This is America!

[Guest American Woman]

sight and sound proximity

This is not true, and I've posted links to prove as much. For example, a "baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location" is NOT within sight and sound proximity.

But keep defending confining people who oppose the president to a separate area from those who support him as you go on and on about the U.S. having the greatest free speech rights in the world. Those who want to believe the U.S. is the greatest no matter what the truth is will continue to 'rah rah' right along with you, and those who are interested in the facts will know better.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is not true, and I've posted links to prove as much. For example, a "baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location" is NOT within sight and sound proximity.

But keep defending confining people who oppose the president to a separate area from those who support him as you go on and on about the U.S. having the greatest free speech rights in the world. Those who want to believe the U.S. is the greatest no matter what the truth is will continue to 'rah rah' right along with you, and those who are interested in the facts will know better.

Oh, in other words, you do not have standing. Thought so.....

Your "links" mean nothing to me or the courts.

I never posted that the US had any such thing, just more free speech rights than Canadians (wrt hate speech laws). Facts do not seem to be your strong point.

[Guest American Woman]

Your "links" mean nothing to me or the courts.

It's obvious links mean nothing to you, and since the courts aren't on this board, I never thought that they would mean anything to them.

I never posted that the US had any such thing, just more free speech rights than Canadians (wrt hate speech laws). Facts do not seem to be your strong point.

This thread is about the U.S. having the greatest freedom of speech in the world, and you're right there in the thick of it. Furthermore, I've said time and again that the KKK being able to parade in front of blacks expressing their hate, as I can't parade in front of Bush expressing my disapproval does not do much to back up your claim that we have more free speech rights than Canada. As for your strongest point, it seems to be an inability to post without getting personal.

President Bush is not my "leader"...but you are free to embrace him as such.

Link

Edited September 1, 2007 by American Woman

[CLRV]

There are plenty of countries on the planet with more freedom than America. This wasn't always so, but it's certainly true right now.

Canadians can protest right outside the building where a Tory caucus meeting is taking place. Americans who tried to protest outside the last Republican convention in NY were herded up into a makeshift prison camp on the docks, complete with chainlink fences, barbed wire and patrol dogs. Canadian protesters can get so close to the PM he can reach out and choke them. American protesters can't even get on the same street Bush's limo drives down. These are severe limitations on freedoms, whether or not the "courts approve" or not.

Many other democratic nations force their "leaders" to actually encounter dissent and protest instead of grinding it under police lines. France. Denmark. Holland. Check out how protests go in those nations. You'll see a lot more genuine freedom of expression than any American can dream of at the moment.

I'll agree on one thing, though. Calling G.W. Bush a "leader" is a stretch...

[Guest American Woman]

Canadians can protest right outside the building where a Tory caucus meeting is taking place. Americans who tried to protest outside the last Republican convention in NY were herded up into a makeshift prison camp on the docks, complete with chainlink fences, barbed wire and patrol dogs. Canadian protesters can get so close to the PM he can reach out and choke them. American protesters can't even get on the same street Bush's limo drives down. These are severe limitations on freedoms, whether or not the "courts approve" or not.

Here is an excellent link, the personal account of a reporter who was one of the people arrested that day. It's a long read, but everyone should take the time to read through it. It's incredible that something like this happened in America, in a country with free speech. I'm still amazed that this happened here, and likely always will be. It's incidents like this that make me cringe as an American.

Notes From the RNC - The 8/31 Experience

[bush_cheney2004]

This thread is about the U.S. having the greatest freedom of speech in the world, and you're right there in the thick of it. Furthermore, I've said time and again that the KKK being able to parade in front of blacks expressing their hate, as I can't parade in front of Bush expressing my disapproval does not do much to back up your claim that we have more free speech rights than Canada. As for your strongest point, it seems to be an inability to post without getting personal.

You do not have standing....your rights have not been violated by the United States of America.

As far as getting personal, you are also a hypocrite. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Edited September 2, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jefferiah]

Hate laws can affect more than the KKK. That is why I don't like them. And I think they are a wedge to a slippery slope of even stricter offense laws. You can silence credible dissent by twisting the dissenter into a bigot.

I do not know much about the free speech areas, but as I have said I can understand keeping protesters at a distance when a public appearance or a rally is taking place. But I have read something about restrictions being placed on cameras and media interviewing protesters in those free speech areas. I do not know much about this, American Woman, but this is a good place to start your complaint. I can't see the free speech zones up here in Canada so I can't comment on them--ie if the distance is ridiculous, etc, etc. I can't see this. I can't see the area where these events take place. So whether the zones are fair or not are all just hearsay to me. But if there have been actual restrictions placed on media coverage of protesters you have my support.

[Guest American Woman]

jefferiah,

Did you check out the link I posted about the arrests at the RNC? Here's another one: "Guantanamo on the Hudson" --

"A woman cop blurted out, 'Look, we all know that eventually you guys were going to do something. So why should I follow you around town just waiting for you to do it? It’s a lot easier for all of us this way. You guys knew you didn’t have a permit, what did you expect?'"

