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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (69612)	5/31/2008 12:26:14 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542009

It's about drastically limiting public speech representing almost half the electorate. Drastically? C'mon. How about a little perspective? Separate it into neat little boxes for your purposes if you like, but this problem fits together in a single sheet. It does fit together, but it's not called "freedom of speech." It's about an unresponsive administration. Even if there were no limitations, they wouldn't listen to what was said. So the limitations are moot from the perspective of influencing the government. They aren't going to hear you. If they don't plan to listen, then they sure don't want annoying people shouting rude questions or potentially threatening their security. No one does. They would want that buffer even if they weren't trying to control what they can to maintain their image. So you can't blame the buffers on the image thing. The White House used its security power to shut out visible dissent... The folks they thought would be effectively silenced by sticking them three miles away (where network cameras won't bother to cover them) ended up playing a large (and disgruntled) part in the debate as the White House's political popularity fell away. Exactly, so they haven't suppressed free speech. Just because they keep protesters out of their camera shots doesn't mean speech doesn't get spoken and heard around the country. I understand being pissed at their attitude, really pissed, but calling this a free speech suppression issue is way over the top IMO. It's about an insular and uninterested administration whose policies are not your own.