| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/26/2007 12:40:06 AM · #1 |
Please don't make this into a rant.
Article
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 12:42:40 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Article:
"The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct," Jones said. |
Not good enough. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:03:33 AM · #3 |
| I'm not as surprised as I should be. The government appears to be rewarding the protesters with taxpayers money (double slap) AND renouncing culpability. Now, about the accepting of settlement by the protesters? Life is murky. Carpe diem. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:15:17 AM · #4 |
And from today's NY Times:
Editorial
Squelching the Citizenry’s Back Talk
Published: August 25, 2007
The White House certainly has been guilty of mismanagement and lack of preparation on the big things, like the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. But it turns out that President Bush’s encounters with ordinary Americans have been micromanaged and laboriously controlled for the past five years to weed out the merest whiff of protest. Citizen volunteers are enlisted to vet cranky-looking sorts outside the event, and “rally squads” of zealots are prompted to pounce on anyone who manages to slip through with an outspoken thought or an unscripted word.
“Do not fall into their trap!” warns the presidential manual in hypothesizing that protesters really want to be physically restrained and attract media notice, not merely exercise their right to complain. Instead, the roaming squads’ task is to use their own “signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform.”
Noisy protest? The rally squads’ response must be immediate choruses of “USA! USA!” to muffle the moment with patriotic chaff. These vigilante squads are out of place in a democracy.
The chamois-tight precautions of the White House’s presidential visit manual surfaced in The Washington Post because of a First Amendment lawsuit involving two people who refused to cover up the message of their T-shirts at a Fourth of July presidential event. “Regime change begins at home,” was the familiar shirt message of one protestor who was handcuffed and taken to jail.
The manual magnanimously advises local police to tolerate dissenters — providing they are barred from the event through an ultra-loyalist ticketing process and then cordoned well off from earshot and sight of the president and his passing motorcade.
Every White House stage-manages presidential events, but this level of obsession with silencing the vox pop is a symptom of this administration’s broader problem honoring Americans’ constitutional freedoms.
=================
For reference (emphasis added):
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:38:18 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Instead, the roaming squads’ task is to use their own “signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform.” ... The rally squads’ response must be immediate choruses of “USA! USA!” to muffle the moment with patriotic chaff. These vigilante squads are out of place in a democracy. |
This is regular fare in dicatorships. The last public act of Nikolai Ceauºescu's life was a speech before a compulsorily assembled crowd. At the very front of the crowd were a few party-controlled robots carrying placards with brainless slogans, who cheered at every utterance Ceauºescu made, effectively cutting off from television cameras the mass of regular public assembled behind them. As the speech progressed, though, not even they could stop the gathering unrest in the crowd. Ceauºescu, of course, would never finish his speech. Or his presidency. Or even the remainder of the week. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:50:27 AM · #6 |
| Proves that everybody has a price. Throw the right amount of money and principals goes out the window. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:05:54 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Proves that everybody has a price. Throw the right amount of money and principals goes out the window. |
What can they sue for except money? Despite what the "government spokesperson" says, it is clear that the settlement was made only because the arrest was wrong ... I don't think it's possible to send G-men to jail for false arrest or violation of civil/constitutional rights.
Just how do you think the principals compromised their principles by accepting the money? What would you have done in their place? |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:09:29 AM · #8 |
kinda shows how the amendments mean nothing to the government, to bad they payed for it
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:17:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
kinda shows how the amendments mean nothing to the government, to bad they payed for it |
The amendments didn't mean anything to the protesters either... except for the $80k they pocketed.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:19:03 AM · #10 |
| Actually, I would have settled for some new camera gear, but, if you really feel that your rights were violated, does money fix the problem? What good comes out of this situation by them taking the money? 80K isn't even a scratch on the governments ass, it's laughable really. This isn't a win for the first amendment, this is proof that you can buy the first amendment. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 03:17:15 AM · #11 |
| You don't know what they intend to do with that money. Why assume they'll line their pockets? |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 09:11:55 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
kinda shows how the amendments mean nothing to the government, to bad they payed for it |
The amendments didn't mean anything to the protesters either... except for the $80k they pocketed. |
amen. why on earth would they settle??
And while I appreciate  samnotis's point, charity or no, they dropped the ball. |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 11:07:00 AM · #13 |
| Certainly a ball has been dropped. But GeneralE's question remains. (Gotta respect spelling teachers with tact). The government's statement is equivalent to the no-apology apology, "I'm sorry if what I said offended anyone." |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 11:44:01 AM · #14 |
Do you think the First Amendment was meant to extend someone's right to the point of disrupting another's?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 11:50:21 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you think the First Amendment was meant to extend someone's right to the point of disrupting another's? |
How does wearing a T-shirt interfere with someone else's right to free speech? |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 12:37:14 PM · #16 |
$80k will buy a LOT of t-shirts ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:25:03 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you think the First Amendment was meant to extend someone's right to the point of disrupting another's? |
How does wearing a T-shirt interfere with someone else's right to free speech? |
It doesn't. But you read more into my question than what I asked.
Do you think there might be more to the story than what we read in the press?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:28:07 PM · #18 |
When does the press ever get or write all the facts?
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you think there might be more to the story than what we read in the press? |
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 01:30:57 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:15:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
When does the press ever get or write all the facts?
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you think there might be more to the story than what we read in the press? |
|
When does anyone? Even if you are directly involved you rarely know all the facts.
Ofcourse this may all be irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2007 02:23:49 PM · #21 |
| LOL IMO, anyone that wears this: "Regime Change Starts at Home" to a presidential gathering, deserved to be removed for scaryness... if I were prez, it would have freaked me the hell out :) |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 04:30:11 PM · #22 |
No victory at all. Just money changing hands between two sell outs. And our money to boot!
It should have been argued to a final decision so that there would be precedent for future cases of a similar nature. Very disappointing.
Greed: Trickle down economics.
So to that couple their first amendment rights were worth 80k, shit that is a bargain. To bad you only get to sell them once.
:-( |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 05:07:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
LOL IMO, anyone that wears this: "Regime Change Starts at Home" to a presidential gathering, deserved to be removed for scaryness... if I were prez, it would have freaked me the hell out :) |
"[A] little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 05:13:13 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Please don't make this into a rant.
Article |
If no rant, then why would you post such nonsense? |
|
|
|
08/26/2007 05:36:06 PM · #25 |
| Is it nonsense when citizens are wrongfully arrested? Is it nonsense when the government pays $80k to avoid having to prove they were rightfully arrested? - I had hoped there was an interesting question on the board, to wit, What were the options said citizens had other than accepting monetary settlement. Another question: why did the ACLU advise settling? To the extent that we take seriously the rule of law these are matters of interest. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 11:02:55 PM EDT.
