What trespassing?
Protester at McCain event had a right to stand outside
Rocky Mountain News
Originally published 12:05 a.m., July 10, 2008
Updated 09:25 a.m., July 10, 2008
The courts should toss out the trespassing charges facing Carol Kreck, who was cited for bringing a sign reading "McCain = Bush" into the Galleria at the Denver Performing Arts Complex before Monday's town hall event featuring Sen. John McCain.
Kreck was in line to attend the rally, but says she never intended to enter the building. Whether she's telling the truth or not, she hadn't entered when police decided to ticket her for trespassing. Kreck argued she was on city property, refused to abandon the sign, and was escorted from the premises after receiving the citation.
It's one thing to ban all signs at the actual town hall meeting. We have no problem with that. But the Galleria - the glass-covered pedestrian walkway surrounded by several theaters and the complex's parking garage - should have been considered a public forum in this instance. Kreck should have been allowed to remain within it, sign in hand.
If Kreck prevails, a modest tweak in the policy against protests at facilities run by the Division of Theaters and Arenas would protect Denver from future lawsuits. Protesters should be allowed to exercise their rights during political events.
The division is correct in pointing out that its policy prohibiting signs, demonstrations and leafletting in the Galleria is longstanding and even-handed. It is not a content-based ban allowing some signs and prohibiting others depending on what they say. And the city can also cite a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, Hawkins v. City and County of Denver, which supported city policy.
Two years earlier, a local musicians' union had protested the Colorado Ballet's decision to use a recorded score rather than live musicians during a performance of Romeo and Juliet. Union members tried to use the Galleria to picket and hand out leaflets to ballet patrons. Police removed the protesters, who sued the city.
In the ruling, the 10th Circuit upheld the ban on leafletting, calling the complex a "nonpublic forum" where management can shoo away protesters or cite them for trespassing without violating the First Amendment.
Demonstrations are fine on the public streets surrounding the theater complex. But the court said the Galleria "does not qualify as a traditional public forum, for it is not a park, nor is it analogous to a public right of way or thoroughfare. . . . [I]t is closed to vehicles, and pedestrians do not generally use it as a throughway to another destination."
The problem, as we see it, is that the musicians' protest was in no way similar to a political protest at a town hall meeting that is open to the public and purely political in nature.
Attorney David Lane, who's representing Kreck, also argues that his client should prevail in part because a 1991 Colorado Supreme Court decision allows protesters to demonstrate in the common areas of a shopping mall, which is not a traditional public forum.
Ironically, the Hawkins decision could also place the city on shaky ground. One reason the Galleria could not be considered a "designated public forum," the court said, is because "Denver has neither in policy nor practice thrown open the Galleria for public expressive activity." And yet by booking McCain's town hall, the city had "thrown open" the Galleria for "public expressive activity."
Either the policy needs to be adjusted to accommodate protests at purely political events, or the city should not schedule them at its venues.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 10, 2008
5:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
After re-reading this piece a few times I am struck of how the writer interpets the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, Hawkins v. City and County of Denver, which supported city policy. Nowhere in the text cited does it differenate between a number of people protesting or one person(I have seen the youtube video on Krecks protest, there were others in customes as well). Kreck was protesting and her sign "statement" has been used in many protests across the country. No matter how Kreck, etal rationalize, sugarcoat, etc her sign...it is still a protest and the Galleria is not public property nor a public forum. She has no case and it is silly and a waste of time for her to pursue otherwise.
July 10, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
I agree. A ban universally applied on private property, even when used for political purposes, should be upheld. Public protest is fine but we still have private property in this country and it needs to be respected or we lose it.
July 10, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
Kreck and others were holding signs and there was no problem until the line actually began moving into the building. It was then that the Secret Service notified the DCPA fellow who asked that Kreck drop the sign...because NO signs/banners were allowed inside. It appeared that Kreck wanted to enter the event because she had been standing in line.
