How does national security justify damaging free speech rights at the DNC?

A U.S. District Court judge ruled last week in Denver that, even though protesters' free speech rights will be damaged, "national security" justifies the government's plan to restrict parade permits to end 3 hours before the Democratic Party convention begins. Thousands of police and 400 national guard will be on duty, in a city where, four years ago, activists exposed and fought a widespread, illegal, program of local police surveillance on political activists.

Read more

Anyone actually want to deny the police state is already here?

The same reason the GOP has forced people to sign "Loyalty Concracts" before allowing anyone into the GOP Convention. The same reason the GOP has thrown people out of town hall meetings for having posters that say "McCain=Bush" which isn't technically a protest is it? Unless the GOP agrees that Bush=Worst President Ever. And so saying McCain equals Bush is an insult and a type of protest.

Also, the parades/protests will interrupt traffic as people who are invited to the Democratic Convention try to get in. The parades/protests could be full of dangers, as Secret Service has already dealt with several Republicans who have threatened to shoot Obama I'm sure keeping those who aren't invited as far away from Obama is a top priority. I'd hate to be the Secret Service member who let a Republican get to close to Obama and shoots Obama.

In 1968 the Democratic convention in Chicago was seriously disrupted by a massive protest against the war in Vietnam (why they chose the Democrats and not the Republicans I'm not sure). The Chicago cops were not very particular about who, how and why they hurt people. The Democratic party's reputation and standing were seriously compromised, and I guess they don't want a replay of that.

I don't feel my right to free speech has been abridged because I can't demonstrate while the covention is going on. If there's another anti-war protest, though, I think it will be the Republicans' turn.

The DNC's image is no excuse for blatant violations of the first Amendment.

Perhaps the people who run the DNC should give their speeches from cages.

reply to post by Sestias


Well, the Vietnam protesters picked the DNC because the Presidents that led us into the Vietnam war and where currently running it where Democrats. Namely Kennedy and Johnston.

And for the OP, I don't feel like our freedoms to protest are under attack, just where and when it is appropriate is all.

Thanks,
Vance

Sitting in a makeshift cage isn't abridging ones right to protest?

Would you attend religious services in a cage?

Originally posted by Scorched Earth

A U.S. District Court judge ruled last week in Denver that, even though protesters' free speech rights will be damaged, "national security" justifies the government's plan to restrict parade permits to end 3 hours before the Democratic Party convention begins. Thousands of police and 400 national guard will be on duty, in a city where, four years ago, activists exposed and fought a widespread, illegal, program of local police surveillance on political activists.

Read more

Anyone actually want to deny the police state is already here?

Because its legal to spy on anyone you want. Because not enough people care that "free people" are being locked up and beaten for telling the truth.


"Because we are the government, and you're not".