From the Springfield, Missouri News-Leader, "Bush rally was sad day for democracy":
The phrase "this is what democracy looks like" changed meaning as the protest of President Bush's appearance in Springfield unfolded. Initially, the phrase described the thousands of people lined up with tickets, waiting to enter the field house, being reminded not all people in southwest Missouri thought this president deserved four more years of leadership that had launched wars resulting in thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded, a national debt increasing at $1.69 billion a day, and an atmosphere of secrecy in America.The Secret Service told protesters where to gather; the location was excellent. Democracy was working: People were exercising their right to assemble while others exercised their right to protest.
But when police told protesters they had to move about 200 feet away, while the people supporting Bush remained in place, the atmosphere grew tense. When protesters complained to local police, they replied, "We're just following orders." Then the protesters called the media: It was time for citizens to know how democracy was working in Springfield, as protesters had been herded into a "free speech zone."
When gatekeepers announced final seating for those with tickets, protesters with tickets tried to get in, but their tickets were grabbed and torn up, and police threatened them with arrest if they argued back. One woman screamed, "You're tearing up my ticket," and hit back at the man when he started shoving her with his chest, trying to shut her up. The police arrested the woman. Two other people were "taken down": a young girl who could not back up fast enough because there were so many people behind her and a man who is charged with trespassing because he was standing on property his own tax dollars partially funded.
All this, while the Bush supporters passed by, granted access to the president of us all because they would shout his praises at the appropriate moments.
When "this is what democracy looks like" arose from the protesters this time, it had an ominous tone. People were being taken down, and the picture was not pretty.
If you check out my web site, you'll see I'm absolutely no fan of Bush. However, I also strongly believe freedom of speach is NOT the same as the freedom to interrupt someone else's party. I firmly believe in the right to freedom of speach, but that has to extend to the President. If the intent of the protesters was to disrupt the President's rally, then they were out of line.
Anyone who wants to have their say should hire their own venue to say it. The President should be able to have a rally free from disruption, whether you like what he has to say or not.
Freedom of speach doesn't mean you have the freedom to force your opinion down my throat. Nor should anyone use freedom of speach to prevent someone else from getting their own message out.
Regardless of what a lying ass that other person might be.
Posted by: Joe on August 4, 2004 07:42 AMHi Joe –
Thanks for your comment, and I’m inclined to agree that free speech works both ways, and should include the freedom to speak without disruption. What I think is at stake here, though, is visibility.
If the protestors were intent on causing disruption to Bush’s speech, it would have been a simple matter to travel incognito and raise a fuss once they were inside the venue. Instead, they were changing a picture: rather than allowing media coverage of a community unequivocally in support of Bush, they tried to show that there are differences of opinion, that Bush’s right to remain in office isn’t a foregone conclusion.
It’s nearly impossible to separate Candidate Bush from President Bush, but since as President of the United States he represents us all to the world, it seems reasonable to expect the ability to represent ourselves – and our dissent - at his speaking engagements...particularly if that engagement is on public property, secured by public servants, and, ostensibly, open to the public itself.
Most importantly, this kind of incident is indicative of a larger issue in the Bush Administration: from the removal of protestors from his path and scientists from policy positions, to his selection of allies, Bush again and again demonstrates that he only hears what he wants to hear. That’s unacceptable from a man who campaigned on consensus building, and who won less than 50% of the popular vote.
Posted by: Jane on August 4, 2004 06:33 PM