According to Bill Johnson's article yesterday, Kreck was told numerous times that signs were not allowed in the ballroom and as the line began to move it must have appeared that she was going to challenge that rule.
Bottom line: I was there and there was no problem with any signs/costumes until the time we began to move toward entering the building. I agree with plotz, this is silly and a waste of time.
July 10, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
The republican party won't rest till they have this country like the USSR.
July 10, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
One person must never be allowed to disrupt an event attended by a large number of people.
That seemed to be Krek's agenda (as innocent as she 'pretended' to be).
Some radicals are proposing 'anarchy'. But that's not what America is about.
July 10, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Since when is the "Galleria" area between the various venues of the DCPA private property? It's essentially a walkway between 14th St. and Speer Blvd.! Kreck should have never been asked to leave, period. She was simply holding a sign in protest, and the last time I checked, protesting peacefully on public property is perfectly fine. Would you be saying the same thing if it were Obama in the fundraiser and a Republican protester was holding up a sign in the Galleria area? I'll bet not.
July 10, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Kreck got her 15 minutes which is exactly what she wanted. She has no case, and should pay the fine. How many times do you have to tell someone they can't bring a sign in? Protestors tend to be morons these days, trying to make a point instead of getting their message out. I am pretty certain this was not what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote "Freedom of speech." David Lane, GET A REAL JOB!
July 10, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
glowrock, the problem is that Kreck was not protesting. She was standing in line to enter the event (although now she says she never intended to do so). I am confident that if she had been merely standing outside protesting, no ticket would have been issued.
July 10, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
dilligaf, so when the DNC comes to town at the public pepsi center recreate68 and other groups that plan to protest will be welcomed inside?
July 10, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Who the heck said INSIDE??? She wasn't INSIDE, she was OUTSIDE!
July 10, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Letsthink writes:
"One person must never be allowed to disrupt an event attended by a large number of people."
Read the constitution much?
She wasn't the only person holding a sign and the "disruption" only occurred when security guards detained her.
Sheepherder writes:
"Kreck got her 15 minutes which is exactly what she wants."
If they had not arrested her, you would not even know here name. She didn't set out to get arrested, but when she was being detained over a sign, she had the courage to stand up for herself and was arrested. This is the same kind of fortitude that our founding fathers displayed. Were they just seeking a little fame?
July 10, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
bitwranglers writes:
Even those who provoke anarchy do not like its consequences ....
July 10, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
The more I learn about this incident the less comfortable I am.
Kreck and her krew got their YouTube money shot, they're probably quite pleased. That's a clever piece of work, but no crime.
I have the impression that it was the Secret Service, not the DPD, that was so insistent that she get rid of the sign. When she refused, the DPD wrote the trespassing ticket.
All of this happened well over an hour before the doors opened.
I have always thought that the DCPA was municipal property. There aren't any "no loitering" signs or any other indication that the open spaces are trespassable.
So, what prompted the Secret Service to be so worried about signs in line? We have to presume that they don't electioneer on behalf of their charge, so there has to be some security rationale.
The only thing that my paranoid little mind can conjure up is that signs and protests might distract from more serious threats - get them out of the way to concentrate on the bad guys. Queues are vulnerable, most of the really successful suicide bombings occur when a large number of people are waiting in line. If I squint really, really hard I can see that logic. But, what is the probability of anything like that in good old cowtown Denver? (Konyok's reason number 27 to oppose the DNC convention ...)
On balance, I have to agree with the editorial. Ms. Kreck's free speech rights far outweigh the convenience of the Secret Service.
July 10, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Froward69,
Are you ever able to discuss the merits without sloganeering?
July 10, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Strange how all the righties keep insisting that the first amendment doesn't apply anymore. Its a post-9/11 mindset!
July 10, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
This attitude of zero tolerance of dissent is more appropriate for China and Burma. If there are any incidents at the DNC, there is a possibility that they will be caused by overzealous law enforcement, and Rush Limbaugh's prayers will be answered.
