kerry miller wrote: > --- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> True, but in the 20th Century the practice became >>> more common over >>> time, not less so, and that makes the current lack >>> -- utter lack -- of >>> coverage fairly telling. Recall this is the same >>> administration that >>> deliberately cordons off any possible protesters >>> into "free speech >>> zones" so Bush doesn't have to see them. >> >> Well, maybe it means we learn from experience. >> >> The "free speech zone" concept, by the way, is one >> most famously implemented by liberal universities, and >> put into place for the President under the Clinton >> Administration. There's nothing new about how the >> Bush Administration does it, particularly given the >> increased security threat it faces. > > I don't know much about the history of FSZs, but I think they're a bad > idea all-around (same with pre-emptive arrests of dissidents) > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9703-2004Sep9.html
One uniformed Secret Service agent complained to a colleague that "the press is having a field day" with the disruption -- and the agents quickly clamped down. Journalists were told that if they sought to approach the demonstrators, they would not be allowed to return to the event site -- even though their colleagues were free to come and go. An agent, who did not give his name, told one journalist who was blocked from returning to the speech that this was punishment for approaching the demonstrators and that there was a "different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists. ****************************************** This kind of stuff? xponent The Criminal Administration Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
