Liberal Forum

Misty » 22 Jan 2014 2:48 pm » wrote: Again the Constitution does not specifically mention any types of speech, yet there are several we know are illegal, like threats, obscenity, or slander.

None of which apply to these groups, except in the rarest of cases, and those individuals can be prosecuted.

People also have a right to peaceably assemble and redress the government for grievances, yet they are herded into free speech zones blocks away from political party events such as conventions.

So? That ought to be overturned, too.

From Wikipedia: Did you catch that last part Puss?
Courts have decided that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
If they can create 'free speech zones' for political activists, then why not for anti-abortion activists?

If you like the idea of grossly infringing on people's Constitutional rights, I'm sure you'll support it. I detest it.

Here's the part of Wiki I agree with:

Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

I would agree that if demonstrators are interfering with public figures, with business, with ordinary citizens, they should be "zoned."

But not simply for convenience or to hide their speech.

And I don't care whose convenience it is; Bush's, Repubs', CEO's, abortion clinics, Dems'.