July 10, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
OK, let us try this again...10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, Hawkins v. City and County of Denver, which supported city policy, stating: "does not qualify as a traditional public forum, for it is not a park, nor is it analogous to a public right of way or thoroughfare. . . . [I]t is closed to vehicles, and pedestrians do not generally use it as a throughway to another destination."
This upheld the city contention and until changed...is in effect and I believe that it is correct. There is no argument or merit on Kreck etal part. She was protesting, she violated city property. If she thinks the city and courts are wrong...she should get an attorney(and she should have no trouble finding one) and argue the case before a court. It is as simple as that.
July 10, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, "It is republicans' ardent and paranoid disdain for opposing views, plain and simple.", from your post of 7/9/08 @ a front yard in need of repair @ 9:16am "I am going to the bathroom to push out another republican.", so the DNC will be open to recreate68?
Tbone, sort of like the liberal democrats restricting freedon of speech at the DNC? Go yell fire in a crowded theatre and then tell the judge all about your freedom of speech, right or left.
July 10, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
When police ask you to leave even a public place and you refuse that call trespassing. Thats called the law look its up I know most Democrats and Lefty liberals only follow the LAW when it fits them but hay thats the way it works. She was asked to remove the sign she refused the police explained that the signs were not allowed and she would have to leave if she refused to remove the sign, She refused so the police asked her to leave , she refused so she broke the law so the police gave her a chance she selected trespassing. She broke the law as it applies to everyone she is not special.
July 10, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
Thanks, plotz for continuing to clarify. I would also like to remind everyone: She was standing in the line of people wanting to enter the building. She was told no signs were allowed inside. After the photographers were admitted into the building, we were told we'd be able to enter. A few minutes later we were given the go-ahead to start through security and the line began to move. It was during this timeframe that the Secret Service (not John McCain, not a group of Republicans) instructed someone to tell her again no signs were allowed inside and THEN she began talking to the video cameras and received a TICKET. She was not arrested. If she had been standing out of the line and not appeared as though she wanted to enter the building, I sincerely doubt the Secret Service would have cared at all.
July 10, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steve7485 writes:
I wonder whether one of the ProgressNow people ratted her out just to create a scene they could videotape.
July 10, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Plotz,
I appreciate the precedent and you may well be technically correct, but I agree with the editorial that there is a greater principle of free political expression at stake here. This may be the case to overturn Hawkins.
July 10, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Just because the police ask you to do something does not mean you have to or that they have any right to make the request. Sheesh - are there really that many sheep in Denver. If it looks like a public space and is paid for with tax dollars the right to assemble and exercise free speech (a sign is definitely speech) should not be in question. If there was a court ruling that said signs could be banned from a public place, that ruling needs to be revisited and over turned.
The last time I checked the first amendment was still part of the constitution. It is about time we start to protest the police state that is being forced on us. Either protest now or deal with a revolution later. Eventually people will take back their rights one way or another.
July 10, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
Would you support Fred Phelps and his merry crew protesting at DCPA?
July 10, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
JSeifert,
I respect your right to have your say, but your inability to write out a coherent sentence, much less a paragraph, doesn't do much for whatever argument you are trying to make.
July 10, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
Would you support Fred Phelps and his merry crew protesting at DCPA?
**********************************************************
There's a WORLD of difference between "Bush = McCain" and "God hates f...", which is the sign most often displayed at a Phelps protest.
What I'd like to know is what exactly defines "protesting".
Holding a sign in public?
I see people on street corners holding signs begging for money, advertising sales at local businesses and there's one guy who rides all around the downtown-Cherry Creek area stopping at street corners with signs that say things like "Clinton raped Juanita".
They can all be offensive at times. And they're not always on public property.
I've seen them on the 16th Street Mall which is operated and managed by the Downtown Denver Partnership, a "quasi-governmental management organization" funded by downtown commerical property owners.
July 10, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Dear Konyok - I would support any citizen's right to assemble and exercise free speech in any space paid for by tax dollars and freely open to the public without the need for a ticket to get in - as long as they do not endanger anyone's life in the process. But you know that - why even ask the question.
