Will we now spend the week echoing the RW "free speech zone" mantra?

[linazelle]

I see a pattern starting already. Come on people. Let's not fall into the trap. There's a message that needs to get through from the convention. If we spend the whole week with FSZ threads, the message will be missed. It's going to hard enough getting the message from the "liberal" media as it since they will be fixated on security as well.

Let's try to control this before it gets out of hand.

[stevebreeze]

1. I would like to see Kerry & Edwards walk over to the FSZ and talk

would that not make an excellent news bite?

[mike_c]

10. I'd like to see the Convention declare that they wish to assert...

...their first admendment rights to free speech, and thus must either move into the cage or stop this exercise in fascism altogether.

[Ready4Change]

17. Walk over and just talk?

To hell with that. Walk over and demand that everyone in there be released and allowed to protest in the only Free Speach Zone sanctioned by the constitution, namely the entire USA.

This particular FSZ, and it's coverage, stinks to high heaven, and Dems are being fools for not addressing it so far. None of Bush's FSZ's have gotten coverage before. So why THIS one?

As Admirable Ackbar says: "It's a Trap!"

[PeaceForever]

2. You're missing the point

The Democratic Party right now, by endorsing free speech zones, is acting like a moderate fascist party. I don't think you want the choice this November to be between extreme fascism and moderate fascism.

The concept of free speech zones needs to end, right now. The entire country should once again become a "free speech zone."

[gmoney]

5. The FSZ exists for one reason...

...so they can arrest anyone protesting OUTSIDE the FSZ. They don't care if anyone shows up and spends time in the FSZ -- in fact, I'm sure they want to discourage it. Everyone knows that the potential for Chicago '68 scale riots is pretty great this year so they are taking extraordinary measures to squelch protesters and make protesting seem pointless so people will just stay home instead of taking to the streets.

Not saying this is right, but there's no way either side will make the FSZ hospitable.

It's sad, but I think without the FSZ, it would be almost impossible to hold the conventions this year, because I think the Freepers would be out in force intimidating journalists and very likely attacking delegates, either verbally or physically.

What is this country coming to?

[PeaceForever]

31. There may be something you haven't considered.

There are more than two choices here (allowing freepers to riot vs. caging protesters up).

There are already laws against rioting. Rioting is a crime. Demonstraitions and free expression do not have to be a crime, as they will be at (of all places!) the Democratic National Convention.

[mike_c]

7. unfortunately, the choice IS between fascism and moderate...

...fascism. "We" endorse fundamental nazi-publican policies such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the core tenents of the "war on poor people, er..., terrorism," the USA PATRIOT Act, the wholesale transfer of wealth to the already obscenely wealthy, governance of the corporations, for the corporations, by the corporations, and now razor-wire topped "free speech zones" to prevent people of conscience from annoying our top party officials. Hmmm..., sounds awfully familiar.

[blm]

9. Get real. DNC didn't put out that terror alert. This is the Secret Service

and Homeland Security putting these type of restrictions on the protestors, just as they have been for all Bush events. They know they'll want greater restrictions, even, for their event, so they are likely planting agitators in with the Boston protestors.

The media and their compliant echo chambers have succeeded in making it sound as if the DNC and Kerry are responsible. They know the more reactionary types will blame the party, as usual.

[mike_c]

12. not responsible-- complicit....

eom

[gmoney]

3. Stupid to have convention in Boston

What better way to underscore Kerry's reputation as a Mass. Liberal than to have the convention in Boston?

The people in Boston don't want the disruption, the strikes are going to make a mess of things, and the city is so overcrowded already that it leads to crap like this FSZ that looks like a DMZ...

They should have had it in a swing state, maybe one with some open space... my own Ohio comes to mind. The economy could use the boost, it might swing some voters towards the Dems, and there would be plenty of room to have a FSZ someplace wide open...

[Liberal Christian]

13. I suppose the people of Boston

also don't want the millions of dollars in revenue the convention will generate.

Boston had to have bid hard and competitively to woo the convention. The convention site would have been chosen even before any political candidate took out papers to begin running in primaries.

Find something real to whine about.

[gmoney]

32. Sure Boston wanted it...

...all the big cities want big convention business, and there's not much bigger than the national political conventions.

But, no matter who the Democratic nominee turned out to be, planning the convention for "liberal Taxachusetts" does nothing to endear our party to the heartland swing voters. It further cements the party's reputation as being that of New England liberal snobs. It gives the right wingers more ammunition in this regard. This region is considered to be "a lock" for the Democrats, so why plow even MORE resources into winning their goodwill at the risk of distancing the rest of America?

I still say a heartland state with a depressed economy (Ohio, Michigan, Missouri) would have been the way to go... score points with these voters, connect the party to the midwest, do some economic good where it's needed most, and it would have made it a lot more resonant to point to W's economic failings from one of the places hit hardest by his policies.

Plus, it doesn't sound like Boston has their act together, based on all the bad reports concerning getting the Fleet Center ready, the FSZ, the picket lines, and the portapotties for the press.

And I'd also bet that most Bostonians who do NOT work for the hotel, restaurant, tourism or prostitution trades would say that the convention is just a pain in the ass.

[shawmut]

29. There will be no unions picketing this convention

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3575026/detail.html



And Boston was chosen before Kerry decided to run for President.

[WiltedFlowerChild]

4. The only way

to fight launguage is with new language. Instead of "free speech" zones, we must call it as we see it.

How about Orwellian Oasis??

