<p><a href=“http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D14090175[/url]”>http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D14090175</a></p>
<p>Is there a contradiction here? Sheesh.</p>
<p>There is a difference between the right to free speech (which is protected) and having a right to disorderly conduct (which is not). All free societies maintain the right to conduct orderly meetings. Try infiltrating the next meeting of the ACLU with an outbreak like the German did and see how long before they call the cops to have the disruption removed.</p>
<p>He shouted one statement and held up a sign. Wow. For this he deserved to be tackled? And to have his sign torn in half? I guess Condoleeza is used to the pre-screened audiences the administration so carefully selects.</p>
<p>No, there is NOT a contradiction. Did Condi tackle him? Did she rip the poster in half? Did she order that to happen? Or, instead, are these trained security personnel who would do the same thing if someone protested against Al Gore?</p>
<p>I hope they wouldn’t do the same thing to Gore protesters, either!</p>
<p>THere is a pattern of not allowing free speech…really scary, and if Ms. Rice does not step up and say the germans over reacted, then yes, it is hypocritical, claiming that we are a country spreading freedom through out the world, yet not allowing it seems a bit hypocritical to me, but maybe I just love the first amendment too much</p>
<p>Maybe I missed something, but when was someone tackeled and arrested at a Gore event for speaking out? Where teachers arrested for wearing anti peace shirts? </p>
<p>When something like that ACTUALLY happens at an ACLU meeting, then there miight a point</p>
<p>
Seems like a contradiction to me–and a frightening repression of free speech. I haven’t been to any ACLU meetings recently, but I did attend a MoveOn.org houseparty this summer, which had a protester standing outside with a sign that was pretty startling to see on a quiet suburban street: “Death to MoveOn.” Did anyone tackle him or rip up his sign or even call the cops? No, the homeowners insisted on offering him refreshments and inviting him to come in and talk.</p>
<p>
That doesn’t sound like a “peace activist” to me…it sounds like someone demanding intervention against the North Korean regime. And disrupting an event is not the same as participating. Typical AP misreporting. Just as silly as trying to compare a lone protestor standing outside a “MoveOn.org house party” to a person who has infiltrated an event secured for the protection of one of the most highly-protected people in the world in one of the most dangerous places in the world. Did he need to be tackled? Well, I don’t know, but if it is your job to make sure that the event is secure, and someone has gotten through, I think you act decisively and make sure your protectee is safe, then worry about the feelings of the illegal infiltrator. It wasn’t as if they had shot him…or run over him with a tank.</p>
<p>I dunno–it sounds as if there were lone protesters at both locations, and it was the one outside the MoveOn party who was calling for violence. I agree with aparent5: Condi Rice seems to favor free speech–or the opportunity to “come here and think what you want and ask me anything - the United States secretary of state”–only for those who agree with her views.</p>
<p>“It wasn’t as if they had shot him…or run over him with a tank.”</p>
<p>Are these the new criteria for violation of First Amendment rights? Things are scarier than I thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is something amusing about responding to people who love to relive the good memories of the Clinton-Gore era. Add Hillary to the fray, and we could be told that they were a new version of the Holy Trinity! When it comes to the Clinton x2-Gore trio, the Horwitz brothers plus Feinberg are a bit more appropriate. The good news is that it usually takes 20 seconds to find an archived example that contradicts the glorious memories. </p>
<p>Without further ado:</p>
<p>Gore and HIV vs. South Africa</p>
<p>by Jake Sexton </p>
<p>On June 16, Al Gore announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States at a televised rally in Tennessee. At one point in the broadcast, CNN’s TV cameras were focused on Gore’s audience, when protest erupted. A number of people were holding up signs which read “Gore’s Greed Kills” and “AIDS Drugs for Africa.” **Soon after, several people could be seen aggressively grabbing the signs out of the hands of the protesters, and maybe manhandling them as well (it all happened very quickly), most likely security guards, or possibly fervent Gore supporters (although I don’t know if such people exist). ** CNN quickly switched to another camera which was showing Gore speaking at the podium. The camera stayed on Gore for quite a while, before finally cutting back to the crowd. Amazingly, the protesters were gone! All that could be seen were throngs of cheery Gore supporters with their “We Love Tipper” and “I Adore Gore” signs.</p>
<p>From <a href=“http://eatthestate.org/03-41/GoreHIVvs.htm[/url]”>http://eatthestate.org/03-41/GoreHIVvs.htm</a></p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
Of course not. It’s called irony. That’s what they do in places where people actually have a freedom of speech issue. </p>