July 10, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
I didn't know that, that's why I asked.
So many posters are just trying to score points, not discover the truth.
I tip my hat.
;)
zivo24,
That's why I posed the hard case with an eye to splitting the goats from the sheep.
Phelps is purposefully offensive and it's nearly impossible to support his actions. BUT, he is making a political point. Phelps is salient because he forces us to think about what our community standards are and how to square them with the 1st amendment.
One of the dangers is the tyranny of the majority.
Another is the convenience of law enforcement.
July 10, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
I'm squarely in the William O. Douglas camp on the first amendment - there was no ambiguity intended. Freedom of speech is absolute. I might be willing to make the exception for when speech physically endangers someone's life (the classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre) - but even there I would be most cautious.
I realize there aren't may of us left who believe both the first and second amendments are there specifically to prevent a police state. If you don't like what someone is saying or showing on a printed sign, tee shirt, hat, whatever... don't listen, read, view, etc. That's your right just as it is mine to get whatever message I choose out into the public space. Isn't freedom wonderful? Let's celebrate the fact that the police do NOT have the right to cut off discourse - no matter how offensive it may be to groups of people - even if it is offensive to the vast majority, it is still protected speech.
July 10, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Read the editorial...... where she was holding the sign is NOT considered public property. It's non-public property, and there's a right to have anyone removed for any reason.
conniesz, I agree that if it's on public property, she'd have the right to free speech and everything, but that's not the case here, according to the editorial.
July 10, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
I'm not an absolutist, but I do think the balance should always tilted towards freedom.
What about the case of non-state actions? Does the protestor's right of expression extend to squelching the speech of another? How should we draw those boundaries?
Cwillyrun1,
I have to confess that I'm a bit confused. Is DCPA public or private property? Who owns it? Do they pay property taxes?
July 10, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"the glass-covered pedestrian walkway surrounded by several theaters and the complex's parking garage - should have been considered a public forum in this instance."
In this instance. So one set of laws for the general public, and changing them so that criminals can do what they want "in THIS instance".
It will be funny to watch the Dimwitocrats do their flipflop routines to excuse away the violations of tens of thousands of cases of "free speech".
July 10, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
DCPA presents myriad of shows at times themed with contoversial material. WIT, Angels in America, Sweeny Todd (a musical of a barber and cohort who butcher people and grind the body parts into pies and serves them to the public). That's entertainment? That's sick in some people's opinion. The blade cuts both ways so to speak. (I confess that I like this Sondhiem work). Yet the DCPA is allowed to present these shows because we live in the USA and we permit freedom of expression.
How a common citizen equating the current Republican President with the presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee with a visual sign on the grounds of the DCPA is tresspassing is indefensible. This would make Jesse Helms blush!
Contact the DCPA and let them know your discontent. 303-893-4100.
or email them: http://www.denvercenter.org/faq/conta...
July 10, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
I find myself wondering why there have been 2 or three columns devoted to this incident, and yet the "free speech" pen that is being planned for the DNC gets so little coverage?
July 10, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
do you think keeping protesters a safe distance from the convention is infringing upon free speech, reason?
July 10, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Reason,
I think it's largely a matter of scale.
I just can't imagine how a handful of people at DCPA can be construed as a threat to anybody. But, thousands at DNC are a different matter altogether.
Also, I think that most Denverites are more worried about traffic disruptions than fine points of free speech.
July 10, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
As far as interfering with someone else's right to free speech - physically touching someone is assault, so that's already covered - shouting louder than they are is indeed free speech, although I doubt you will win any friends or arguments that way, it is protected speech in a public space where you did not have to have a ticket to get in.
As for DCPA's Galleria not being a public space - I question whatever weird decision declared such an absurdity and I hope the ACLU gets that decision overturned. If tax dollars pay for it and you don't need a ticket to get in it is a public space.
