 BobbyRutan says: The manual demonstrates "that the White House has a policy of excluding and/or attempting to squelch dissenting viewpoints from presidential events," said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Miller. "Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it's not a favorable one." "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt I wish I could pop this a thousand times. What is it that they fear? Don't be surprised or upset people. This is public relations at its foundation and any large entity is going to work hard to protect its reputation and attempt to create a positive environment when the CEO is on the speaking circuit. But this is not a CEO, this is the President. Good point ratilfar. And I am upset, Freedom of Speech is not a zone behind tape and barbed wire. Na, I don't believe it. This is from a pre-WW2 Nazi rally document. I'm nearly sure that I've seen it before. Ask some of those neoCon types. They'll have the original. This is plagiarism by WP of the worst type, stealing tried and trusted ideas. It shouldn't be allowed! These fascist rally tactics are as old as MUSSOLINI, although Lenin &Co were practitioners too. What's wrong with George &Co using other's idea, when none of their own are working! Hawkeye_84 is right on this one -- this is SOP for major politicians. Look at the Democratic convention in 2004: They had "free speech zones" which were the official places protesters could protest. They were literally behind chain-link fences with armed guards. The reason in 2004 you saw huge rallies protesting Bush appearances, but not Kerry, is because the Republicans allowed them to happen. The Democrats made sure their protesters were shoved aside well away from the cameras. Do a search for "free speech zones" and find some photos. Oh, here's one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm Technically - The rule is that authorities can place reasonable restrictions on demonstrations, marches and protests with regard to time, place and manner, according to University of Virginia law professor John Harrison. "What they cannot do is discriminate on the basis of content. The decisions must be content neutral," says Harrison. And that's just the problem with recent demonstrations against President Bush—the restrictions placed on them do not appear to be content neutral, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). ACLU staff lawyer Chris Hansen says, "The Secret Service and local police violate the rights of protesters by moving people expressing views critical of Presi... It raises the question that if this is standard operating procedure why would W's Protest Manual need to be stamped "Sensitive - Do Not Copy" and the ACLU would have to acquire the manual via subpoena instead of it being handed over freely? The President represents all the people and it seems unamerican to me that you have to be certified and stamped as a 100% policy approver to see the President for real. What kind of democracy is this where the President doesn't read newspapers, doesn't watch the news, and is insulated from the public so as to be shown a controlled environment of adoring fanatical followers? Furthermore that concocted image of agreement and sanction of the President's pol... |
View the Top Clips from August 22, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
