This is America!

[Guest American Woman]

They have a monopoly on relatively absolute freedoms.

You really believe that, don't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

Here are the facts. Other have already died for it, so we could have it. Therefore we should have it. That's my point. jbg says we already have it, which you seem to agree with, yet you're asking me if I'm willing to die for it. So. Since you think we should have to die for it again, then in effect you are agreeing with me that we don't have freedom of speech. That it's been taken away from us. Which, once again, is the topic; the point I have been making.

Nonsense.....they died for it in 1776 and continue to die for it every year thereafter. Nothing has been taken away from you, because others have seen fit to protect your rights. Yet you whine while not even being willing to do the same.

Freedom isn't free.

[Guest American Woman]

Nonsense.....they died for it in 1776 and continue to die for it every year thereafter. Nothing has been taken away from you, because others have seen fit to protect your rights. Yet you whine while not even being willing to do the same.

Freedom isn't free.

So the free speech zone is a figment of my imagination then?

It's obvious you can't refute a thing I've said, so if all you can do is throw insults and make accusations about me, I'm through trying to have a discussion with you about this.

The facts are just as I stated them, and as I said, if it were China shoving everyone who didn't agree with the government out of sight, people like you would see it for what it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the free speech zone is a figment of my imagination then?

It's obvious you can't refute a thing I've said, so if all you can do is throw insults and make accusations about me, I'm through trying to have a discussion with you about this.

The facts are just as I stated them, and as I said, if it were China shoving everyone who didn't agree with the government out of sight, people like you would see it for what it is.

Not only have you been refuted, but you are "free" to lawfully express yourself at will. In fact, you have more "freedom of speech" rights than do Canadians (e.g. "hate speech laws").

Your tantrum does not establish your position in any way. I'm glad you are through with this discussion, because you have seen fit to insult other members and I in the past at will (more freedom of speech).

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Bump

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Not only have you been refuted, but you are "free" to lawfully express yourself at will. In fact, you have more "freedom of speech" rights than do Canadians (e.g. "hate speech laws")

Really? Where have you refuted the free speech zone? Could you direct me to that specific post, because I can't seem to find it. And while you're at it, since you claim I have so many more freedoms than Canadians, could you direct me to a source that says Canadians who disagree with their government are shoved out of sight?

You may find this surprising, but I'd rather be free to express my disapproval of my government than to be free to express hate. I'm guessing that's more of what our forefathers had in mind when they were dying for our freedoms, too.

[bush_cheney2004]

You may find this surprising, but I'd rather be free to express my disapproval of my government than to be free to express hate. I'm guessing that's more of what our forefathers had in mind when they were dying for our freedoms, too.

You said you were through....that's OK...free speech includes fibbing!

If you would ban such hate speech, they you have completely undermined your argument.

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

You said you were through....that's OK...free speech includes fibbing!

If you would ban such hate speech, they you have completely undermined your argument.

Could you at least try to refrain for getting personal?

I'm still waiting for the post where you refuted the free speech zone. Please direct me to it. And while you're at it, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I would ban hate speech. You said I have more freedom of speech than Canadians, citing hate speech laws as your proof. I said that's not true because I'd rather be free to criticize my president than be free to express hate. I also said I'm sure our forefathers, who died for our freedoms, would feel the same way. So contrary to your claim, I have undermined nothing.

The facts reamain exactly as I stated them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Could you at least try to refrain for getting personal?

What's the matter....you can dish it out but not take it? Can you not prevail against a member you declared both "stupid" and ignorant" ?

Stop wasting our time with your assertions....as they have already been trounced in court:

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

[Wiki]

PS: Free Speech Zones were not invented by the Bush Administration.

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.[/i]

[Wiki]

So it's exactly as I said. Anyone who disagrees with the government is made to stay out of sight. I imagine the Chinese have the right to free speech in their closets, too, but that doesn't exactly fit the concept of free speech.

The fact is, Americans are 'free' to express displeasure with Bush where they will not be seen or heard. That's hardly free speech, and it definitely isn't an "absolute" freedom of speech.

[buffycat]

So it's exactly as I said. Anyone who disagrees with the government is made to stay out of sight. I imagine the Chinese have the right to free speech in their closets, too, but that doesn't exactly fit the concept of free speech.

The fact is, Americans are 'free' to express displeasure with Bush where they will not be seen or heard. That's hardly free speech, and it definitely isn't an "absolute" freedom of speech.

Indeed, I imagine you have seen this?

White House Manual for Dealing with Protestors

It's the same up here - as recent events have shown.

[jbg]

So it's exactly as I said. Anyone who disagrees with the government is made to stay out of sight. I imagine the Chinese have the right to free speech in their closets, too, but that doesn't exactly fit the concept of free speech.

The fact is, Americans are 'free' to express displeasure with Bush where they will not be seen or heard. That's hardly free speech, and it definitely isn't an "absolute" freedom of speech.

Are you saying that the highway lanes of the 400 or 401 during rush hour are a good place for a demonstration?

[runningdog]

Why do you feel the need for these 'rah rah America' posts, jbg? I really don't get it. I can certainly understand defending America if someone is unjustly criticizing it, but why the need to start a 'we are just so great' thread? I noticed a lot of Canadians haven't jumped in saying how great things are 'only in Canada.' Seems to me when someone has confidence in their 'greatness,' they don't have to be shouting out to the world about how great they are.

I agree. It's like when somebody says they have a foot long dong...if you have to say it, chances are it's not true...

[Guest American Woman]

Are you saying that the highway lanes of the 400 or 401 during rush hour are a good place for a demonstration?

Ummm. No.

And yes, runningdog-- it is exactly like that.

Edited to add: I'll have to check out your link, Buffycat. I didn't realize Canada was repressing those who oppose the government too.