July 10, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
conniesz, I believe DCPA is owned by the City of Denver. As for the other questions..... I don't know, but they are good questions. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of ticketing her and removing her, as long as she was staying outside the building. In the end, it seems petty, but if the 10th Circuit is correct in their opinion, the city would have the right to have her removed.
Some points about how the DNC is limiting protestors brings up valid questions. Why is it okay in that instance to limit protestors to a certain area, but those protesting against Republican events feel it's different in those situations?
July 10, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
This sounds simple enough: have signs, banners, hats, buttons that support McSame thats OK (inside or outside the building). However, if you have anything that is antagonistic of McSame, you get thrown out (inside or outside). So then, you have freedom as long as they agree with you; this just confirms my vote for someone other than McSame.
July 10, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Since the Democrats changed the venue from the Pepsi Center (private property) to Mile High Stadium (taxpayer funded and owned), does that mean protestors have a right to hold signs and wear what they want in the stadium, in the name of freedom of speech? If it's on taxpayer owned property (not Denver owned at that, but the six counties that make up the stadium district covering Mile High and Coors Field)), I'd have to think not even the Denver police would have the right to stop protestors.
July 10, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
LetsThink tell us: "One person must never be allowed to disrupt an event attended by a large number of people."
So much for the Second Coming of Christ, eh, LT?
July 10, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patriot2012 writes:
again ...we have tyrants in OUR government getting away with Communist tactics.....Who are these people and why are they acting this way? Isnt this the very stuff we fight against?
This is exactly what we need to think about. We fight for our Freedom HERE in this country as we have domestic enemies big time.
I can only say, if our Founding fathers were alive today, they would turn around and arrest the Cops on the dot and those that gave them that order for their behavior. Americans one day and soon are going to have to physicially take on those that do not represent us nor the Constitution. We the people need the people's courts and arrest powers provided to serve and protect us from those Nazi's. Their excuse? Only following orders? Well I'll be, I would not give a damn. The tables will need to be turned soon.
July 10, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Some points about how the DNC is limiting protestors brings up valid questions. Why is it okay in that instance to limit protestors to a certain area, but those protesting against Republican events feel it's different in those situations?"
i'll ask you too, cwilly. do you believe that requiring protesters to be a safe distance from the convention goers is infringing upon free speech?
July 10, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Patriot
This is why we have guns, to fight against those who would try to take our freedoms. By the way, love the name!
July 10, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Jay
I'll answer that, YES!
July 10, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
One of the purposes of political speech is to remind politicians and government officials of who they should be working for and what we think of them.
When John McCain held his little shindig in the Galleria, he made it a general pubic forum.
If an organization holds a rally in that space then they need to get a permit from the city or property owners. If granted permission then other people may still enter the space and disagree with them. If McCain holds a rally in that space then he makes it a public forum because of his campaign and his role in public life. Other people may then enter the space and disagree with him.
I don't care what political party you're from. If you want to be a leader in this country then you must be willing to face the people. Having your goons push them around, harass, or haul them into court for carrying signs is the mark of a cowardly autocrat. I reckon we've had just about enough of that.
Let's vote for those who provide the most access for the people.
July 10, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
Like I said, I'm not an absolutist. Your standard of the fist actually touching my nose is a bit too fine for me. Angry crowds and mobs can be very intimidating.
Would you say that Eisenhower was justified in sending army troops to Little Rock in 1957? (True enough, they didn't arrest anybody, but they did form a barrier to allow the kids to go to school.) The government intervened to dilute the free speech rights of the mob and enforce the rights of the kids.
July 10, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
Konyok, I didn't mean for the question to be taken completely seriously, although I think in today's world a single person is quite capable of creating a threat should that be their purpose. I was meaning more to point out that many of the posters decrying this incident have no qualms about a similar infringement when it occurs to someone they disagree with.
I also think your point about traffic disruptions is pertinent, as I understand it, traffic disruptions cost Boston millions of dollars in 2004.
