Today's post requires a little effort on your part - a history lesson in three parts. It seems that we don't remember our recent history, way back to 2001, when this series appeared in Westword. If you want to fully understand why our lakes and fields are being sprayed with toxins, you've got to do the homework.
The series was written by award winning author Eileen Welsome for Westword.
Get the cages ready.
From Wikipedia Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the Fleet Center where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray".[10] "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."[11] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U. S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression."[12]. However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the Fleet Center.[13] Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places — building vestibules, parking garages, or vans — and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO NOT CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."[14] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[12] Prominent examples of recent free speech zones are those set up by the Secret Service, who scout locations where the U.S. president is scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials will target those who carry anti-Bush signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[3][4] Protesters who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[15][16] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[17][18] Criticisms Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[19] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[19] The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[15][20] The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[16] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[16] The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. "The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July."[21] Notable incidents and court proceedings In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings - Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida - found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration. The Secret Service denies targeting the President's political opponents. "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations.", said one Secret Service spokesman.[22] Bill Neel "These [Free Speech] 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... 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.'"[16][23] District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that "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'?"[3] Brett Bursey At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away. He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. "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.'"[16] However, the prosecution, led by James Strom Thurmond Jr., disputes Bursey's version of events.[24] Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.[16] Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine.[16] After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.[25] In his ruling, Marchant found that "this is not to say that the Secret Service's power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area — which was an issue in this case — as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area."[25] Marchant's ruling however, was criticized for three reasons: * The ruling found that Bursey was not the victim of selective prosecution because Bursey was the only person who had refused an order to leave the area. However, this overlooks the fact that nobody else refused to leave the zone because nobody else was asked to leave. [26] * The prosecution claimed that the protected zone around the President was 100 yards wide. However, it was unmarked, with cars and trucks allowed to pass through and drop off ticket-holders, and nobody was willing to tell protesters where the zone's boundaries were. Marchant's decision noted this but did not find this unreasonable. [26] * Marchant found that in the "age of suicide bombers", the Secret Service should have latitude to get rid of anyone suspicious who is standing near the president's route. However, given that the reason Bursey was singled out by the Secret Service was his sign, "it's enough to make anyone with a dissenting view think twice before deciding to stand out from a crowd."[26]
With all the talk lately of our Mayor’s new power to declare an Extraordinary Event (MEEP), this article may be of interest. Organizing with cell phones and text messaging, the protestors (citizens) sudden appear for protest and then melt away. No permits required, they are taking a stroll.
Shanghai's Middle Class Launches Quiet, Meticulous Revolt By Maureen Fan Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, January 26, 2008 SHANGHAI -- Bundled against the cold, the businessman made his way down the steps. Coming toward him in blue mittens was a middle-aged woman. "Do you know that we're going to take a stroll this weekend?" she whispered, using the latest euphemism for the unofficial protests that have unnerved authorities in Shanghai over the past month. He nodded. Behind her, protest banners streamed from the windows of high-rise apartment blocks, signs of middle-class discontent over a planned extension of the city's magnetic levitation, or maglev, train through residential neighborhoods. The couple checked to make sure no plainclothes police were nearby and discussed where security forces had been posted in recent days. "Did you take any photos?" the man asked. Yes, she said, promising to send them to him so he could post the evidence online. In a minute, the exchange was over, but the news would soon be added to the steady flow of reports being posted on blogs and community bulletin boards, as well as in housing compounds along the proposed extension -- which residents contend will bring noise pollution and possibly dangerous radiation to their neighborhoods. (continue reading)>
Our City Council will be taking the comments from the hearing into consideration. The ACLU presented 4 areas of concern (click below to watch), but the council has already made changes to Bills 35 and 36, and now, as I understand it, amendments may be required. Tune in next week.
Watching City Council so you don't have to.
I've always had a problem with rodeos, ever since 1977 when I was hired as the soundman on a film shoot for a political candidate in Wyoming. A New York director was flown in, and among other locations, we drove out to a desolate area in what looked like strip-mining pits to me. After about a half-hour drive we came upon a temporary set-up of livestock fences, trucks and people setting up a “rodeo”. My only job was to get “wild” sound of the event. After about 15 minutes of recording, I settled in to watch the activity. Seeing other spectators on the wide livestock gate, I climbed up to get a good view. The horse chute was directly across the arena area from where I was sitting. About 50 people were in attendance. Horses would come bolting out of the chute, bucking and jumping to throw the riders. Then a smallish horse came streaking out, ears laid back, making no attempt to buck or throw the rider. He ran at top speed directly toward the gate where I was sitting. After a few seconds, it became clear that he was not going to stop, and we all jumped off of the gate. With a loud crack, he rammed the gate with his head. The gate flew open, the rider jumped off and the horse headed for the hills. The sound of the horse's head hitting the iron gate was so loud I was amazed that he wasn’t knocked out cold. As we watched the escaping horse scramble up the near-by hill, three cowboys took off after him. Ten minutes later, they returned with the horse in tow. In the mean time, other horses and riders took their turns. Then the most amazing thing happened. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I would have trouble believing it. After about 3 or 4 incredibly high jumps, this horse did a back-flip. Not quite a complete back-flip, as he came crashing straight down on his head, sending the rider to the ground. The horse appeared to have broken his neck. He made no move to get up. Three men ran to the horse, and after a few seconds, one shot him in the head where he lay. With great dispatch, the body was dragged from the arena by another horse and rider. I had had enough, and went to our car with the cameraman. Our conclusion was that these animals had been injected with something like speed, but maybe it was electric shock. We had no way of knowing, and had no footage of the horses. So it was with interest that I discovered the work of Sharkonline.org. I was just this minute told that the story was on the local Denver news last night. Check out the video work on YouTube by searching on Sharkonline or go to www.sharkonline.org and see what you think. Not a pretty picture. The video I’m putting up was not shot in Denver, but it best exemplifies the “shocking” details. This is not a sport.