<p>What happened to this “protestor” is that he breached a secure area occupied by a high risk individual (Secretary Rice). He wasn’t supposed to be there, and when his presence became known, he was removed as quickly as possible. It’s absurd to imply that State Dept. security agents would have bothered to deliberately tear up his poster. Things get torn when you provoke this kind of situation. Of course, what gets lost in the typical slanted AP coverage of this thing (and the typical CC posting of it, as well), is the actual important subject the article began to address (the subject of Secretary Rice’s talk).</p>
<p>As Xiggi points out, this sort of thing happens regardless of the political viewpoint of the speaker or the protestors. This action was completely justified since it was obvious that this was a “by invitation only” meeting that the protestor infiltrated. Do you think for a minute that if Bill Clinton were to be having a press conference for invited correspondents and someone snuck in and tried to disrupt it that the Secret Service wouldn’t have the person handcuffed and out of there within seconds?</p>
<p>For those who think things are “scarier” than you thought. Don’t you think this is just a tad over the top? Remember, civil disobedience is exactly that - disobedience. No one who engages in civil disobedience whether it be to protest against a war or against abortion expects or has a right to escape punishment for the disobedience. The difference between a free society and a closed society like North Korea is that in a free society civil disobedience is met with restrained police reaction which includes removal from the premises and possibly a misdemeanor charge resulting in a fine or short jail sentence. In a closed society, the protestor could be severly punished including possibly torture and/or death. To equate what happened with Secretary Rice to what happens in North Korea or under Saddam is truly ludicrous.</p>
<p>" or possibly fervent Gore supporters (although I don’t know if such people exist)"</p>
<p>This quote from the blog shows that this was not done by a journilist and has an obvious bias…pretty snide remark for someone who is “reporting” something going on…</p>
<p>"This action was completely justified since it was obvious that this was a “by invitation only” meeting that the protestor infiltrated. "</p>
<p>I think we’re making too much of this. It was invitation only. He didn’t belong there and then tried to disrupt the event. Free speech doesn’t mean mayhem!</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn’t think we are in the midst of some very serious questioning about First Amendment issues in this country right now isn’t reading the papers. I don’t think we need to equate our country with North Korea or Iraq under Saddam – and, by the way, the only person who did that here was Rice’s defender – in order to be asking hard questions about our government’s actions. Considering the actions of our government in light of our own constitution is a sign that we love our country and want to preserve our freedoms. With our President regularly touring the United States, speaking to hand-picked audiences whose supportive views are then televised as “news,” we have every reason to be concerned.</p>
<p>I don’t know which threats to the First Amendment that you are referring to, but if this is an example of one of them, I’m not too concerned. What I see in this episode is business as usual as expected from a security team associated with either party. To read more into it than that suggests that you may be reading too much into whatever else you are reading in the papers.</p>
<p>I agree with fundingfather (love that name!).</p>
<p>This was a private event. He shouldn’t have been there. </p>
<p>People also have the right to bear arms (licensed) in my state. But, if you break into my house at 3am bearing an arm and I see you, do you expect me not to take action? You can bear all the arms you want - just not in my house when you haven’t been invited.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a relative who does speakers’ tours to college campuses. She has featured speakers from both liberal and conservative backgrounds; the idea is stir up a good debate.</p>
<p>Interestingly, not too long after 9/11, she had a multi-state speakers tour. The same liberal speakers were pulled off <em>every</em> single plane for a “random” search. </p>
<p>They were Julia “Butterfly” Hill (the girl who inhabited a redwood tree to save it from logging,) and someone high up from the Sierra Club, hardly people who would bring bombs on planes. Clearly, these were not random searches. Clearly, these activists had been “tagged,” and improperly so. How many libertarians like the idea of Federal “watch lists?” You could argue that Hill had broken the law, and that’s why her name was on a list, but the Sierra Club guy had not. </p>
<p>I worried at the time that our government was fruitlessly over-occupied searching peacniks and environmentalists-- rather than bad guys. It was a form of harrassment of those with non-administration views.</p>
<p>
You are the one trying to equate the legitimate actions of a security team at a closed, secured event to countries that use secret police to repress free speech. That was the whole point of your OP, remember?</p>