Return of the McCarthy Era?

Published on August 21, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Homeland Security Department issued a terrorist advisory for local law enforcement agencies to watch for home landers who have “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US government.”

At a Labor Day 2002 Pittsburgh picnic for Bush’s photo-op with work-people, a 65 year old retired steel worker was denied access for wearing a sign “The Bush Family surely love the poor, they make many of us,” though he was engulfed by other sign carriers in favor of Bush. The police arrested him for disorderly conduct. At his trial a detective testified that the local police was instructed by the Secret Service to confine people making statements against the administration. The judge threw out the case.

In St. Louis Bush appeared in 2003; sign protestors were shuttled off to a zone out of sight of the street where the President would be, and worse, the media could not cover the zone. The President visited Columbia, So. Carolina last year. Amid a sea of admirers some 200 yards away from the Bush, stood a brave soul, perhaps indiscreet, with a sign “No War for Oil.” He was escorted to a fenced in zone a half mile away because of the “content of the sign.”

Crawford Texas police believes that without a protest permit wearing a “peace” button would be considered violating city ordinance.

[Taken from The Nation reprint of Jim Hightower’s book, Let’s Stop Beating Around the Bush]

Comments (Page 2)

stevendedalus

on Aug 22, 2004

whats next...take away my right to vote? how about take away my right to bear arms?

When you take away one right, it's that much easier to justify taking away another. That is UNAMERICAN!

Bravo! One Guy. You're a brave soul to take on the NRA--that's a constitutionally sacred "zone."

SSG Geezer

on Aug 22, 2004

I could have sworn Oneguys statement was straight from the NRA's speechbook.??
Sounds like something Wayne Lapierre would say. Or many of my friends.

matt07

on Aug 22, 2004

If there's any argument to be made for a return to the McCarthy era it would be of Muslims or others in the United States being put under close scrutiny or discrimination since 9/11. That being said however, I don't think we can justifiably say that we have a return to the McCarthy era. It is true that Muslims have become more descriminated against in the United States sicne 9/11, but there is no evidence that there is a widespread or even governent supported movement to blacklist Muslims as potential terrorists.

However you are right to point out that people are being denied their right to protest. As long as you're not behaving in a violent manner or invading private property you should be allowed to protest wherever, whenever, and however you want. To set up "free speech zones" is essentially to designate everything outside of the free speech zone a a place where you better not step out of line by dissenting. The first ammendment right is the most important ammendment to the constitution (some may disagree) and any attempt to deny it to people should be decried loud and clear.

sandy2

on Aug 22, 2004

Bakerstreet- On public property I have the right to peacefully protest. Only in extreme cases where it may compromise security can I be required to not protest at a certain time and at a certain place. I can not be required to protest in a specified area, as the constitution protects the freedom of speech in any public area. The police sometimes prevent you from doing so, but when arrested a court usually finds the protester not guilty. I think you need to go to the ACLU site and learn what your rights under the constitution are. Also, the ACLU filed a petition and I believe a lawsuit against the arangers of the Democratic Convention because they felt that requiring people to demonstrate in a free speach zone violated your constitutional right. I agree with them. Further, people being held in cuba without the right to legal representation, and being held against the geneva conventions, is another example of how this administration is not following the international laws and the constitituton (by requiring arabs to register and answer questions). Many of our rights have illegally been taken away. For example, the predetermined screening at airports based on how you purchased you tickets, how often you fly and your name and ethnicity is illegal and is discrimination. They recently ended this program under scrutiny from the legal community, the supreme court and the ACLU.

bakerstreet

on Aug 22, 2004

Scary, paranoid folks.

If you protest on my sidewalk, you can be forced out for obstrucing it. If you raise your voice so that it can be heard inside, you are disturbing the peace. If you interrupt public political addresses, and on and on and on. Protest in most places is allowed by permit, which CAN BE DENIED, for many, many reasons. Once the protest starts, it can be shut down at any moment by law enforcement if they feel there is a need.

So,

" Actually I am allowed to protest wherever I want. "

Isn't true, not even on public property. As my example goes, if I am having a picnic in a public park and you stand at the edge of my beach blanket and chant at me, you will be asked to move along. Protest is fine, but it CANNOT interfere with what anyone else is doing, it can't harass people, it can't shush people making speeches, and it can't intimidate. Your local courthouse is public property, so are national parks and the white house lawn. Go knock yourself out.

Go to the ACLU yourself and look at how THEY deal with protest at abortion clinics. You'll flip-flop again on that too, I bet.

You guys function on pure ideology. You should slip into a bit of reality every now and then. "The right to protest" isn't nearly what you think it is. LIke I say, go try.

sandy2

on Aug 22, 2004

We have the right to protest. Our right is being denied. I have never protested, but the constitution is quite clear, as is the supreme court.

bakerstreet

on Aug 22, 2004

"We have the right to protest. Our right is being denied. I have never protested, but the constitution is quite clear, as is the supreme court. "

Ideology versus Reality. If your political meeting was being disrupted, or some kook was ruining your picnic, you'd come down to earth. If you had to tolerate protesters on your way to get an abortion, you'd have a more balanced perspective. Your rights end where mine begin, and people have the right to congregate for meetings and go about their buisiness without being harassed, endangered, and intimidated.

It is a fine line, sure, but the protesters are the regulated party, so your idea of "freedom" isn't based on reality. Protest has been and always will be highly regulated in the US. Believe what you like.

stevendedalus

on Aug 23, 2004

Baker, you're belittling the right to protest with trivial examples; no one is suggesting that protestors have the right to interfere with the rights of others, they simply want the right to be heard. I suspect you would also be against the right of workers to picket.