Edited August 30, 2007 by American Woman

[White Doors]

Ummm. No.

And yes, runningdog-- it is exactly like that.

Edited to add: I'll have to check out your link, Buffycat. I didn't realize Canada was repressing those who oppose the government too.

Why do you have such a problem with jbg expressing gratitude with where he lives and yet you identify yourself as 'American Woman'?!?!?!

Hypocricy much?

jesus.

[bush_cheney2004]

So it's exactly as I said. Anyone who disagrees with the government is made to stay out of sight. I imagine the Chinese have the right to free speech in their closets, too, but that doesn't exactly fit the concept of free speech.

The fact is, Americans are 'free' to express displeasure with Bush where they will not be seen or heard. That's hardly free speech, and it definitely isn't an "absolute" freedom of speech.

Patently false (again)...US courts have held that free speech zones must make accommodations for "sight and sound" proximity to the target audience while balancing for public safety. There is no such thing as an "absolute" freedom of speech...never was.

Classic example: recklessly shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre may get you arrested for inciting a riot and endangering public safety.

[Guest American Woman]

Patently false (again)...US courts have held that free speech zones must make accommodations for "sight and sound" proximity to the target audience while balancing for public safety. There is no such thing as an "absolute" freedom of speech...never was.

Classic example: recklessly shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre may get you arrested for inciting a riot and endangering public safety.

When someone carrying a sign supporting the president is allowed within sight of the president, the press, and the cameras-- while someone carrying a sign protesting the president is allowed none of these things-- the person protesting the government is NOT being given access to free speech. It's not even remotely 'separate but equal,' and that lame concept supposidly went out the window in the 60's. It's putting those who are critical of the government out of sight, without a voice. I'll tell you this much -- my carrying a sign protesting the government is no more dangerous than someone carrying a sign that supports him and in a free country, I should have just as much a right to carry my sign as the supporter next to me does. Your trying to compare carrying a sign to shouting fire in a crowded threater is so far off base that I'm not even going to address it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your trying to compare carrying a sign to shouting fire in a crowded threater is so far off base that I'm not even going to address it.

But you already have....to no avail. The US Secret Service gets a say in how close you or a supporter may get, and that trumps "freedom of speech" rights. If your rights have been violated, please retain counsel and file suit for your day in court.

[Guest American Woman]

But you already have....to no avail. The US Secret Service gets a say in how close you or a supporter may get, and that trumps "freedom of speech" rights. If your rights have been violated, please retain counsel and file suit for your day in court.

Yes, freedom of speech IS trumped; it doesn't exist for those who oppose the president. That's been my point all along. We do not have freedom of speech; those who oppose the government do not have the same rights to express themselves as supporters of the president. You are supoorting what I have been saying all along-- that those who oppose the president do not have the freedom of speech to say they do where they will be seen and heard.

Edited August 30, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Yes, freedom of speech IS trumped; it doesn't exist for those who oppose the president. That's been my point all along. We do not have freedom of speech; those who oppose the government do not have the same rights to express themselves as supporters of the president. You are supoorting what I have been saying all along-- that those who oppose the president do not have the freedom of speech to say they do where they will be seen and heard.

That is of course nonsense. If supporters of the president wanted to shout USA USA USA during his appearance at a mall, do you treally think they would allow it once asked to hush up? No, they would be asked to shut up or shove off.

Freddom of speech isn't the right to shout someone down or the right to have bad manners.

Now run along and write a scathing (but well written) letter to the editor about Bush for all the major papersand the minor ones too, after a couple have picked it up, let me know when the sectret service pay you a visit and what the penalties are.

[Guest American Woman]

That is of course nonsense. If supporters of the president wanted to shout USA USA USA during his appearance at a mall, do you treally think they would allow it once asked to hush up? No, they would be asked to shut up or shove off.

Freddom of speech isn't the right to shout someone down or the right to have bad manners.

Now run along and write a scathing (but well written) letter to the editor about Bush for all the major papersand the minor ones too, after a couple have picked it up, let me know when the sectret service pay you a visit and what the penalties are.

I'm not talking about anyone shouting anything; I'm talking about carrying a sign. There is no shouting involved. I'm talking about having the same rights to express disapproval as approval. Now. Do you have anything to add/refute regarding what I actually am saying?

[M.Dancer]

I'm not talking about anyone shouting anything; I'm talking about carrying a sign. There is no shouting involved. I'm talking about having the same rights to express disapproval as approval. Now. Do you have anything to add/refute regarding what I actually am saying?

You have every right to carry a sign.

[AngusThermopyle]

You have every right to carry a sign.

She does indeed. Just so long as it kisses Bush's ass and isn't critical of him.

I fail to see what is not to understand about what American Woman is saying. If you check out the link you'll see her comments are accurate. Hell, they jailed two people because they didn't like their t-shirts. Pretty damn draconian if you ask me.

[bush_cheney2004]

She does indeed. Just so long as it kisses Bush's ass and isn't critical of him.

Maybe they don't know how to make a good sign:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/I/..._nomorebush.jpg

[Guest American Woman]

You have every right to carry a sign.

She does indeed. Just so long as it kisses Bush's ass and isn't critical of him.

I fail to see what is not to understand about what American Woman is saying. If you check out the link you'll see her comments are accurate. Hell, they jailed two people because they didn't like their t-shirts. Pretty damn draconian if you ask me.

My posts were quite clear and not difficult to understand in the least. Thank you for pointing that out; I appreciate it.

I can't believe that in this country of mine, people cannot express discontent towards the president along with those expressing support. In other words, where they will be seen and heard. I'm sure our forefathers would roll over in their graves, along with all of those who fought and died for our freedoms, if they could see such a sight today.