I am not surprised. Just like a schoolyard bully he silences anyone against him.

Too many people believe it is all Bush. He’s a damn puppet. The military and corporations rule America. No matter who becomes the next Prez, they will still be heavily influenced by the military and corporations.

The only way to fix this is to change the politicians into people who can’t be bought! The RIAA/MPAA have bought in the DMCA. When questioned, those that signed it, and amendments, admitted to not even reading it!

Those that signed the Patriot Act didn’t even read it.

It is not just one man, he’s just the focal point of a much larger problem; the government is not really controlled by the people!

While he may have sworn to uphold and defend those rights - that was only in as much as it is part of the ritual of taking a role in public office. For him to actually act in support of that oath presupposes that he has the capacity to diverge from prescribed scripts - to display a remote interest in something beyond his motivations - that’s not going to happen - quick-wittedness has never been a strength there.

The late George Carlin on “Rights” (and/or “temporary privileges”):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

little pink houses for you and me

Little Pink Houses for you and me baby.

I’d like to know if Bush has even read the constitution. I know Cheney has at least read the 2nd amendmetn, or knows of ti.

It is time for this “man” to go away for good. Unlike other posting above, I do not wish any ill will upon the “man”, that is being who he is. I merely wish for him and his policies to go the way of the dinosaur. I’m just so tired of listening to this piece of garbage talk. He’s such a pile of………

Quoting satchboogieca:

The military and corporations rule America. No matter who becomes the next Prez, they will still be heavily influenced by the military and corporations.

The only way to fix this is to change the politicians into people who can’t be bought!

The way to fix it is to drastically reduce the amount of money that can be contributed to a political party, an individual politician or a campaign and to eliminate the role of lobbyists.

for anyone interested in watching a pretty good miniseries about this subject, John Adams (HBO) was done fairly well i think… (and has a feature where they pop up their researched facts on the screen as you watch)

Berlin: Adolf Hitler beheaded! Man ripps off head of the Führer!

http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8622462

Why couldn’t that guy have done that 70 years ago… and maybe someone should have done that to Mr. Bush too. Would have saved the world a lot of loss and pain.

Oh, free speech. How it is considered a constitutional right and a great thing to have when anyone speaks. How it is considered dissent and unlawful when it’s the President speaking.
Gotta love a hypocritical America.

Quoting Robert R:

Both drunken fans and demonstrators who abuse their rights are examples of Rude Behavior. Surely you can see a need for decorum?

But how can u say the critical voices at the event a_b_u_s_e_d their right of free speech (in a rude way)? Was their rudeness in speaking critical to the president or trying to defend against the security personnel getting them out of the place?

I dare say theres a difference between freedom of speech and disrupting an oficial event. If I was speaking and someone started shouting at me for some reason or another, I would expect them to be removed.

Their rudeness was yelling at the President of the United States while he was in the middle of a speech. Thats not exactly a polite way of getting your opinion across; rather inconsiderate and disrespectful if you ask me.

Quoting Robert R:

Both drunken fans and demonstrators who abuse their rights are examples of Rude Behavior. Surely you can see a need for decorum?

How do you abuse the right of free speech in that context? You are exercising your Constitutional right of free speech by publicly dissenting. It doesn’t matter if it’s the President or not. Rude behaviour? Are you suggesting that standing up during a speech given by the President and dissenting is so rude that it surpasses the right to free speech?

I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure that the status quo is maintained through the employment of such thinking. If 30,000 Americans had the balls to show up to a Presidential speech and actually make their voices heard, and there are far more than 30,000 Americans that share the sentiments of those people, would that be ‘rude’ or would it be courageous? I’m going to put my money on the latter.

Stop using a completely unrelated topic to try and make a futile point. How old was the women in the video linked in this post? Probably in her 40’s. How old was the man? Probably in his late 30’s at least. These are not youngsters.

Kind and considerate change-makers? Were that the case, my friend, you wouldn’t be living in the United States right now, would you? These are not drunks showing up at Presidential speeches. These are concerned citizens, parents that have lost children because of the war in Iraq, people who have the courage to exercise their rights while you do not. These are the same sort of people that marched on Washington, the same sort of people that marched for the civil rights movement. These are citizens of a nation whose right to dissent is protected, whose right to dissent is at the very base of the nation’s most sacred virtues. But that’s not America anymore because people such as yourself have been made to believe that they are crackpots instead of patriots. And that is precisely why this administration has gotten away with murder. And I do not use that statement as slang, but in actuality.

I would add to Matt’s comments by saying that the United States is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy operating on the pretense of being a democracy, and as far as I’m concerned, more power to any US citizen who has the courage to force their voice to be heard by their leaders, even if not through formal channels.

Quoting Robert R:

“Are you suggesting that standing up during a speech given by the President and dissenting is so rude that it surpasses the right to free speech?

I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure that the status quo is maintained through the employment of such thinking. “

Are you suggesting that a drunken fan hecklng you is more rude than heckling the President? I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure rudeness is the new coin.

Boy, what are you talking? Nobody ever made such a statement. I don’t see your point in referring to a ‘rude abuse of freedom of speech’ in the given context. You are doing that very constantly while obviously not being able to document it in an adequate way.
It would be a pleasure to see you answer the question two people have asked you: HOW do you come to alledge that these people ABUSED their right to free speech in a RUDE way?

I’m with Robert R.

Inturruption with no constructive dialog is essentially meaningless. It is the wrong forum for protest, if you really want to be heard.

Now, what I consider truly a breach of 2nd ammendment is when anyone is not allowed to attend in the first place because their views differ from the President. Penning protesters a mile away from an event in a “Free Speech Zone” is atrocious.

Notice how the ONLY debate in 35 posts above is regarding the person being kicked out, and not whatever point they tried to make…

Those guys weren’t there to exercise their free speech.

They were there with the specific intent on intimidating, harassing and disrupting somebody else’s speech. Would you like it if I stood up and started shouting and booing at you, Mr Good, so that your message could not be heard? The first heckler wasn’t just heckling, she was trying to run up onto the stage.

How would you feel, Mr Good, if a bunch of right-wing gun-nuts tried to jump on the stage and heckle you while you were speaking?

Or should those folks have the goddamn respect to let the other side speak. It’s one thing if the secret service went around silencing public speakers, and another thing to remove people being intentionally disruptive.

That’s not free speech, hell you could practically call it psychological harassment.

Quoting KungFooChef:

Notice how the ONLY debate in 35 posts above is regarding the person being kicked out, and not whatever point they tried to make…

So what? That was the topic of the post: free speech restrictions in the US, and the irony of it happening while Bush was talking about the right to free speech.

So what? Hmm…

My guess is that the protesters original plan was spark debate of 2nd ammendment rights. Now, we all know that any public speech by the president will be a) patrolled for such activity, b) it’ll be quickly squashed, and c) not include a Q & A session where the President provides an open mic to anyone who cares to speak their mind…

This was still NOT the right place/time for “heckling.” This was a _Naturalization_ ceremony for cripes sake. Have some common decency for those who actually want to join the ranks of citizenry.

Give him hell during another of his overly redundant speeches on the “war on terror” - to me, that sh!t deserves to be interrupted until canceled… but not this.

Proper respect, that’s all.

I seriously wonder what thoughts are running through Bush’s head at times like those.

Is he thinking: “What a crackpot, interrupting my speech. No respect for the President.”

Or is he thinking: “I am a mockery of what a President should be. These people are prime examples of the poor job I’m doing. To change my ways now would admit I made wrong decisions, something my reputation cannot withstand. I’d rather go down in history as a poor President than a manipulated idiot, realizing his errors in the waning months of his presidency.”

Robert R. (and Matt):

I don’t think I agree with either of you.

Whether a person has a right to interrupt anyone depends on the public or private character of the forum in which the event is held.

It is very doubtful that “drunken concert-goers” may exercise their freedom of speech by interrupting a private “party”, which is essentially what a concert, in a space leased by a private “party” is. A space leased by an artist or concert promoter really is not a public forum open to free speech. One might even question whether a space leased by a municipality or other division of local, state or federal government is a public forum. It would be hard to imagine that a performance of the National Symphony Orchestra, e.g., for Independence Day celebrations, may be interrupted simply because the party with which the Orchestra contracted and the party which leased the space in which the performance takes place is the federal government. The character of the event seems (to me) not to be political and, truly, a long way removed from a protest in which opposing viewpoints (e.g., on abortion), each protesting the other, are shouted from opposite sidewalks or street corners.

The analysis is fact-specific, but it is probably safe to say that no one at a Matthew Good concert, in a space Matt has paid for personally, may simply consider it a very competitive and crowded Speaker’s Corner.

Now, that raises the question whether Monticello, when President Bush was speaking on Independence Day, was a public or private forum. I simply don’t know, and I wouldn’t be so foolish as to give you a definitive response. It was a naturalization ceremony, and that seems to argue that it was a public event. Still, however, court proceedings, generally, are public and few argue that disrupting them is a constitutional exercise of free speech. I think most reasonable people also can agree that unexpected protesters in the presence of the President (e.g., the woman with the sign in the video who seemed to approach the side of the podium and the man with the large camera who stood up in the crowd) may be removed for reasons having nothing at all to do with free speech. It’s not hard to imagine that a person who stands up during the President’s speech and walks toward the podium (with no sign and saying nothing) might be removed, simply to protect the President. The fact that the protesters at Monticello had signs and were shouting political dissent may not have mattered to the Constitution because America’s first interest is in the protection of the President. (I am anticipating here that some of you may be prompted to respond that America’s interest is not in protecting this particular President, but please, instead of typing a mundane, predictable response, use the time to read the Bill of Rights or a constitutional law case. Actually read Roe v. Wade and the related cases, since, undoubtedly, you have a strong opinion on the topic and probably voice it, as, of course, you should. As a general principle, however, protecting the President is the first priority, and you know it.)

Therefore, in this case, it may be reasonable to argue that protecting the President (whoever he or she is) may explain the actions of the Secret Service better than analyzing whether any one at Monticello had a right of public dissent. It is, as I have argued, fact-specific, and if the Secret Service had removed protesters from the sidewalks (or side of the road) leading to Monticello as the President’s motorcade passed, it would probably be a clearer case.

Robert R. really has only criticized these protesters for failing to act as respectable human beings in public. That says nothing about their right to act in that manner or the truth of their protest. Knowing the constitutional deficit America has suffered in the last 8 years, however, simply yo argue that such a fundamental and intrinsically political protest failed decorum is laughable. There were reasons the protest was shut down, but Robert R.’s comments discourage me because they imply that we might not actually succeed in keeping this “America” concept afloat.

We are failing civics, nationally.

When the democratically elected leader of a nation addresses an audience the people have the right to express themselves as per the 1st Amendment. I am not a democratically elected leader, nor have I been responsible for implementing one of the most harmful foreign policy doctrines in US history. There is a very marked difference, and semantics are just that - semantics.