July 10, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
LuckyMe writes:
According to the City and County of Denver Assessor, the Performing Arts Complex (entire complex) is owned by the City and County of Denver and does not pay property tax (according to the Treasurers office). So how come the inside is considered "private" and the outside is considered "public". It's either private or public. Makes no sense to me. I would challenge this myself.
July 10, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Lucky
It's private or public based on what suits their needs best. Its kinda like when the city of Denver voted for the adult possession of marijuana, but is still ticketing at the state level. Now Denver is a Homerule city (thats my understanding) but they choose which side to take.
July 10, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
LuckyMe writes:
Thanks Freedomfighter1,
I love that logic. It makes me feel like a kid again (spinning in circles until you fall down.) Wheeeeee!!!!
July 10, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
What a great discussion! For the most part, this has been a wonderful exchange of ideas and questions.
Just one thing freedomfighter1, there were a lot of Obama supporters who were in the actual Town Hall event. They were admitted wearing their buttons and t-shirts. In fact, Sen. McCain spent more than half of his time answering their questions. It was an openly hostile group, at times, but everyone was respectful and allowed one another to speak.
I only wish more people had been able to attend and participate in this informative event. In fact, had Kreck put away her sign and come inside she probably would have found many kindred spirits.
July 10, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Reason,
There is such a variety of posters here, I don't think any kind of generalization is possible.
I do agree about your concern with situational freedom of speech. Too many people seem to think that their own speech is protected, but the other guy's is offensive.
July 10, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Sunlin
Then why wasn't she able to stand outside with her sign? Was it because the sign was larger than the buttons on the shirts?
July 10, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
McCarthyism...meet McCainism
July 10, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
GladysKravitz,
That's an awfully cute slogan.
Now, can you flesh it it out with a little bit of reasoning?
July 10, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
freedomfighter1
She did stand outside for quite awhile. It wasn't until the line started to move inside (where no signs/banners of ANY kind were permitted) that the Secret Service notified DCPA personnel.
My point is that if she simply wanted to protest (although I'm not sure how McCain=Bush is protesting) all she needed to do was to move out of the line. There was plenty of room to protest and not look like someone who was trying to bring a sign in, after they were told no signs were allowed.
It really wasn't as though she just showed up and was asked to leave. She was there for some time before we started to enter the building.
July 10, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Konyok: I think you got the satire. But please see my earlier post to satisfy your request for reasoning.
July 10, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Gladys,
Sorry, I didn't get the satire.
That is just the level of rhetoric that I see all around me. Whether the incessant McSame drumbeat or Osama Obama taunts, the silly and the facile dominate the discourse.
(Then we have Patriot2012 and freedomfighter1 beating their chests in the back of the room calling for political violence and "people's courts," what is traditionally known as a lynch mob.)
No, sorry, I don't get the satire.
What I do know is that our system is not indestructable. It doesn't belong to the politicians and it isn't their responsibility to keep it whole. We the people are on our own, there is no big daddy to save us. If we allow ourselves to be torn apart because of what are actually trivial differences we can only blame ourselves. Sure, this is just a lousy little internet forum, but if this is an honest microcosm of the country we're in big trouble.
I found myself in the middle of an anti-Chinese riot in Jakarta in 1999. I saw people that I had seen before and shared smiles with in marketplace with bricks, stones and sticks hunting for Chinese to beat to death.
No, I don't get the satire. But, I have a very keen sense of what lies down the road of demonization.
July 10, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, the answer is yes and no........ I'd say generally though, yes it is infringing upon freedom of speech. It's not, in the sense that they still have a right to publicly protest. But it is because they're being forced far away from the actual event. I don't think protestors should be allowed to block the right of ways, in the way AIM does with the Columbus Day Parade. I'd say it's okay to secure a perimeter to allow those attending an event to have safe access, but for the protestors caged area to be so far away is bordering on censorship..... whether it's done by Republicans or Democrats.
July 10, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
treecat writes:
she was OUTSIDE!
