Free Speech? Not so much

[Mark@Sea]

The Health and Human Services Department launched its investigation of Humana after getting a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a senior lawmaker usually viewed as a reliable ally of the insurance industry.

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject — particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation.

Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Ky., is cooperating with the investigation and stopped the mailer earlier this month, company spokesman Tom Noland said Monday.

The administration has no qualms about asking NEA artists to help 'nudge' the public towards accepting their viewpoints, but stomps literature/information opposing their goals.

We've got a senior cabinet post occupied by someone who has

stated

that the public are "unruly teenagers" and require the firm guidance of the administration to make them behave.

The president casually

remarks

that he doesn't want to hear viewpoints from the other side of the political spectrum.

This administration has a real problem with dissent.

Say what you will about the Bush administration, but I never saw anything like this.

[Guest mikedwood]

I reread 1984 a few months back. My mom said she would like to reread it also. She started it and literally got to scared to continue after about 30 pages.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

This administration has a real problem with dissent.

Say what you will about the Bush administration, but I never saw anything like this.

[/indent]

That's because you never looked Bubba--

Real Conservatives Honor Free Speech

But Bush Administration stifles dissent

First published December 15, 2003 The American Conservative

Editor's note: We've written previously about the disturbing suppression of free speech by Bush Administration officials and local police forces. Most attention to this unconstitutional activity has come from the left side of the political spectrum, but this article does a fine job of confronting these assaults on our First Amendment and making clear it is not a left vs. right issue (as this report on plans for the Democrats 2004 convention makes clear).

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty ... your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and ... give ammunition to America's enemies."; Some commentators feared that Ashcroft's statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft's comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones"; or "protest zones"; where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."; The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone"; on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.";

At Neel's trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views"; in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.'"; Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?";

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators-two of whom were grandmothers-were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."; One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons."; The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.";

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."; When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her five-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil"; sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free speech zone"; half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free speech zone.";

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'"; Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.";

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department-in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.-quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States."; If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a "petty offense."; Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached."; The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free speech zone"; but refused to co-operate. Magistrate Marchant is expected to issue his decision in December.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."; Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

Marr's comments are a mockery of this country's rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern-and-practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat.";

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs-as has happened in some demonstrations-is pointless, since potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Presuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."; Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city, and impose a "virtual three day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,"; according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free speech zone";-as such areas are labeled in the U.S.-the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone"; to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom"; and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."; Regarding the protesters, Bush sought to turn the issue into a joke: "I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech-exercised with enthusiasm-is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.";

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government."; If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of "suspected terrorists.";

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington, and elsewhere. Film footage of a February New York antiwar rally showed what looked like a policeman on horseback charging into peaceful aged Leftists. The neoconservative New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department "send two witnesses along for each participant [in an antiwar demonstration], with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution"; since all the demonstrators were guilty of "giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.";

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."; Van Winkle justified classifying protesters like terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people.";

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."; The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,"; according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators-supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements,"; according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI's expansive defintion of "potential violence"; in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

The FBI is also urging local police to report suspicious activity by protesters to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is run by the FBI. If local police take the hint and start pouring in the dirt, the JTTF could soon be building a "Total Information Awareness";-lite database on those antiwar groups and activists.

If the FBI publicly admits that it is surveilling antiwar groups and urging local police to send in information on protestors, how far might the feds go? It took over a decade after the first big antiwar protests in the 1960s before the American people learned the extent of FBI efforts to suppress and subvert public opposition to the Vietnam War. Is the FBI now considering a similar order to field offices as the one it sent in 1968, telling them to gather information illustrating the "scurrilous and depraved nature of many of the characters, activities habits, and living conditions representative of New Left adherents";-but this time focused on those who oppose Bush's Brave New World?

Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely. Is it carrying out a war on dissent? Probably not-yet. But the trend lines in federal attacks on freedom of speech should raise grave concerns to anyone worried about the First Amendment or about how a future liberal Democratic president such as Hillary Clinton might exploit the precedents that Bush is setting.

James Bovard is the author of Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom,Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil.

© 2003 The American Conservative

[E4 No More]

Mark: I hope you don't mind, but I plagerized some of your post on another forum of mine.

[TNTitan]

I think I better report this thread to the white house...

[DWARREN123]

Do not trust goverments or politicians!

[Guest jimdigriz]

Do not trust goverments or politicians!

+1

[Metalhead]

Anyone played Half-Life2? No? Gives an excellent glimpse of where this country is heading.

Well, minus the headcrabs.

[Daniel]

I get to be the Free Man.

[Glenn]

Do not trust goverments or politicians!

or what's his name that loves Obama

Glenn

[robin48]

I think I better report this thread to the white house...

Oh they know already, darn right they do.

[Guest Tygarys]

I think I better report this thread to the white house...

I already have. You can expect an ACORN SWAT team to arrive any time now.

[Guest SweetSue]

Jihad Watch

White House moves to restrict free speech and stifle dissent from Obama policies

Right now they're talking about restricting free speech in connection with dissent from the stimulus bill. Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform (of all things), writes this: "Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence," from the Whitehouse.gov Blog, May 29 (thanks to James):

Following OMB’s review,

the Administration has decided

to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making. First,

we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons

, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second,

we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest

–after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

OMB will be consulting with agencies, outside experts and others about these principles

and will publish detailed guidance

, but we wanted to update interested parties on the outcome of the initial review. We consulted very broadly both within and outside of government (including as reflected in previous posts on the White House blog) and we are grateful to all those who participated in the process.

