Shots Across The Bow

Free Speech Zones

Are they censorship?

Well, let's see. SK Bubba has a series of posts dealing with the visit and the accompanying protests. Start here and scroll up.

As I read it, I see that the protests were held in a public place, covered by the media, and reported in both print and TV. The protesters were allowed to say what they wanted, wear what they wanted, hold the signs they wanted, for as long as they wanted. Pictures of the protest appeared on TV and in the paper, as well as SKb's website.

To date, no organizers or participants in the protest have been arrested, harrassed, intimidated, disappeared, shot, tortured, or fed into industrial paper shredders. In fact, Bubba complimented the police on their courtesy and professionalism. The only restriction placed on the protestors was location.

Some claim that this restriction does amount to censorship because it denies them TV coverage. As the report from Bubba points out, this is not a real issue as there were plenty of reporters in the zone.

This is censorship?

I don't think so.

The only thing denied to the protestors was the ability to shove their message in the President's face. Ironically, these zones parallel the zones established around abortion clinics, keeping protestors away from their clints and workers. The principle is the same: you have the right to express your opinions. You do not have the right to harrass others with those opinions. If keeping protestors away from abortion clinics is constitutional, then so is keeping them away from presidential speeches.

Still, censorship or not, I don't like it. It's too close to the line for comfort.

(On a side note, I wonder how welcome I would have been at the Clark rally had I been carrying a sign saying "I won't start WWIII for you." Maybe I'll try that experiment next time he comes to town.)

Posted by Rich at January 9, 2004 12:54 PM | TrackBack