It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
as posted by MemoryShock
Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events. Amazing how not a single mention was made....I was watching the procession live. Though I disprove of the "hurling of debris," we should have heard about this....why was it blacked out?
[edit on 21-1-2005 by Banshee]
Wow......I guess we can trust our nations media to be impartial and critical regarding events that have an implication towards how we view our political events. Amazing how not a single mention was made....I was watching the procession live. Though I disprove of the "hurling of debris," we should have heard about this....why was it blacked out?
Originally posted by ohplease
I find it very interesting that we "Americans" accept the concept of free speech zones. Zones where you can protest and exercise your 1st amendment right. The area the protestor occupied where designated free speech zones. Doesn’t this go against the whole concept of protesting even more, doesn’t this go against the whole concept of freedom of speech? What the government says is that you can only exercise your 1st amendment right where you won’t offend anyone. From my understanding, the first amendment protects speech you do not agree with. I personally think people in the protests are committed to their cause, but to allow protests to confined to obscure areas of town, away for public view, defeats the purpose
Originally posted by ohplease
I find it very interesting that we "Americans" accept the concept of free speech zones. Zones where you can protest and exercise your 1st amendment right. The area the protestor occupied where designated free speech zones. Doesn’t this go against the whole concept of protesting even more, doesn’t this go against the whole concept of freedom of speech? What the government says is that you can only exercise your 1st amendment right where you won’t offend anyone. From my understanding, the first amendment protects speech you do not agree with. I personally think people in the protests are committed to their cause, but to allow protests to confined to obscure areas of town, away for public view, defeats the purpose
Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhaps you weren't looking hard enough?
Perhaps your search engine is malfunctioning?
Dunno, really, but it was covered.
Tear Gas used at Inauguration
Interesting how this event is such a "big" deal, anyhow, unless of course, you support the activities of those protesting.
seekerof