BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Designated Free Speech Zones

 
 
cusm
17:11 / 05.01.04
Quarantining dissent

How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech


When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."


Read the full article here
 
 
cusm
22:33 / 05.01.04
Frankly, the sorts of things this administration is getting away with scare the shit out of me. Its unreal.

Reading this article makes me want to go to a Bush Rally. With about 200 friends. With paper banners rolled up our sleeves that can be pulled out all at once with simple statements on them like "I am exercising my right to free speech" and "I do not support the Bush administration" on them.
 
 
Baz Auckland
00:14 / 06.01.04
...but the court did rule against the zones, which is a positive sign, even if those in charge ignore it...
 
 
specofdust
03:03 / 06.01.04
Indeed it is a positive sign Baz.

However, I'm not sure it would make any difference to Bush if he did see all the protesters (didn't he have "Hail to the theif" chanted at him on his inauguration day?), he's going to carry on doing the terrible things he does. Obviously though, it's a shame that we hear of things like this happening, but not a surprise, the U.S. is no longer a country that tolerates free speach it seems.
 
 
Naked Flame
08:42 / 06.01.04
spec- no, it *is* very definitely a country that believes in free speech. Certain individuals *within* the US don't, though. Important distinction.
 
 
_Boboss
10:04 / 06.01.04
'certain people within'

or

'certain groups in control of'
 
 
Ray Fawkes
10:58 / 06.01.04
"certain people within". If they were a group in control, the courts wouldn't be able to judge in favor of the "free-speaker".
 
 
_Boboss
12:27 / 06.01.04
has the zoning policy changed in response to the precedent yet?
 
 
The Falcon
20:25 / 07.01.04
Control is not an absolute.
 
 
sleazenation
21:48 / 07.01.04
I don't know it almost seems like a bizzaro spin on TAZs...
 
 
Rage
07:45 / 08.01.04
Why do you think there's no information on Hakim Bey? It's Georgie boy!
 
 
40%
21:16 / 14.01.04
"the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government."

I'm genuinely shocked. There are sirens going off in my head. Is anyone else just fucking outraged by these presumptuous bastards? Because I'm also pretty surprised that this thread is giving way to semantic arguments, for fuck's sake. I don't know what I'm expecting anyone to say, but really, there has to be more of a reaction than "oh well, I guess America doesn't tolerate free speech now..."

I mean, what lengths would we be willing to go to to fight this kind of violation? Surely that's the question. I'm speaking as an English person here, maybe some American people have already had to ask themselves these questions. I don't know, there has to be something that can be done. I mean, this guy is taking the whole world for a ride! Everywhere he goes, muthafuckers are tiptoeing around him. Shame on our British government for allowing that! Shame on Tony Blair for siding with Bush at our expense!
 
 
cusm
22:01 / 14.01.04
I'm serious about the rally crashing, incidently.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
17:50 / 15.01.04
Hm. A few of my conservative friends are claiming this is standard practice, even with democratic presidents. I can't seem to find stories about that, though.
 
 
+#'s, - names
18:45 / 15.01.04
I might be mistaken, but isnt it true that there is no protection of free speech whatsover in England, and the only place that you are allowed to say what you want is in some park on saturdays, and even there you aren't allowed to slag the queen?
 
 
specofdust
19:42 / 15.01.04
"isnt it true that there is no protection of free speech whatsover in England"

I think that's the case unfortunately. Bottom line is though, we in the U.K. live in a country where if the government declares a state of emergency, they can take whatever you own, tell you where you may and may not be, and more then likely stop you saying things they don't agree with. The States are the roughy the same if im not mistaken.

All we can really do though is either become part of that system and try to change it, or remove that system. Tony Blair and his government don't care what people think(or at least not to the extent that they'll change their plans - they went to war when public opinion was clearly against them), and they will carry on doing what their doing regardless of their being in the right or wrong.
 
 
Doctor Singapore
23:19 / 16.01.04
...standard practice, even with democratic presidents.

I was in one at the 2000 Democratic Convention (ok, a Democratic candidate, anyway)...not sure about Clinton. As far as I can tell, the "Free Speech Zone" started post-Seattle/WTO riots, as a means of crowd control. Shove all the dissidents into a space that's closed on three sides, and if they get too uppity, come in with pepper spray and rubber bullets....

Which was what subsequently happened at Gore's convention. "Free Speech Zone" has to be one of the all-time greatest Newspeak phrases of the moden era. Call it what it is: a cattle pen.
 
  
Add Your Reply