I’m going to stop thinking about this now before my head explodes.

Of course, if you’d rather just piss and moan, that’s your right. For now. Unless you’re not in a free speech zone.

And that’s how i felt about the AUMF in Iraq. Both branches of government basically played off of each other so that the Pres could say, “Congress said it was ok,” and Congress could say, “It was all the President’s idea.” And all of a sudden it’s nobody’s fault.

“Social correctness” does have an ominous ring to it…

And i firmly believe that measures like this are more likely to turn peaceful demonstrations of dissent into violent confrontations requiring security measures.

I’m reminded of Speaker Pelosi’s snarky comment about the 1st Amendment when the war protesters showed up at her house.

And i can’t help but feel that this decade is what the 60’s would have looked like if Nixon had beaten Kennedy.

I wonder how much choice the DNCC truly had in any of these decisions, and as a consequence, how much accountability? If it’s “our way or no security,” or possibly even “our way or no permits,” what are the options? Could the DNCC make a workable stand against these zones if they wanted to, and do they want to? Does anyone know? Has anyone tried to find out? It doesn’t surprise me at all that the news media is going along with it; after all, they’re competing for space and attention. And I doubt anyone at the DNCC truly wants the unwashed masses roaming freely.

But if Sen. Obama or someone on his staff suddenly realized just how awful this is or what kind of message it sends, I wonder what they could do about it? I’d love to see someone try.

This IS about security. This is the DNCC trying to make a security measure sound like anything else. The Secret Service has already asked for more money to protect the candidates, and let’s face it, this is the one they’re worried about. Yes, it sounds like they’re imperially granting people a right they already have, and yes, it’s a stupid, stupid name choice. Probably one person’s decision, probably last minute for the press release.

The honest alternatives would be “The Guy Next to You Might Have Explosives Zone” or “We’re Hoping This is Out of Sniper Range Zone” or “Consequences Can’t Deter Crazy People Zone.” Or possibly “Swastika Tattoo? This Way, Please Zone.” Not the kind of positive, upbeat message the DNCC wants to send…

I get that there are security issues where an event like this is concerned. But if the people being herded behind the chickenwire are a SECURITY problem, then this isn’t about SPEECH.

To boil it down – is the problem what these people are likely to SAY or is it what they are likely to DO.

Under NO circumstances is something called a “free speech zone” acceptable. Never, ever, ever, ever. Period. The existence of a “free speech zone” is a prima facie assault on the 1st Amendment. Pardon my extremism, but this is what Orwell was trying to warn us about.

So, is this about speech or security? They’re not the same thing. We ought not tolerate attacks on speech, and we ought not enable attempts to muddy our understanding of the difference between the two.

We still need to know the details. If the Secret Service simply won’t let the DNCC allow protesters closer than 600 feet, then we should be able to bitch at the Secret Service over it. If it’s the DNCC, though, that’s a different issue. But again, we simply don’t know enough to say.

We’ve seen enough of Bush to know that the issue is NOT security. We may be asked to believe that, but when you’re tossing librarians out of events because they have signs saying “McCain = Bush,” I think it’s clear enough what’s really going on.

That the Dems would adopt the strategy – in 2008, in 2004, in 2000, or during any other year – is appalling.

So let’s be clear. Deal with legit security issues AS such. Past that, we really shouldn’t be in the business of suppressing expression.

My point stands – there’s not enough information about what’s going on to crucify the DNCC, and that’s what you’ve done here.

If, on the other hand, the problem is people simply protesting, I don’t care if it’s 200 feet or 200 miles.

And we don’t know how much of this is being driven by the Secret Service and how much of it is being driven by the DNCC – the Colorado Independent article doesn’t say, and I simply refuse to tar and feather the DNCC as you have without knowing those kinds of details. If the details support your contention that the DNCC is to blame, I’ll happily join in the fray, but if not, then IMO you’ll owe them an apology.

And you’re right, Dr. S, the damned sure should know better…and act better.

The city of Los Angeles was sued by the ACLU, and the ACLU won the case.

Gore, of course, said nothing about the criminal behavior of the Robocops.

Nothing “ironic,” and nothing new. Nothing about “knowing better.” The ones who should know better are you. The Democrats are a criminal party of gangsters, just like their Rethug partners in crime.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/