[Cat Atomic]

6. You bet your ass I'm focussing on that cage.

If Kerry can't even bring himself to denounce "free speech zones", he doesn't deserve my vote. I'm sick of this shit. His base isn't nearly as "locked up" as his protestors are.

This party DESERVES all the criticism it gets if it doesn't publicly denounce these caged sites.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

11. I don't feel as bad about it after seeing the pics.

In one of them, I could see how close the Fleet Center is to the fenced area and what struck me was this: there is no way that a major national event is going to occur without a substantial area around it under control from a security perspective. They are going to insure access and safety for participants.

I do not believe that allowing demonstrators to block access to the convention serves anyone and if the "zone" were much closer, that is what would happen. I think that a fence is a better control measure than riot cops. I remember the '68 convention which did not go as well as we might have wished. After all, the riot cops even came to the convention floor.

[mike_c]

15. I too remember '68....

The Chicago Convention was the wake-up call for many in the U.S. It was for me. I hope the sight of people gathered into a cage to exercise their first amendment rights has an equally galvanizing effect next week, but I doubt that it will. One of the first essential steps in destroying democracy is to silence the critics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I remember the '68 convention also.

I remember some of Democratic conventioneers joining the protesters and a lot of condemnation from the floor of the tactics used by Daley the Chicago thugs..er, cops. Remember Ribicoff? Hopefully, some of the braver Democrats will be in the cage and some will be on the podium denouncing it.

[Pepperbelly]

18. how close should demonstrations be allowed?

I mean ... hell, the Democrats have an equal right to exercise their speeech and their right to assemble. Do you think that demonstrations should be allowed close enough to block access or physically breach the convention floor?

What is it that you want?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "Congress shall make NO law..abridging the right of the people

to peacabley assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances."

I guess we all are allowed "Free Speech" if we mumble it safely into a pillow, or have it penned up in a "Free Speech Zone". The idea of a protest is to be heard. Protesters should be allowed to move about freely, like any other free citizen, as long as they don't break the law. I believe that Boston probably has laws against blocking traffic and trespass.

[Pepperbelly]

22. So you'd rather see enforcement of regular laws ...

that could result in mass arrests and something like what happened in Seattle?

And exactly why should the demonstrators be allowed to interfere with the Democrats' right to assemble? How close would you let them be? Would you let them block entrances? Throw eggs from up close?

I don't want this to be another Chicago in '68. And those who favor that do what the protesters did in '68: help Nixon (Bush) get elected.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Silence is golden?

You seem to forget what the protests were about in '68. They were about an illegal and immoral war that was killing people. Somewhat like what is going in Iraq now. They were protesting the Democratic Party's complicity in that war. Somewhat like what they will be doing in Boston. Would you rather they be silent and not protest the killing of thousands?

The protests didn't help Nixon get elected. He offered "Peace with Honor", and the Democrats offered more of the same. Just as they're doing again.

You want to silence the protests? Get Kerry to speak out forcefully against the occupation of Iraq and offer a realistic plan to end it, instead of the "me too" clone of Shrub's plan.

[Pepperbelly]

27. what I want to see and hear is ...

not silence but all of us being guaranteed out rights to speak and assemble. Do you have a suggestion for accomplishing that?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Great. How about offering the protesters some podium time?

If the Democratic Party really cherishes free speech and dissent, it could offer some time on the podium to some of the dissenters. And, I would certainly think that the penned up prostesters would welcome a visit from some of the delegates or the nominees.

Your suggestions?

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. Bingo.

Many of the Boston FSZ occupants will be antiwar protestors from the left. Look at how the antiwar protests of last March and March of 2003 brought out literally millions of demonstrators around the world. The Freeper prowar demonstrators attracted only a handful.

[kiahzero]

34. Then I guess you sided with Scalia in Hill v. Colorado?

Have you even read the decision in question?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Simple solution. Have Kerry denounce the FSZ cages.

But, I ain't holding my breath.

[LibDemAlways]

26. I'm not holding my breath either, but

Kerry is missing the photo op of the convention if he doesn't go over there, publically proclaim that the cage represents the chimp's America, and that he and the Dems stand for the first amendment rights and basic dignity of all Americans. Then call for the damn thing to be taken down.

As long as he remains silent that cage is going to be a favorite backdrop of the whores and a symbol of the "Democrat" convention in the American consciousness.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. That's right. And, well it should be if he doesn't.

Unfortunately, there are many who think that those of us who believe that the Democratic Party should actually stand for something other than "not as bad as" the repugs are just a bunch of loudmouthed troublemakers who won't bow down and kiss the robes of the annointed one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. You are making the false assumption that DUers pushing this issue

want Kerry to be elected. Mostly, they don't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Bullshit. Let me rephrase that..BULLSHIT!

[ulysses]

23. care to back that up?

[creeksneakers2]

24. There are alternatives

Of 100 planned protests, Only ten were planned for the free speech cage. Most events were planned for larger areas. People had a choice to be right next to the convention where there is no room or be farther away with lots of room. Large demonstrations held at a distance will still be covered by the media.

The free speech cage is right across the street from the convention center. The fence and barbed wire are horrible and should be removed. But, it is reasonable to ask people to protest across the street and not in way of the convention.

A judge looked at all this and found no reasonable alternative. He said there weren't any other sites close by suitable to hold that many people. Law enforcement types say the cage is necessary based on past experience.

I still wrote Kerry a letter and put something on his blog asking him to have the cage removed. It would also be great if Kerry walked across the street and talked to the protesters.

All in all, I think this is bad but not as unreasonable as it looks.