The protesters were following the guidelines for a gathering without a permit, but they were still arrested on the premise that the police 'knew they were going to do something wrong.' That seems to be the rational for defending the Free Speech Zones here, and that's scary.

Getting back to the Free Speech Zones:

Even if the press is allowed in these zones, the protesters are still prevented from giving Bush their message, and that's the whole point of protesting on the route of his motorcade. etc. Citizens being prevented from expressing disapproval in sight of the president in a nation with free speech is inexcusable. I don't care if some television station or newspaper sees the disaproval, I want BUSH to see it; and furthermore, any pictures of him and the scene depict a false picture of nothing but support for him around the world. It also protects HIM for the disapproval, and I think that so wrong. He should be made very aware of the peoples' feelings.

Regarding Canada's Hate Law, what's going on in the U.S. a much more serious restriction on free speech.

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

But keep defending confining people who oppose the president to a separate area from those who support him as you go on and on about the U.S. having the greatest free speech rights in the world. Those who want to believe the U.S. is the greatest no matter what the truth is will continue to 'rah rah' right along with you, and those who are interested in the facts will know better.

I believe the media's reporting of the protests alleviates the effects of the protesters not getting a chance to shout down a Presidential address. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to endanger, or freedom to chant over and disrupt a speech.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe the media's reporting of the protests alleviates the effects of the protesters not getting a chance to shout down a Presidential address. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to endanger, or freedom to chant over and disrupt a speech.

The issue isn't repressing free speech at a presidential address. You might want to go back and read the thread.

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[runningdog]

It's obvious links mean nothing to you, and since the courts aren't on this board, I never thought that they would mean anything to them.

This thread is about the U.S. having the greatest freedom of speech in the world, and you're right there in the thick of it. Furthermore, I've said time and again that the KKK being able to parade in front of blacks expressing their hate, as I can't parade in front of Bush expressing my disapproval does not do much to back up your claim that we have more free speech rights than Canada. As for your strongest point, it seems to be an inability to post without getting personal.

Link

lol, great post American Woman, I agree with everything you are saying. I'm surprised that bc2004 hasn't tried to blame Canada yet as she usually does...

[Higgly]

It is interesting that this freedom of expression is not absolute, especially with regard to criticism of the Jewish/Israel lobby. The professor in question is the son of survivors, he is jewish, he is a popular teacher, but his only sin is he does not tow the PC line. Academic freedom??? Freedom of expression???

THere was a landmark case in Candian jurisprudence that was described in an Op-Ed piece written by Edward Greenspan in the Globe and Mail a number of years back. An Arab Associate Professor at the University of Toronto was up for tenure. The tenure process requires input from the immediate academic community. Three Jewish professors wrote to oppose his tenure on the grounds that he had written letters to the editor which were critical of Israel. The tenure committee voted to deny tenure.

The Arab professor sued under the Human Rights Act. He lost.

Greenspan concluded that this meant free speech does not exist in Canada. If not at one of your most sacrosanct halls of learning, a place where free speech is supposed to be sacred, then where can it really be said to exist?

Another important case...

A Canadian citizen of Arab descent whose name is Yasser had a custom license plate made (at extra cost) that consisted of simply the word "Yasser".

The Toronto Jewish community launched a legal action against the Ontario Minstry of Transport and won. The man was forced to give up his plate. Is this free speech?

[jbg]

The Toronto Jewish community launched a legal action against the Ontario Minstry of Transport and won. The man was forced to give up his plate. Is this free speech?

No. And this is one of the few times you'll find me agreeing with you, not the alleged "Toronto Jewish Group".

[Higgly]

It is not every day that one finds a historian in these pages. JBG, I have misjudged you.

[jbg]

It is not every day that one finds a historian in these pages. JBG, I have misjudged you.

Historian? Well, I was a History Major at Cornell, but how would you know that from the above post?

[AngusThermopyle]

Did any of you check out the link American Woman provided? It is a pretty long read as she said, but its also astounding.

I was amazed that they actually did this to those people. It sounds like something Orwell might have written.

That is an excellent link American Woman, very informative. It most certainly indicates a severe lack of not only free speech but all civil liberties.

[Guest American Woman]

Did any of you check out the link American Woman provided? It is a pretty long read as she said, but its also astounding.

I was amazed that they actually did this to those people. It sounds like something Orwell might have written.

That is an excellent link American Woman, very informative. It most certainly indicates a severe lack of not only free speech but all civil liberties.

I too am totally amazed. I knew on some level that this had taken place, but because it was downplayed so much in the mainstream media, I had no idea what really went down. I'm still amazed that this happened, but I'm beginning to be just as amazed by how little people seem to care.

[AngusThermopyle]

I'm still amazed that this happened, but I'm beginning to be just as amazed by how little people seem to care.

I don't think too many people bothered to read the article you linked to.

