Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (30493)	2/20/2004 10:18:33 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793708

Election politics is politics for me, all this other stuff strikes me as hobbies for people with Not Enough To Do in Their Lives. I just don't think of the WTO folks as "political" in my frame of reference- they are people with a cause, like abortion protestors- but I don't consider abortion folks "poltical" either. Sorry your mind has been boggled. When I think of politics I think of election politics- should have made that clear. (Now bear in mind, that is the way I think of it, I'm not saying other people should think of it that way, and I'm not criticizing you.) Seattle seems to have made a big impression on some people- too big, imo. We are such a peaceful country, our people seem to be willing to give up their liberties at the first hint of any troubles. It is unfortunate we are such a wimpy people. Again, I say this generally, not aimed at you. The case of abortion protestors in residential areas turned on residential privacy; it is inapt to the case of a huge political event. People at a political event have never, that I can recall, been called "captives" in any case, and of course the "residential" nature of such a crowd could never be at issue. I'd be interested in which case the SC called them captives. Do you have such a case? The supreme court has said in the instance of violent protestors, or criminal ones,(for example, people blocking access to clinic when a woman as a right to enter it- under federal statute FACE) that the act of restricting them will necessarily affect only certain people, but I do not recall reading a case where peaceful protestors were restricted, and only one side of the protestors were restricted. If you can find such a case I would love to read it. I would especially love to read such a case if it applied to election politics. The court has been very clear that the suppression of ideas must not be entangled in such spatial restrictions on speech, although they have had some weird language about the after effects of speech being subject to regulation- which was some fancy foot dancing they had to do to take care of abortion protestors; I don't think anyone but a partisan could argue that the suppression of ideas, one side of the political debate, was not the main agenda of the sequestering of folks with a different political pov than Bush's. But again, as I said, good try. Won't win though, imo. I'd be interested to read a specific case that says regulation of place is not a regulation of content, even it it does concern violent abortion protestors, or protestors criminally blocking clinic entrances. I may have missed some of the new cases. Be interested to read them- it will help me distinguish them better.