In "White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects" at the Washington Examiner, May 30 (thanks again to James), Mark Tapscott explains the implications:

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances.

Let government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding.

Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation. More on this as it develops. And trust me, it will develop.

With the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) making an all-out international effort to restrict free speech about Islam, including speech designed to alert non-Muslims to the motives and goals of the global jihad movement, and Obama making conciliatory gestures toward the OIC, it is not at all difficult to look down the path and see the day coming when it will Sharia provisions restricting speech about Islam will be in place in the United States of America, and it will be illegal to speak about the Islamic supremacist agenda.

Most, of course, will dismiss such concerns the way they always dismiss them: with a wave of the hand and an invocation of the First Amendment -- as if the First Amendment were some kind of inviolate shield that cannot itself ever in any way be impeached or impugned. Would that it were so. But the Obama Administration is already showing how little it cares for free speech and open dissent. And with an Obama-compliant Supreme Court judging cases that challenge their actions and interpreting the First Amendment for us, what's to stop the Administration from playing ball with the OIC and building wonderful new bridges with the Islamic world in this way?

Posted by Robert on May 30, 2009 8:00 AM

Print | [email=?subject=Check out Jihad Watch: White House moves to restrict free speech and stifle dissent from Obama policies&body=Go to http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/white-house-moves-to-restrict-free-speech-and-stifle-dissent-from-obama-policies.html]Email this entry[/email] | Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

[Chucktshoes]

"Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?" -The United States of America.

[Guest SweetSue]

Real Conservatives Honor Free Speech

But Bush Administration stifles dissent

First published December 15, 2003 The American Conservative

Moving on to 2009, The actions of Today,can and Will effect Tomorrow.

[towerclimber37]

I'll be the first to admit that about the ONLY good thing Bush did was to protect the U.S.

I didn't care for his domestic policies at all.

still, he never attempted to pass laws that would prohibit oral dissent about his policies. he simply moved the protesters. Obama had done quite a bit worse..

and you're welcome to report me as well, to the whitehouse snitch hotline..when you do tell them that I think the current Administration AND it's supporters are a bunch of Race pedaling poverty pimps. (I stole that line from JC Watts..but it fits them to a T).

-I've been called a racist, a domestic terrorist, I've been threatened with "investigation", Law enforcement officials have been told to BOLO for any folks who believe as I do. The government has jacked up taxes, made it almost impossible to find a job (I think it's interesting that I lost MY job right around the time that Obama got elected...but I worked for one of those "eeevil corporations)

-the government (Bush is JUST as culpable) took my money to bail out a car company, which now says that it won't be able to pay back at LEAST 80 BILLION dollars of the money loaned to it.

- The government promised that with this "stimulus package" that unemployment wouldn't go past 8%. It's pushing 10% now.

-The government promised universal health care and in that bill gave the IRS the right to fine INDIVIDUALS as well as businesses if they don't carry a health care plan that is approved by the government..yet the same people who want to pass this bill don't want to use it. not only that but the people pushing this bill are the same folks who advocate death panels (thanks Sarah, you were right on the money). As a matter of fact, the government is instituting a form of this right now in the VA.

I submit that my health is my business and if they keep this up they'd better start looking to their own health. If they decide to fine me for living my life in a manner I deem prudent then I'll be happy to suggest that they attempt self impregnation.

- Those same people have since, submitted an education bill that gives the dept of Education the discretion to give 500 MILLION dollars to

whomever they deem appropriate" to teach our children, when it's not there place to set a curriculum. Never has been.

with their morals (Sanford,spitzer,Boxer/Reid...pick one!! just about every one of them is a crook,adulterer, or some other type of criminal) they have no business saying a danged thing about what I teach my children. You can think what you like but most folks that I know will go to war over their kids..and won't feel bad about putting a bullet in someone over it..I'm one of them.

- Obama wants to institute a tax on cigarettes and beer, yet he promised that he'd not tax the middle class or the poor.

I don't know about you folks but I don't know ONE rich fella that stops by the store on the way home to pick up a 6 pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes so that he can wind down and relax his body after a punishing day at hard manual labor.

-it's no wonder that bodies are turning up now, of government workers.

I figure it's like this..only an idiot would poke a bear with a stick and then express wonder when the bear takes offense. Not just an idiot..an incredible idiot.

I can say one thing Ralf G Brisco. Under the Bush administration, he may have used the constitution as toilet paper but at least he didn't try to force the people to hand it to him so he could wipe and smile while they did it.

and I find it incredible that YOU are ready to do just that!

If you don't believe EVERYTHING I've said here is a fact, g'head...call me on it..I'll provide links to the exact PAGE of every BILL.

I'll also provide links to the youtube videos of every obama speech that supports these FACTS.

if I'm still a racist for calling it like I see it? then I guess dissent is the highest form of RACISM.

/rant

Edited September 27, 2009 by towerclimber37

[Guest ScottD]

I'll be the first to admit that about the ONLY good thing Bush did was to protect the U.S.

...

if I'm still a racist for calling it like I see it? then I guess dissent is the highest form of RACISM.

/rant

YOU LIE!