July 10, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" it is because they're being forced far away from the actual event."
really? i thought they were being allowed to protest in the parking lot at the pepsi center and invesco...is that not the case?
konyok, are you still running from the mcsame stuff?
do we need to go over the exercise again?
July 10, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Konyok: I have been in my fair share of loud protests in too... I simply believe in free speech, even opinions of expression that I do not agree with. Of course I prefer it to be civil as well, and when those who are not so civil raise the level...they must be willing accept to an equal level of response.
Sorry you do not "get" my level of satire, sarcasm, humor or otherwise. Sometimes my attempts at humor just don't get through to some people.
Just curious: Do you get the reference to my user name? That's also satirical, humorous. If not reference the name Gladys Kravitz on Google or Wykepedia.
July 10, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
I think Gladys Kravitz is the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched," no?
July 10, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay,
I defer to your superior intellect.
Your tattered slogan definitely trumps logic and reason.
July 10, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
Konyok, you're right about the generalization, I shouldn't speak so broadly when I'm really just referring to one poster who shall remain nameless. I appreciate the manner in which you post here, some of the threads with discussions between you and greenleaf have been very informative and civil. It's nice to see writers who don't have to spend all of their words in pointless namecalling and partisanship.
July 10, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Thanks for your kind words, Reason.
What really gets me is that objectively there is so little difference between the two parties. What is at stake is who occupies the political appointments in the federal agencies and, most importantly, who is appointed to the federal courts.
The president has some discretion, but depends on Congress for funding and most of the time is merely responding to events. I would estimate that at least 80% and probably more like 90% of the decisions that a given president makes are identical to what his/her opponent would have made.
America's great blessing has been that we have always been so moderate. No guillotines, no 4th or 5th republic. This contrasts starkly with most countries where politics is truly a life and death struggle.
It seems that we get so caught up in it, and the political operatives are so anxious to energize their base, that we lose sight of just how trivial our differences are.
What does frighten me is how many people confuse rhetoric for reality.
This very forum about Ms. Kreck is a great example. In most countries of the world she would have received a beating and either put into jail or a psychiatric hospital. She got a ticket, which I sincerly hope she beats.
July 10, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Had to leave the discussion to get some work done :-)
As for Little Rock - I'm never big on sending in troops for any reason, however (you just knew there was a however, didn't you), when people are physically blocking someone's lawful access it is no longer a matter of freedom of speech. Blocking lawful access is also a form of assault.
Yes, mobs can be intimidating, so can a lot of speech by an individual, but until an actual law is broken, speech MUST be protected absolutely. Don't like what someone is saying - leave or grow a thicker skin.
I do not thing the originators of the Bill of Rights wanted to equivocate on anything - they delineated what they thought were some absolutes to keep government in line - and to ensure that all voices would be heard, even threatening, intimidating, offensive, and downright disgusting voices.
July 10, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Conniesz,
Once you add that "however" I'm right there with you.
I do think that there is a civil community element also. Personally, I have a real problem with racial/ethnic/gender ephithets. (No, I'm NOT obsessed with PC, I just feel that common decency is prerequisite to democracy.) I sure don't think the government should enforce speech codes, but I do feel that the community has a role in shaming offensive speech.
July 10, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
I agree with the article's statement " yet by booking McCain's town hall, the city had "thrown open" the Galleria for "public expressive activity."
The Colorado Bill of Rights says "Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact."
I think that Section 10 should be true in shopping centers too with just restrictions on porno, threats, fraud, defamation, and unpaid advertising. What is really "offensive" that isn't porno, threats, fraud or defamation? Advertising guidelines should be clear.
July 10, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, from what I understand about where the protestors are staged at, it's not close at all to where the delegates can hear the protestors messages. Do you know if that's the case?
July 10, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Konyok: Yes you are correct!
July 10, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Kay, I have relatives on my Mom's side that are in Wisconsin. Isn't that where you're from....... and if so, by what part of the state?
