Jul. 08, 2005 - 22:04 MDT

TWICE REMOVED

Seems to me that people who object to something have a right to protest in front of and in hearing of those whose doings they object to. Once it was that way.

Then here some time ago, when anti-abortion protesters began grabbing arms or clothing of people wishing to enter a clinic or blocking the way to it, a "bubble" type law was enacted. Protesters could not approach the entrance or the way to it any closer than "x" feet whatever "x" was, patients trying to go to clinic only had to hear the shouts, see the waving banners, and the mutilated dolls, but could go on in without being manhandled. That way the rights of both sides was honored. Neither side was happy, but that's life.

I remember reading not too long ago where objectors, demonstators were put off on a "siding" as it were, and were able to object and demonstrate --out of sight and hearing of the very people who should be hearing the protests and objections.

Now in court is a case that happened in 2003 at the Broadmoor Resort -- in the foothills west of Colorado Springs, Colorado outside a NATO conference.

A news article in the Rocky Mountain News - July 8th by David Montero. In part:

Judge ponders restrictions on protests

"Federal Judge Richard Matsch is now faced with the tricky proposition of balancing the rights of free speech with security and safety concerns in a post-Sept. 11 world."

"The lawsuit centers on the anti-war group's belief that they were unfairly restricted from demonstrating outside a NATO conference in 2003 at the Broadmoor Resort."

"The city has maintained that it gave the protesters adequate space to express their viewpoints outside a main access checkpoint where visiting defense ministers -- including U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- were required to drive through." "The city also said that the protesters got plenty of media attention during the conference."

(The lawyer representing Colorado Springs) "Marrese said in his closing arguments that a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that supported Seattle's decision to set make portions of it's downtown off-limits to demonstrators during the volatile World Trade Organization meetings in 1999 validated Colorado Springs' decision to set up a restricted zone at the NATO conference. That appeals court decision maintained Seattle was trying to prevent civil unrest."

Mari Newman, one of the group's lawyers, said the group could have easily been allowed into the secure zone because all previously had agreed to background checks and identity checks and would have walked on foot to the disputed area -- a stretch of sidewalk outside the International Center where NATO officials and the media were encamped for the two day conference."

"She said the city's arguments about car bomb threats and possible blast radiuses were irrelevant to the case and that the World Trade Organization argument had little bearing on this issue."

"Newman also took umbrage at the city's claim that NATO's wishes for not allowing demonstrators near the International Center trumped the rights to free speech.

"She also blasted the city's key witness, who testified he had a handshake agreement with many of the conferences participants not to allow protesters near the International Center." "The Constitution cannot be eviscerated with a handshake"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Civil unrest" hah, I am one of the civil unrested.

I wonder about that "adequate space" given by the city. Seems the protesters didn't feel they were in a spot where they could be seen and heard.

And Colorado Springs remarks that the "protesters got plenty of media attention," is that guaranteed a valid point under the constitution ? ? ? ? Media attention, now ain't that a bloomin' hoot ?

The way it looks to me is that in the future protesters will be shoved further and further away from the sight and hearing of the rich and famous and their representatives. I wonder when it will be classed a felony to protest ? ? ? ? ?

Also, seems that 9-11 is being used as a scare tactic once more.

I have no objection to seeing many mobs of police on duty in those areas, as long as they do not try to herd people away from where their protests can be witnessed by the intended audience. Barring protesters from the path of people who the protesters are trying to send a message seems to me to be unconstitutional and goes very much against my grain.

I wonder how soon it will be a felony to express one's opinion in a journal, diary or blog ? ? ? ? Will Molly Ivins be the first reporter/journalist to get sent to the slammer ? ? ? ? ? Will those of us who object and demonstrate go to jail ahead of the reporters who refuse to name the source of their news ? ? ? ? And where in all this mess will the psycho-therapist be, who refuses to turn over records of a patient of hers to a blooming military judge ? ? ? ?

Sure, we are in touchy territory nowadays in perilous times, but it seems to me that people without a criminal record , who will submit to a background check and identity check and jump through all the other hoops fearful bureaucracy demands should be allowed to demonstrate where they can be seen and heard by the people who are being demonstrated against.

Or will we soon be living in a land where freedom has been TWICE REMOVED . . . . . . . . . .

Blog