Denver City Council meetings are usually long and mostly boring. Here I bring you selected clips from their meeting of 1-22-08. The Mayor's Extraordinary Event Powers (MEEP), to be imposed during the Democratic National Convention, are discussed by citizens and Councilpersons, in a hearing on Council Bills 35 and 36, regarding assembly in our parks and parades on our streets. This post is not intended to bring you a summary of what was said, but merely what I found interesting. I mostly prefer what the citizens have to say. If you want the entire 2+ hours, go to channel 8 online. (Technical note: After recording, editing, uploading to YouTube, and posting, I noticed there is a bit of slippage between the picture and sound. This was a result of the process, and could not be corrected.) Bill of Rights
Camping in the parks (I missed the first part of this one) Carla's Contribution First Amendment Free Speech Councilman Linkhart (the voice of reason) No Fees Street Medic
Temperature at 15F and spitting snow didn't stop the determined marchers in the 2008 Martin Luther King, Jr. annual Marade in Denver yesterday. Although the crowd seemed smaller than in previous years, their enthusiasm was still evident. I've left the video long just in case anyone is looking for themselves or their friends in the crowd.
From Colorado Daily.com Dead Ducks and the Pollution Puzzle By ADRIENNE ANDERSON Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:41 PM MST They say it's a “puzzle,” why ducks are dying in Denver. Now for a second winter in a row, ducks have been found drowning in the sewage treatment ponds of the Metro Wastewater plant, and also in other water bodies around the the metro Denver area. It's a puzzle, true. But what's most puzzling is why the area media keep ducking the issue of what's likely behind these tragic wildlife losses and allowing absurd statements of government officials to go unchallenged, especially when the most obvious piece of the puzzle is being ignored. In the winter of 2007, over 1,000 dead ducks were collected around metro Denver, the bulk of them drowning in a holding basin at the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District along the banks of the South Platte River in north Denver, near Commerce City. In an early TV broadcast over the duck deaths, Jennifer Churchill, a PR staffer for the Colorado Division of Wildlife was interviewed at the Metro Wastewater plant site. She said it appeared the ducks were drowning because they had lost the waterproofing on their feathers. Claims were made in subsequent weeks that testing by both DoW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be conducted, and that the public would be notified of the results. However, officials have since back-paddled over this. Continue reading...
Over 1,000 ducks have died “mysteriously” in and around Denver’s water and wastewater treatment facilities in the past two years. Officials are mystified and scratching their heads. Reporters are content to leave it at that. Ducks, they keep on dyin’.
You have until January 15, 2008 to notify Governor Ritter that the proposed change in the reporting of levels of NDMA, a proven carcinogen, should not be allowed. This crap in our drinking water can kill or deform our babies.
Copy and paste
Highlight the paragraph below, copy with Ctrl-C and then Go here to contact Gov. Ritter. Use Ctrl-V to paste into your comment. Just do it. It takes less than 1 minute.
On January 15, 2008, The Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is proposing to change the level of reporting for NDMA, a potent carcinogen. Under the plan, a lab in Colorado would not have to report detections of NDMA in submitted samples unless the level was nearly 73,000 times above that considered safe for public health protection. Currently, the state standard for NDMA is 0.69 parts per trillion - an amount equivalent to less that half a teaspoon of the chemical in 500 Olympic sized swimming pools. Yet under the proposal, while the standard would remain unchanged, the level at which its presence would have to be reported would be raised to 50,000 parts per trillion. Governor Ritter, please do not allow this to happen.
Go here to read more. But don't let reading stop you from writing. You can make a difference.
Inside the Recycling Plant
"The ACLU also says proposals that would require permits for the free speech of "one or more persons” are unconstitutional. The ACLU letter claims the permit requirement “is broad enough to include one person walking through or sitting in a park with a sign that states ‘Repent Now! The End is Near’ or ‘Impeach the Mayor.’ Indeed, it is so broad as to include a person walking through or sitting in a park wearing a T-shirt containing such a message.”Hearing today, Jan 2? I can't find it on any agenda. Stay tuned.
Posts
All Comments
