Judge OKs 'free speech zones' at upcoming Democratic National Convention

Judge OKs 'free speech zones' at upcoming Democratic National Convention

news.yahoo.com

DENVER (Reuters) - Protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver can be restricted to fenced-in areas, federal judge ruled on Wednesday, saying that security needs outweighed curbs on their rights.

A dozen groups who intend to protest at the August convention sued the U.S. Secret Service and the city of Denver over plans to confine their activities to a parade route and fenced-in zone, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Seems like Judge Marcia Krieger is on the side of the bad guys....i did some searching on some other cases she presided over and a hearing with Lockheed Martin came up.

judges records

look under curt documents...I wonder why she bowed out...conflict of interest? Another pawn in the grasp of the evil hand that is big corporation.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7-8-2008 by bringthelight]

So I guess this means we can't criticize China, as they are doing the same thing for the Olympics.

What happened to us!? Somehow we have gone horribly off track from the ideals set forth in the constitution and no one is outraged or even seems to care.

This is a sad sad day. First, when the republicans force protestors to 'free speech zones' (an oxymoron if I have ever heard one) the conservatives on this site say that it never happened. That our rights are NOT being infringed upon by the new laws (*clearing throat* patriot act). Well, here's the proof. I don't think that this should be allowed for either party.

It is OUR right as a people of this country, based on the constitution that created this country, to protest against the leadership or proposed leadership, no matter what. As long as it is peaceful. To confine these people to small areas is a joke and a slap in the face of the constitution and the people of this country.

As for the OP stating that the judge is on the side of the 'bad guys'. Are you saying that the Democrats are the bad guys? I don't get it. Why are we so divided.

"United we stand, divided we fall." We are 'falling' right into the hands of the people that want this country divided by party lines.

I'm sick of it. We need to revamp this government.

Well with all the terrorist attacks that have happened within the US since 9/11, security is obviously more important than a piece of paper and some ideals that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died trying to protect. *cough cough sarcasm cough*

Originally posted by kosmicjack
So I guess this means we can't criticize China, as they are doing the same thing for the Olympics.

What happened to us!? Somehow we have gone horribly off track from the ideals set forth in the constitution and no one is outraged or even seems to care.

wow...funny innit?...that the ones that always say they fight for your liberties, and fight for the working man...THE DEMOCRATS are the first to squash human rights every chance they get...they want to take your guns, tax (some of us) to the poor house, they want to take over and run the health care system and TELL US what doctor to see and when to do it, oh and fine us if we don't... they want to take money from the oil companies and use it for more government programs that, of course, they would control...

and you'll go right on ahead and vote for them because of your hate for Bushy.

*sigh* so sad...

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Fathom]

reply to post by dariousg
hey_________ it is the democrat convention not the republican convention, read the OP thouroughly before making ignorant comments.

reply to post by dariousg


I didn't mean the democrats were the bad guys. Dems/Republican is just an illusion of choice. The judge is on the side of the ruling elite that are destroying our constitution and our God given rights. Those are the bad guys.

People are willing to accept it because they are far too distracted with surviving and paying a mortgage and 6 credit card bills to care. The bad guys know this and they control the banks and the flow of money, which means we lose.

Give people a crisis to deal with and you can pull just about anything off if you keep it quiet. America needs a slap in the face!

reply to post by Fathom




Like Bush and his neo-con cronies haven't set the table for the feast on our liberties.

reply to post by Fathom


And BTW, this corralling trick was first done by the Republicans at their convention four years ago and for other appearances made by Bush.

Yeah they are basically telling us that the crazier (more informed) sheep must be herded and fenced in. Pretty funny that they are herding protesters like livestock and no ones saying anything about it.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by bringthelight]

Partisan bickering is the tool they use to blind us from working together towards a democratic and free society in the United States. They make us think that we can't live properly unless everyone of our pet issues is being addressed.

Step one: True Democracy.

Everything sorts itself out after that.

The entire principle of restricting the voice of dissent to an area removed from those 'offended' by it is antithetical to the concept of "Free Speech" and impinges also, quite heavily on the freedom of citizens to congregate. The issue of redress for the American people is also affected by this in that the 'protesting party' lost all recourse to challenge the decree.

Were I involved in the organization of protest activities and connected to activist strategy, I would inform them that the only way to overcome this latest effort to eliminate their influence on the issue, is to show up in unprecedented and unmanageable numbers.

If the "free Speech zone" cannot contain the number of protesters what are they going to do? Declare the entire area 'locked down'? Say they anticipate 1000 protesters. When 6000 show up the issue will be pressed. They cannot deal with overflow without invoking police action. This will, in effect, highlight the separation between the political party in question, and the people of the United States, which is something they surely want NOT to become evidenced by the behavior of the security provided.

The oxymoronic "Free Speech" zone is an affront to the liberties of the nation, and it is only because of the claim that the protesters represent some kind of 'threat' to public safety that they can get away with this. We know that the federal government has been busted inserting agitators and agent provacateurs into the mix to execute transgressions that 'justify' repressive action. The government has never been adequately confronted on the issue of infiltrating, and thus interfering with the purpose and outcome of activist protests.

What is called for is an Army of well-trained, disciplined protesters, who all respond with peaceful restraint and resistance to the oppressive measures taken by the government. Ghandi had it right. We must be willing to accept their blows, over and over, until they themselves see the futility of their own barbaric disregard for the civil freedoms and rights that constitute the very definition of being American.

Sounds to me like the demon-craps think they have us by the short hairs this time. Look at Bush's disapproval ratings, the amount of hate directed toward him, and then look at the laughable fellow they have set up for their nominee...

They know they have the best shot at winning this year, so they're not worried about freedoms and rights. They try to circumvent the state gas tax. They want those nasty free speech believers fenced off. I think it shows what's really important to them. Power, not people.

And don't be too quick to pat the Rip-you-off-licans on the back. They're just minding their manners hoping to somehow make a showing. You can bet they'd be puling the same old dirty tricks if they thought they could get by with it.

TheRedneck

I believe these free speech zones show the times we are living in more than anything else.

At a time where dissent is absolutely necessary, the people who care the most are fenced off and video taped. They are made to look un-american and criminal like.

Say you were walking by one of these "zones" into the DNC and saw people fenced in like hogs and chanting with guns pointed at them. Just from looking and not even knowing what these people stand for, you would assimilate these people with terrorists.

Its all mind games. If you really distrusted your govt and you went to one of these protests and you were being video taped, would you actually go back or would you fear for your life that your family would be snatched up at 3 in the morning?

Free speech is dead.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by bringthelight]

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Step one: True Democracy.

Everything sorts itself out after that.

Not really...The Founding Forefathers abhorred Democracy because they saw it as mob rule where 51% of the population can "vote away" the Rights of the other 49%. They already knew from the lessons of history that all Democracies will devolve into tyranny or fascism...No exceptions.
Note this particular clause from the US Constitution:

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

...With "Republican" form of government being defined by the New Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as:
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government.

In the Constitutional Republic, not even the majority (or even the unanimous) public vote can strip away any Rights at all. So screw Democracy & the "spread of Democracy" & restore the Constitutional Republic that all Government Officers (all 3 Branches at State & Federal levels) must swear/affirm a legally-binding Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

So in this particular case, we must take a look at the 1st Amendment:

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Gee, that kind of throws the whole concept of establishing "free speech zones" right out the window, doesn't it?
The whole concept of establishing any "abridgments" at all comes under the "color of law" instead of obedience to the Supreme Law.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And don't be too quick to pat the Rip-you-off-licans on the back. They're just minding their manners hoping to somehow make a showing. You can bet they'd be puling the same old dirty tricks if they thought they could get by with it.

How true that we only have "one party" to vote for, because they both achieve the same results...They only differ in their methods.

Liberals want to legislate everything out of the Constitution in order to create a Nanny State "for our own good." This is totally contrary to the definition of the Republic form of government & swells the size (& cost!) of government.
Conservatives merely use Unconstitutional legislation to more directly support the corporate government that its become...Again swelling bigger in order to "enforce" control over the populace. Either way leads to huge government that controls every aspect of everyone's lives: Tyranny/Fascism, just as the Founding Forefathers already knew.

Originally posted by Fathom

Originally posted by kosmicjack
So I guess this means we can't criticize China, as they are doing the same thing for the Olympics.

What happened to us!? Somehow we have gone horribly off track from the ideals set forth in the constitution and no one is outraged or even seems to care.

wow...funny innit?...that the ones that always say they fight for your liberties, and fight for the working man...THE DEMOCRATS are the first to squash human rights every chance they get...they want to take your guns, tax (some of us) to the poor house, they want to take over and run the health care system and TELL US what doctor to see and when to do it, oh and fine us if we don't... they want to take money from the oil companies and use it for more government programs that, of course, they would control...

and you'll go right on ahead and vote for them because of your hate for Bushy.

*sigh* so sad...

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Fathom]

My sentiments exactly, Fathom. This just shows everyone beyond a doubt (anyone with half a brain could already see it anyway) that the Democrat anti-Patriot Act right infringement rhetoric is just an election time talking point and nothing more. They don't care about your rights any more or less than any other party, and they are more than happy to ride roughshod over you and your rights when it suits them.

The irony of having a "free speech" zone is just too much.
Does this not imply, no shout that the area outside the fencing is therefore not a free speech zone?
In other words there is no free speech in the rest of the convention.
Hmmm, I guess we already knew that tho

Everyone who has made the point about the term "Free Speech Zone" being ironic and oxymoronic is correct. The phrase implicitly, by the use of the word 'zone', implies containment, contracting the unrestrictability of 'freedom'.

It's such a loaded term. Yet, it's still in popular use in the 'objective' media. If there is a trend of media complicity in a gradual slide towards fascism, why is this 'hot-button' term still being bandied around, without attempts to counter or replace it?

After all, this is the same media that attempted to ludicrously relabel 'suicide bomber' as 'homicide bomber', because 'suicide' for an idealogical might be considered, in some way, a brave sacrifice.

There's many other ways to spin these 'zones' -- "Safe Protest Area", for example. But I haven't heard any efforts to replace the term (perhaps I'm not watching enough Fox News?).

So, assuming the media isn't being honestly ironic, and there is a larger trend subverting freedoms, why is the 'in your face' angle used when reporting these stories? Is there a larger trend, perhaps to evoke objection?

Have any of you all seen those 'Free Speech Zones' in person?

They're just portable prisons.

They are always positioned far far away from any of the activities. There's not a chance that anyone is going to hear anything from the malcontents.

Government is synonymous with corruption.

Go Obama... Time for a change... Watch the shiny object.

Don't forget to vote!

Meet the new boss... Same as the...