If it actually went down the way the article says then people should be absolutely outraged by it. Reading that was a very surreal experience. I have no doubt it happened, its just so hard to believe. As I said, very totalitarian and Orwellian.

[White Doors]

Every society that doesn't have a "free speech zone" for those opposing the actions of their leader. Every nation that doesn't restrict those who oppose their government from expressing it only where they are out of sight. That would be just about any free society.

You're welcome.

hahahaha

So you are telling me that no one in the states opposed Bush publicly?

Have you feel off your chair and bumped your noggin sweatheart?

that is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here in a long time and that is really saying something.

LOL

also, you failed to respond to my last post to you. I noted your hypocrisy and the fact that you made no attempt to either defend yourself or apologize - is cowardly.

[jbg]

So you are telling me that no one in the states opposed Bush publicly?Have you feel off your chair and bumped your noggin sweatheart?

that is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here in a long time and that is really saying something.

LOL

Support for Bush is unanimous. Sort of like Hussein's 100% victory in Iraq's "elections".

[White Doors]

Support for Bush is unanimous. Sort of like Hussein's 100% victory in Iraq's "elections".

What? Those weren't real elections that Saddam had? I'm trying to remember if there was a special spot for people critical of Saddam reserved within earshot >gunshot< of his outstanding speeches.

Can you recall jbg?

[jbg]

What? Those weren't real elections that Saddam had? I'm trying to remember if there was a special spot for people critical of Saddam reserved within earshot >gunshot< of his outstanding speeches.

Can you recall jbg?

Hussein ran what we call "pure elections", i.e. direct election of th eleader, without the need for majority parties, an Electoral College, etc.

[GostHacked]

BushCheney

You do not have standing....your rights have not been violated by the United States of America.

As a Canadian, you are correct. But you are an American, and your rights have been violated.

And on free speech. If you have hate speech laws, then really, that in of itself is a violation of freedom. If a KKK wants to scream hate speech, he should be allowed. You just have the freedom of not listening to it. Exercise that freedom of ignoring others speech. Hate speech and organizations like the KKK can easily be sidelined and maginalized when you just simply ignore them.

So we have two forms of freedom here. The right to free speech, and the right to ignore other's free speech.

[Zak]

This morning, as I walked into my office building through the clean, warm, dry and comfortable late August air, I noticed the leaves moving in the breeze, and the beautiful sun in the sky. As I was walking, I was reflecting on my night's reading, and thinking how wonderful and special America was. I was saying to myself "this is America".

Well, even with these threats, it is still wonderful to breathe the morning air, and bask in the freedom and material prosperity nurtured by that freedom. That is how I feel about my country. I hope it's how Canadians feel about theirs.

Canada is doomed unfortunately, and I'm a canadian. What I see around me in my fellow canadians is that the youth (and even the somewhat older generation) they've gotten the free marekt materialist bug. They're choosing their "freedom" over having kids sending Canada into a demographic and economic nightmare that's coming upon us without the government resorting to bait and switch tactics to bring immigrants, the truth is capitalism is going to tear apart cultures worldwide, it's happening in Japan as well, they have an ATROCIOUS birthrate, all thanks to modern consumerism and individualism. Canada never really had a strong cultural base to begin with and many canadians are just awful people, the rise of corporate consumerism and us being more secular (or liberally religiious) then the US has basically killed canada. Most canadians businesses would defect in a heartbeat. There is no tradition here, just bunch of american-canadian capitalist extremists exploiting the canadian population, sucking as much as they can until the country dissolves into oblivion.

Go read Oswalds spenglers "decline of the west", he predicted the Sun would set on west and western culture and it is. The canada we know today will dissolve into a business-state like entity, the government is facing increasing pressure to privatize everything and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a push for economic integration with the US (North american union). The truth is buisinesses US businesses HATE CANADA, they hate our "socialist" values, I hate being mocked by the bad americans (since I know every country has their share of idiots).

But I was apalled at many states lack of social safety net for those struck by hard times, like Ohio was just fucking retarded. If I was an american I'd be a flaming liberal myself. Part of the reason america is so violent and crime ridden is because half your population is aggressive and paranoid, which must be a real shame.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Zak

[Guest American Woman]

I'm still amazed that this happened, but I'm beginning to be just as amazed by how little people seem to care.

I don't think too many people bothered to read the article you linked to.

If it actually went down the way the article says then people should be absolutely outraged by it. Reading that was a very surreal experience. I have no doubt it happened, its just so hard to believe. As I said, very totalitarian and Orwellian.

The fact that there are Americans on here (who continue to go on about our freedoms), who, as you say, probably didn't even bother to read the article, shows how little people seem to care. Did you see the other link I posted? That's a shorter read, but just as amazing.

That this happened in America, with so little press coverage/outrage, says a lot for America right now-- and it's definitely not good. I hope we can recover from these past few years, but it's going to take a major change of direction. I hope someone on the ballot is up for the task. Right now I'd have to say Edwards is looking good.