Loyalty Oaths, Free Speech Zones

[sarettah]

Last week, on The Daily Show, Stewart reported that the Bush/Cheney camp had required folks to sign a "Loyalty Oath" before they could be admitted to a Cheney campaign stop.

During the DNC, protesters were limited to a "Free Speech Zone" a long distance away from the convention center.

Is this what America is about. That we have the right to protest, but not anywhere near what we are protesting ?

The first Amendment of the constitution creates a free speech zone. That zone is the entire fucking country.

Both campaigns would do a lot better to allow fee discourse, to allow debating of the issues and the records of their respective candidates rather than trying to suppress the other point of view.

Is Kerry perfect, No. Is Bush perfect, No. Just by the mere fact that they are human, that point is conceded. To try to stop those that would point out the imperfections is to attempt to shut down the truth.

[Peaches]

Maybe it has to do more with safety than free speech?

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Peaches@Aug 8 2004, 07:34 AM
Maybe it has to do more with safety than free speech?

as socrates once said..... we have nothing to FEAR, but FEAR itself!!!!!

or was is dahli?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Peaches@Aug 8 2004, 10:34 AM
Maybe it has to do more with safety than free speech?

Huh ???...

They are still screening folks, etc. That is the security part. I have found articles of folks being left alone at Bush rallies until they show they have an anti bush t shirt on, then they get arrested. That has nothing to do with safety.

And Loyalty oaths ??? (with misspellings and missing words no less "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." ). How does this protect "safety" ??

[sarettah]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

(Ben Franklin)

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

[PornoDoggy]

Being arrested for a t-shirt does seem a bit extreme. The security arguement is understandable, but it only goes so far.

For the record, my understanding is that at least SOME of the Kerry/Edwards campaign events are "ticket-required", although not to the degree that the Repubs are orchestrating their events.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 8 2004, 11:11 AM
Being arrested for a t-shirt does seem a bit extreme. The security arguement is understandable, but it only goes so far.

For the record, my understanding is that at least SOME of the Kerry/Edwards campaign events are "ticket-required", although not to the degree that the Repubs are orchestrating their events.

Hmm, PD, that might be a little misinformation, at least according to this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408030009

While true, you can get tickets to the Demodratic rally, they seem to only come into play if the crowd is large enough to fill the area.

************************************************** *************

FOX's "Campaign" Carl misstated the facts about Kerry rallies

In an attempt to back up his characterization of the crowds at Kerry-Edwards '04 rallies as "very partisan," FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, reporting from Grand Rapids, Michigan, on the August 2 edition of Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, falsely claimed that people who wish to attend Kerry-Edwards campaign rallies "have to go pick them [tickets] up from Democratic pick-up spots."

From the August 2 edition of Your World:

CAMERON: The crowds [at the Kerry-Edwards rallies] -- these are very partisan crowds. It's worth noting that they do let the general public in, but it's essentially ticketed audiences, and they have to go pick them up from Democratic pick-up spots for tickets, so it's a very partisan group.

Perhaps Cameron is confusing the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ticketing practices with those of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Contrary to Cameron's reporting that tickets must be retrieved at "Democratic pick-up spots," those who wish to attend Kerry rallies may, in fact, print their own complimentary tickets off the campaign website. Cameron also neglected to mention that it is the Bush-Cheney campaign that has required tickets for entry to its rallies.

On Saturday, July 31, both presidential campaigns held rallies near Zanesville, Ohio. An article in the Zanesville Times-Recorder on that day noted that, for the Bush-Cheney rally, "Only those with tickets will be admitted"; of the Kerry-Edwards event, the article stated, "While tickets are not required to attend the rally, they will be honored if the space cannot accommodate the crowds."

In fact, getting into some Bush-Cheney campaign rallies requires even more than tickets. An August 1 article in The Washington Post reported that people seeking tickets to an event featuring Vice President Cheney in New Mexico were required to sign a loyalty oath to the Bush-Cheney campaign in order to receive the tickets:

[P]eople seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans -- contributors or volunteers -- were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." The form warns that signers "are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Peaches@Aug 8 2004, 10:34 AM
Maybe it has to do more with safety than free speech?

very true, since we know republicans are notoriously violent, warmongerers who can't control their tempers


;-)

[JR]

"the worlds greatest democracy"
h34r:

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by SykkBoy+Aug 8 2004, 01:50 PM-->