Liddy said.
Mr. Liddy seemed perplexed when asked if he had anything in common with the group that has been battling the city over its protest site the Sunday before the convention begins. "Because they're protesters and because they have a gripe," Mr. Liddy said, he saw some parallels, but added that their issues were very different.
That group, United for Peace and Justice, has repeatedly requested the right to protest on Central Park's Great Lawn and have been rejected each time by the city's Parks Department, whose officials say the lawn cannot handle the 250,000-odd protesters the city expects at their rally. The city offered the group the West Side Highway, which it accepted at one point but subsequently rejected last week.
Both the antiwar protesters and some of the police officers who could be assigned to watch over them used the same language to respond to the mayor's remarks about free speech being a privilege that can be lost.
"I never understood the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment were a privilege,'' said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, "I don't know why he is framing it that way."
Mr. Liddy echoed that thought: "Unless the mayor paid someone to rewrite the Constitution."
<font color="darkgreen">Source</font>
As with all things, there are limits. Of course the groups should be able to protest. Obviously, if it gets violent, then action has to be taken. I'm not sure I see the controversy here.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem comes from the attempt to redefine rights as "privileges". Note that he didn't say that they needed to be violent but only that if they were not "reasonable" they could lose thier "privileges."Originally posted by Lew:
As with all things, there are limits. Of course the groups should be able to protest. Obviously, if it gets violent, then action has to be taken. I'm not sure I see the controversy here.
Unreasonable can take many forms depending on who's doing the defining. You will note in the article that a police officer was threatened with arrest if he did not take his protest to a cordoned off area away from the entrance to the building he was protesting in front of.
No violence, no threats but I guess he was being "unreasonable."
Just more chipping away at constitutional rights. Chip, chip, chip. Damn, where did they go?
The right to free speech is not unrestricted. They can protest, but shouldn't become violent or be allowed to disrupt the convention. There were similar restrictions at the Democratic convention for the same reasons.
So, if one is a democrat, one can throw tacks on the street to injure the dogs, or marbles to make the horses go down?
With all appropriate apolgies to Sluggo, you people are very sick fucks.
Injure or maim the animals of the police department because you don't like the politics of the convention and then call in PETA when someone like me wears a leather jacket.
Sick fuckicy fuckin fucks.
(Sorry Sluggo.)
Politics aside, Tomas, you are ONE sick individual if you support this. You too, Lan.
Gae
Just where do you get this crap from? Who said that violence should be tolerated? I am not a fan of violent protest. But on the other hand I do not believe that you can be hustled off to some "free speech zone" to keep president chickenhawk from seeing you.
No one here has so much as suggested any of the actions that you so sensationalisticly (ya gotta know that's spelled wrong) pulled out of your ass.
Why do you always feel obliged to try push an arguement into this kind of extremist rhetoric?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can agree with most of what you say, lan. I have a bit of trouble with the phrase "disrupt the convention."Originally posted by LanDroid:
The right to free speech is not unrestricted. They can protest, but shouldn't become violent or be allowed to disrupt the convention. There were similar restrictions at the Democratic convention for the same reasons.
Where is the line between constitutionally supported free speech and disruption in your opinion? There is a long tradition in this country of civil disobedience for instance, would you stop people from marching in the streets?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">YOUR medai, Tomas. YOURS.Originally posted by Pi?a:
Gae
Just where do you get this crap from? Who said that violence should be tolerated? I am not a fan of violent protest. But on the other hand I do not believe that you can be hustled off to some "free speech zone" to keep president chickenhawk from seeing you.
No one here has so much as suggested any of the actions that you so sensationalisticly (ya gotta know that's spelled wrong) pulled out of your ass.
Why do you always feel obliged to try push an arguement into this kind of extremist rhetoric?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is up with you today? You're normally wrong but you're verging on incomprehensible and that's not really like you.Originally posted by gae:
YOUR medai, Tomas. YOURS.
You guys been partying?
Whispering to Pina: Trav frequently posts under GAE's moniker, it's usually easy to tell which is which when you keep that in mind...
As far as "disrupting the convention", it's another matter where you don't do to them what you wouldn't want them to do to you - they'll just do the same thing in your next convention. We could sneak in large air horns and such to make a prime time speech incomprehensible, but the favor would be returned. Bush's folks already have several advantages: a $4500. entrance fee to the convention plus enforcing loyalty pledges in their own speeches cuts out the riff-raff, meanwhile infiltrating the opposition, chanting slogans and waiving sandals in the air of all things. We shouldn't return that favor or it will get worse, that's about the gist of it for me. We'll have the advantage of a MUCH larger number of protestors.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ August 17, 2004 10:47 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks