White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters

[Ebowed]

Protesting shouldn't be restricted unless it's violent or invasive.

Invasive is vague.

Well, I wasn't writing a bill there.

I think people should have their personal space.  The politician can deliver his speech without a protester going up and sharing the podium with him.  But don't construe that as to mean support for "free speech zones" or other crazy nonsense.

[nlm]

No, I think a group, be it a rally or the US House, can peaceably assemble free of protests.  Let's be clear, there are venues for protest.  You seem to be forgetting that part of the First Amendment, or do you only cite it when it is convenient?

I'm going to post what happened to the Rank family one more time. Please take it action by action and you tell me where you think the Rank family was wrong and where you think the Bush administration was wrong. Can you do that?

1. The Rank family wore anti-Bush T-shirts to a Bush POLICY speech.

2. They remained calm, didn't chant or otherwise try to disrupt the POLICY speech that American tax payers (including the Rank family) were paying for Bush to give (and just to make it even more stupid - the subject of the speech was - free speech).

3. They were asked to cover up their T-shirts - they refused.

4. They were then asked to leave on their own accord - they refused.

5. They were then arrested and taken out of the POLICY speech while "America the beautiful" was playing in the back ground on the 4th of July as the President addressed the subject of free speech .

6. They were charged with Trespassing at a POLICY speech they were helping to pay for that was open to the public (provided they had tickets - which they did).


Give it a go JJ - I'll be very interested in hearing what you have to say.

I feel that the assembly, any assemblage of people has a right to exclude people not in sympathy with the group, inclusive wearing certain clothing or silently holding up signs.

If there were tickets, it was not truly public.  I would say that a rally sponsored by the NAACP or an Obama rally would be justified in removing people that showed up wearing a tee shirt promoting the KKK.  (And when that happens, I will offer the same level of support and the same arguments I've made here.)

As for the firing, I disagree in general with that.

The event at which they were arrested for trespassing at was payed for by the tax payers of the United States of America - not the Bush Campaign or the RNC.

The group paying for the event was the American people and yet portions of that group were arrested for trespassing at it. Do you understand that?

What legal grounds do you think exist for the Rank family to be arrested for trespassing? You do understand that Bush and his supporters  - at least according to the laws of this country - don't get to make up the law as they go along, even if they seem to think that they do get to.

Let me see if I have your position correct - and, certainly, speak up if I don't.

-You think tax payers should fund political events.
- You think tax payer funded policy events should be treated the same as privately funded political events.
-You think certain tax payers should be excluded from policy events that they fund?
-You think that tax payers that do show up at policy events, which they are funding, should be arrested and imprisoned for trespassing if others at that event think they should be excluded from said event.

Is that about right?

[J. J.]

Nlm, according to the article, "Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers."  Now, that fact alone seems to make this a non-public appearance to the extent that anyone could show up.  I saw nothing it the article saying that this was a taxpayer funded event (the campaigns often reimburse the taxpayers).

I refer to my previous response, or do you favor Klansmen showing up in sheets at Obama rallies?

[nlm]

Nlm, according to the article, "Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers."  Now, that fact alone seems to make this a non-public appearance to the extent that anyone could show up.  I saw nothing it the article saying that this was a taxpayer funded event (the campaigns often reimburse the taxpayers).

I refer to my previous response, or do you favor Klansmen showing up in sheets at Obama rallies?

"Bush's appearance in West Virginia was an official visit and not a campaign event.

The lawsuit said the Ranks obtained free tickets to the July 4 event."

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/091404/upd_075-3461.shtml

As opposed to turning a blind eye to injustice, and making what ever assumption - like "this must have been a public event because there were tickets (by the way - almost every Presidential event involves tickets in order to stop people from running over one another to get inside it), perhaps you should look a bit first.

As for your Obama question - that would depend on a number of things. Who is paying for the event, where is being held? People have a right to be stupid, but there times and places that can legally limit that right.

[J. J.]

As far as I can tell, this was a campaign event:

July 14, 2004 – A Texas couple wearing anti-Bush t-shirts was handcuffed and removed from a Fourth of July Bush-Cheney campaign rally in Charleston, West Virginia.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=686

If so, if the Ranks complied with the orders of the police, they should not have been arrested.  I do support any campaign controlling its own activities.

Why do you have a problem with Freedom of Assembly?

[nlm]

As far as I can tell, this was a campaign event:

July 14, 2004 – A Texas couple wearing anti-Bush t-shirts was handcuffed and removed from a Fourth of July Bush-Cheney campaign rally in Charleston, West Virginia.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=686

If so, if the Ranks complied with the orders of the police, they should not have been arrested.  I do support any campaign controlling its own activities.

Why do you have a problem with Freedom of Assembly?

HaHa - you actually had to dig down to a liberal web site to find a misquote about this. The President of the United States of America gives a publicly funded speech every 4th of July and has done so every year you have been alive.

This is just stupid. This is also how Bush has been allowed to get away with so much - people sticking their heads in sand and then actively trying to find a way to justify the behavior of this White House after the fact.

They say ignorance is bliss - and for a Bush supporter, I can see no other path to bliss than ignorance.

You may want to check out the secret services statement following the arrest. They said such an arrest was unlawful, the judge that the dismissed the trespassing charge said it was unlawful, The police force in Charleston apologized for the arrest - so did the mayor. The federal government agreed to pay the rank family $80,000 because of the arrest.

But Bush can not be wrong in JJ land. Everybody else can say he is, all evidence can point to it - but JJ will hold on to his faith that Bush can do no wrong. It's like dealing with a religious fanatic.

[J. J.]

HaHa - you actually had to dig down to a liberal web site to find a misquote about this. The President of the United States of America gives a publicly funded speech every 4th of July and has done so every year you have been alive.

No, it is just to show you that even the liberals are saying the same thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually I'm saying the Democratic National Committee can be right.  The first, "Free Speech Zone," was created during the 1988, under that real right winger Andrew Young.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#_note-2

I agree with him too.

[nlm]

HaHa - you actually had to dig down to a liberal web site to find a misquote about this. The President of the United States of America gives a publicly funded speech every 4th of July and has done so every year you have been alive.

No, it is just to show you that even the liberals are saying the same thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually I'm saying the Democratic National Committee can be right.  The first, "Free Speech Zone," was created during the 1988, under that real right winger Andrew Young.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#_note-2

I agree with him too.

No JJ - what you are saying is that you don't care what the facts are - Bush must be right. It doesn't matter to such an apologist if the secret service, our courts, the police force that arrested the Ranks, and the Republican political leadership of the city they were arrested in all thought their arrest was unlawful. It must have been the right thing to do - because it was part of the normal actions of the Bush administration. It doesn't matter to such an apologist that $80,000 in tax payer money was paid to the Ranks to settle their 1st amendment case against the Bush administration - it must be right. It doesn't matter that the secret service has said such actions will not be taken in the future - it must be right. The world must be a fairly dull place with a paper bag over your head.

[J. J.]

No JJ - what you are saying is that you don't care what the facts are - Bush must be right. It doesn't matter to such an apologist if the secret service, our courts, the police force that arrested the Ranks, and the Republican political leadership of the city they were arrested in all thought their arrest was unlawful. It must have been the right thing to do - because it was part of the normal actions of the Bush administration. It doesn't matter to such an apologist that $80,000 in tax payer money was paid to the Ranks to settle their 1st amendment case against the Bush administration - it must be right. It doesn't matter that the secret service has said such actions will not be taken in the future - it must be right. The world must be a fairly dull place with a paper bag over your head.

I didn't say the arrest was right.  I said it was right that they be excluded; if, after being asked to leave, they didn't, then police action is appropriate.

I make no apologies for permitting groups to peaceably assemble.  That is permitted in the First Amendment.  I support that when the group is Democratic or Republican, or a smaller party.  Why do you oppose a right granted by the First Amendment?

[nlm]

No JJ - what you are saying is that you don't care what the facts are - Bush must be right. It doesn't matter to such an apologist if the secret service, our courts, the police force that arrested the Ranks, and the Republican political leadership of the city they were arrested in all thought their arrest was unlawful. It must have been the right thing to do - because it was part of the normal actions of the Bush administration. It doesn't matter to such an apologist that $80,000 in tax payer money was paid to the Ranks to settle their 1st amendment case against the Bush administration - it must be right. It doesn't matter that the secret service has said such actions will not be taken in the future - it must be right. The world must be a fairly dull place with a paper bag over your head.

I didn't say the arrest was right.  I said it was right that they be excluded; if, after being asked to leave, they didn't, then police action is appropriate.

I make no apologies for permitting groups to peaceably assemble.  That is permitted in the First Amendment.  I support that when the group is Democratic or Republican, or a smaller party.  Why do you oppose a right granted by the First Amendment?

That's about the dumbest thing I have ever read.

You say you don't support the arrest - and then say you do support the arrest. And then you try and make yourself out as a defender of the 1st amendment for supporting the unlawful arrest of people that were in no way affecting the constitutional rights of other people. You are taking your Bush apologist ways to ridiculous levels here.