Blogcritics: Comments on The First Amendment is soft and comfy on the skin, kind of like Charmin

Comment by Johno

Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:08:34 EST

Brian, exactamundo. I don't object to the Secret Service protecting the Pars-dent, but to their "protecting" him from nassssty dissenters. At least he treats the country like he treats his own cabinet.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:57:36 EST

The perplexing thing about this is that the Secret Service is allowed to discriminate based on the message a citizen is trying to deliver. Those who appear supportive of the President are allowed to get closer to him. It seems almost impossible that this policy is designed to protect the President from harm. Would an assassin really be dumb enough to carry an anti-Bush sign? The only plausible conclusion I can come up with is that the policy is actually designed to keep dissent from getting near the TV cameras that follow the President. If we had a media with any guts, reporters would always take pains to seek out the protesters and give them more coverage than they otherwise would have. If they don't fight this kind of media manipulation, who will?

Comment by Johno

Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:43 EST

Vox, several thoughts on that point. 1) What good does it do to sequester dissenters up to half a mile away from where the President is? That doesn't sound like free and meaningful exercise of the right of speech to me. 2) Any-- ANY-- terrorist with enough smarts to pull something near the President would clothe him- or herself head to toe in "BUSH '04" gear. Since the people being pushed away from the President's location are being targeted as terrorist threats for the opinions they express, doing this would allow someone with harmful intent to get closer. 3) Of course the Secret Service has always kept crowd scenes under control. But I feel that matters have reached a point now where "control" means "homogeneity." In the specific case I pointed to, the gentleman was no threat to anyone, and the courts agreed, yet on the basis of his opinion he was asked to comply with vague orders at the will of police. Is this what you're arguing for? I thought prior restraint wasn't allowed in these cases. 4) Rumors keep surfacing about legitimate political groups being put on watch lists and being subsequently barred from Presidential appearance sites. See number three above.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:04:07 EST

sometimes i think americans would be happier having a king rather than a president.

Comment by Voxxy

Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:35:41 EST

The courts have always permitted regulation of the Time, Place and Manner of expression. This is just one of those regulations, nothing new. No one is being prevented from speaking out, they are just being kept out of the way, where they cannot be a threat to the president or where the president's supporters will not be a threat to them.