July 10, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Sulin
She wasn't told that she couldn't bring the sign in, she was told to leave the area. I did not see her arguing about entering, but standing where she was. And McCain=Bush is stating that they have the same policies and ideals. I think she has the right to say it or protest about it. I am not arguing symantics here. She had the right to say or express herself and they took that away from her.
July 10, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
freedomfighter, Denver has a statute already supported by the courts that says in the area she was in, signs are forbidden.
Nobody denied her right to protest, she was just denied the ability to hold a sign up where she wasn't supposed to. Where nobody is supposed to.
July 10, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
MMaurin writes:
If you are interested, the Colorado Supreme Court case involving protesters and the shopping mall is Bock v. Westminster Mall Co., 819 P.2d 55 (1991). The Court took pride that the Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 10, "provides greater protection of free speech than does the First Amendment."
July 10, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Imagine George Carlin running for office and not letting the hecklers, the t-shirt wearers, and the sign holders in. A politician with a backbone would.
That goes for both sides. Can`t listen to and handle the rowdy ones, then how can they handle the stress of office. Not everyone loves you when you run for office.
Watch for the guy or gal who gets all pinch faced when someone challenges them. Like Bush does with the press core. Facial language is priceless.
July 10, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Cwilly
Was anyone wearing political buttoms, hats or the like in this area?
July 10, 2008
5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
MMaurin writes:
If Ms. Kreck had been wearing a T-shirt that said "McCain=Bush," would the DCPA have insisted she remove it before entering the Galleria?
July 10, 2008
8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
sulin writes:
Look, unless you are a member of the Secret Service and were there at the DCPA on 7-7-08, then you don't know for sure what their concern was about Kreck (and neither do I).
All I know is what I witnessed (not what I saw on an edited version of YouTube). Kreck and others were standing in the galleria. According to an article written by Bill Johnson, as told to him by Kreck, published in this paper yesterday, Kreck was told repeatedly that signs were not allowed inside.
According to her, she was standing in line OUTSIDE and that is why she was told she could not bring a sign inside. If she had not been pretending that she was going to actually attend the event, I doubt very sincerely that the Secret Service would have cared at all.
I base this on my observation of her and others (namely the "Pea" man) being able to stand in front of the building completely free to protest the entire time that I was there. I was in line for two and half hours and it was not until we (at the front of line) were being readied to enter the building that the Secret Service notified DCPA about Kreck.
As to whatever legalities were involved in her protesting, I cannot address those. I only know about what I witnessed.
As I've said before, there were MANY Obama supporters (even those wearing Obama buttons) who made their way into the Town Hall event and were handed the mike by Sen. McCain himself so they could ask whatever questions they wanted.
July 10, 2008
8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
The headline says "protester"; she was not protesting anything, she was campaigning. She and her crew got what they wanted; exposure.
July 11, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Brain,
What an elegantly simple clarification. Of course you're right. She wasn't protesting a policy or position of Senator McCain, she was amplifying a slogan of the Obama campaign.
It brings to mind another case to ponder. Is it a breach of freedom of speech to forbid electioneering in polling places?
July 11, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"she was amplifying a slogan of the Obama campaign."
no she wasn't, konyok...she was simply correctly illustrating that mccain's policy stances are a continuation of bush's platform
are you still running away from that politically inconvenient fact?
should we go through it again so there's no doubt about it or do you want to save us some time and just concede the point?
July 11, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
cwilly...i understand that the protestors will be allowed to protest in lot A at the pepsi center...directly adjacent to the venue...is that not the case?
July 11, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay,
Do you deny that the McCain = Bush slogan originated with the Obama campaign?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/...
July 11, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
jay, it is only your OPINION, no fact that McCain and Bush are the same.
July 12, 2008
12:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
iG writes:
Who is the suit?
July 12, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
I know this is nitpicking, but didn't I read that the Secret Service came out and said they had nothing to do with this, that it was McCain campaign folks who pulled in the police (who in this case were in a "damned if they did, damned if they didn't" position)? Perhaps the folks blaming the Secret Service missed that "disclaimer".