A possible solution for town hall meeting disruption.

[FarPoint]

Post that all disruptors will be sent to a second room to have a discussion there after the first meeting. Have law enforcement present. It is unacceptable to terrorize others around you in a meeting at the current level. It is abusive and unpredictable; safety is always primary.

[drm604]

1. Simply have law enforcement remove disruptors from the room completely.

Why reward them with later discussion? If they show that they're not interested in calm discussion then there's no point in trying to discuss things with them.

[FarPoint]

3. Just trying to be fair..........if the distruptor

has no audience....I doubt they will stay or disrupt much....yet, their message can be heard.

[endarkenment]

7. fair to whom and why?

These people set out to disrupt the meeting and prevent discussion. There is nothing to be fair about. This is an organized effort to destroy this administration and defeat by bullying health care reform legislation. These are not individuals just exercising their free speech rights. There is nothing here to be fair about. People who want to discuss health care are free to do so, people who want to disrupt that discussion are not.

[ejpoeta]

8. frankly, since their objective is to disrupt i do not think this would work.

they would either raise a big stink refusing to leave, or else holler from the other room loud enough to continue to disurpt. i mean, if the people who were outside that one meeting were banging on the windows and yelling, and they were outside just because there wasn't enough room.... then it doesn't seem like anything is going to stop them from attempting to disrupt. I think people from the district should get preferential seating... should go first and THEN if there is any room left then enough others to fill the remaining seats should be allowed in. but rules should be established and fully explained BEFORE any meeting. and anyone who is disruptive should be made aware that disruptions will not be tolerated and anyone who is disruptive or rude will be ejected.

[havocmom]

25. If I want to scream and be hysterical, I have to do it at home

otherwise, I would most likely be arrested for disturbing the peace. I would, most certainly, be arrested is I did my hysterical rants at a public meeting.

What is fair about a bunch of RW hooligans getting hosted in their own rant room?

[DailyGrind51]

24. Exactly! They are not interested in dialog, only disruption.

[Orsino]

28. Yes. Protect the right of others to meet with their representatives. n/t

[Blue Diadem]

30. I agree. I think they should be told at the beginning that disruptors will be removed.

Then they should follow through with it.

[Atman]

2. How about "free speech zones?"

Oh, wait, those were only for people opposing Republicans. Never mind.

.

[notesdev]

4. Democrats have "free speech zones" too

don't you remember the 20-ft tall chain link fence with the barbed wire on top, to mark the outer boundaries of the "free speech zone" at the convention?

[endarkenment]

5. Disorderly Conduct: only applies to angry black men on their porches.

The police can remove disruptors for disorderly conduct and send them to the many rooms they already have available for people they arrest. They are quite happy to do this to people on the left who disrupt public meetings, why not right wing goons?

[Riley18]

10. The police will arrest anyone they are told to arrest. It makes me wonder

which party really wants the disruptors at the meetings most. By these people occupying the meetings and preventing real questions from being asked it is starting to make me wonder about the entire health care plan itself. It is just like the bank's being given all that money and then they are "supposed" to make affordable loans to homeowner's about to lose their homes. These same banks are sitting on the money and have not even helped 5% of the people (Bank of America has made loans to 4%), and yet the administration pretends to be helpless in that respect as well.

[drm604]

12. non sequiturs

"By these people occupying the meetings and preventing real questions from being asked it is starting to make me wonder about the entire health care plan itself."

I don't understand how these disruptions and the prevention of real questions would lead you to question the entire health plan. I also don't understand your comparison to the bank bailouts.

I'm not aware of the police arresting anyone at these meetings who wasn't involved in some kind of violence.

[bob4460]

13. Most police are repugs!!!

I have yet to met a Democratic cop, the repugs gave them all the power!!!! So they will use their discretion to arrest who they want

[endarkenment]

16. wait. this line of thinking is very familiar. hmmmm.....

"It makes me wonder which party really wants the disruptors at the meetings most."

Oddly enough I don't wonder about that at all. But I do wonder exactly where this talking point comes from.

[drm604]

17. They're really not very good at this are they?

I wonder if they like pizza?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Good idea. However, I've heard that the asshole Repuke rednecks are told to line up

very early so they occupy a large proportion of the townhall meetings. I think Democrats should be sent tickets. :-)

[customerserviceguy]

9. I've had a chance to see some of this over the weekend

Not in person, but on the talking head Sunday shows, and YouTube.

Y'know what I come away with? A feeling that we should have used those tactics a few years ago in dealing with congresscritters over the war. One of those talking head shows (This Week) has an "In Memoriam" section where I get to see the names and faces of obscure people that died, then it follows with the names of servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were fourteen of them on this show. Two a day.

Object to the wrongheadedness of the disrupters all you want, but I have to admire the way they have out-organized us on this issue. We simply thought winning an election was enough. They learned from the Nixon era that it was about way more than that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Trouble with that is

the MSM wouldn't have covered our protests--heck, when MILLIONS marched against the war, they didn't cover it. The deck is stacked against us, and will continue to be as long as Murdoch and his ilk can out and out LIE and call it "news" and ignore legitimate news.

[customerserviceguy]

18. I don't remember millions marching against this war

but I do remember that millions did during Vietnam. That's what ended that war, not political compromises with a bi-partisan flavor.

The oldsters who are showing up to disrupt seem to have a long memory of what has actually brought about change. It's not been slogans, Internet campaigns, or blue ribbon commissions. It's being willing to get in the face of politicians.

We've not been able to do that with either the current President, or the last one.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. 3 million marched against the war

They showed marches in NYC and Washington on C-Span, the only place where you could watch. No one else covered it.

[customerserviceguy]

23. It appears that the teabaggers

have figured out how to get covered, while the war protesters did not. That's being politically effective.

War protesters knew how to get coverage forty years ago, I do remember that!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. The teabaggers didn't have to figure out anything

the corporate MSM WANTS to cover them. In fact, I feel the teabaggers are a creation of MSM, especially Faux.

[TankLV]

26. If YOU don't remember it, then YOU weren't paying attention...

there were close to a MILLION in ONE city ALONE in the US!!!

There were MILLIONS when ALL cities were counted together...

THe fact that YOU don't remember it clearly illustrates that posters point: The WHORE MEDIA refused to cover it!!!

[customerserviceguy]

31. And my point is

that while you allege that millions of people protested in one city (please cite the city, and approximate date, if you recall it) the simple fact is that handfuls of rabble rousers have managed to make their point.

Maybe if we had given our congresscritters hell at town meetings, there might not be two American servicepersons dying per day.

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. I suggest shock collars to by worn by all attendees that way if you speak out of turn... ZZZAP!!! nt

[slackmaster]

15. Just maintain the rules of order, and eject anyone who does not comply

Why bother with a second room?

:shrug:

Have law enforcement present.

That is always a good idea when you expect disruptive people.

It is unacceptable to terrorize others around you in a meeting at the current level.

I'd push it a little farther and say it is unacceptable for anyone to speak out of turn.

[csziggy]

19. When they have been offered one on one meetings with their reps, they've turned them down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6268801

So it is a waste of time. What the Disruplicans want to do is to dominate the news, make themselves the issue, and block discussion of the real issues having to do with health care reform. And they are doing a great job of that.

[MrScorpio]

20. Have Bruno drop on their faces from the ceiling nt

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

22. Or this . . .

[librechik]

29. they threw us out because of T-shirts or bumper stickers on cars in the parking lot!

who ever got a chance to yell at those sweetheart summits Bush used to hold with their screened audiences?