Bill Press thinks Whoopi and Linda got a raw deal. According to him, they aren’t free to exercise their rights to free speech like Bo Derek, Tom Selleck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Wayne Newton, Mel Gibson, Ben Stein, Robert Duvall, Ricky Schroeder, Delta Burke, Wynonna Judd, Naomi Judd, Reba McEntire, or Dennis Miller.
Sorry. Free speech is no guarantee of employment. You should know that, Bill. If I told some woman at work that she looked really nice today, and she got offended, I’d not only lose my job but probably end up in court.
Employment is market-driven. If people don’t care about what you say, an employer will keep you on. If the employer gets complaints, you’re outta there. You are not as important as his customers.
What Bill is really complaining about is the people at the concert. They should have simply sat quietly and not disturbed Linda as she praised God…I mean Michael Moore. Sorry. She doesn’t like Christians at her concerts.
I bet she could pack them in over in Paris!
Lets Review shall we?
According to the Weekly Standard Whoopi said:
Why that is treasonous vitriol!
But when Arnold says:
Oh, that is constructive banter.
But when Ronstadt dedicates a performance of “Desperado” to Moore and his film…Well, that is liberal bias!
But when Richard Riordan, the former Republican mayor of Los Angeles and currently California’s education commissioner tells a child that her name, Isis, means “stupid dirty girl,” well that is just a harmless slip of the tongue!
Sounds fair and balanced to me.
I am rfidtag and I approve this message.
Comment by rfidtag — July 24, 2004 @ 8:16 pm
I still love the fact that in a pre-performance interview with the Las-Vegas Review-Journal Ronstadt said and I quote: “If I annoy them enough maybe they’ll stop hiring me back”. Nice to see she was expecting the treatement she got, better still it was great to see what an ass the brit manager made of him self over a “song-dedication”. To paraphrase Allen Iverson : We’re talkin’ ’bout a song dedication, man, ya hear what I’m sayin, a song dedication.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — July 24, 2004 @ 11:01 pm
The joy of free speech is that I don’t have to listen to it if I don’t want to. If that means I walk out of a theater or quit buying a product someone endorses, that’s my avenue to express my views, as I am certainly not going to have a television crew interview me.
These people weren’t released for what they said, they were released because the company who employed them was about to lose money because other people speak in a different forum. I love capitalism and the free market.
It’s like the protesters who are upset about the security arrangement for the conventions. There are reasons there are rules. Their veiws, and expressions thereof, should not infringe on local commerce (who are paying rent to house their businesses) or other people’s freedom of movement.
Just because they have a right to say something doesn’t mean they have the right to do so anywhere they please.
Comment by Slice — July 25, 2004 @ 11:55 am
You’re making all kinds of assumptions about what I believe. I never once accused either Whoopi or Linda of anything. Nor did I ever praise Arnold’s comment. I pointed out the essence of market forces in regards to free speech.
If you want to have an honest discussion, please stick to the facts of what I stated. As far as the whole thing being a song dedication, I can’t judge. I can support a businessman who sees his customers going away in droves doing something to salvage his business.
You guys are far too defensive.
Comment by Bunker — July 25, 2004 @ 12:28 pm
Yet another double standard. Big business gets special rights that trump the rights of the people. Rights are for citizens, not Companies or Unions. The freedom to assemble is constitutionally protected. It is not a fair weather right to be allowed only if it is convenient.
What about my rights? I live here in NYC and quite frankly, that local commerce stuff is bunk. The City is suspending sales taxes, so we don’t get much out of it. Anyways, NYC has plenty of tourists in the summer, we don’t need this convention…I say give it to Houston or Dallas. But here, everyone that can is fleeing the city and shops are closing, all because of this convention. Look, I work in Times Square and the fear and the tight security of the convention is what is hindering commerce. Don’t believe me? It is about as close as you can get to a police state. People are afraid and it is not of protesters. The Republican convention is infringing on our rights as the people who live and work here. If I am right, the people of NYC are going to express this to Bloomberg with their votes in 2006.
Actually, that is what the constitution says:
Since when does not “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” mean I have to get a permit from the government?
I am rfidtag and I approve this message.
Comment by rfidtag — July 25, 2004 @ 4:18 pm
How about “promote the general welfare”?
Comment by Bunker — July 25, 2004 @ 4:54 pm
What does the Constitution actually say? How does it apply to the convention going on in Boston and the one soon to begin in NYC?
Setting up areas where demonstrators can raise all the hell they want doesn’t restrict their ability to say the things they want to say. It simply protects the people, like rfidtag, who live and work in the area. Of course, protestors often want to do exactly the opposite. Their goal is to disrupt everyone’s lives to the extent that someone pays attention to them.
As to the First Amendment, read it again. “Congress shall make no law…” What law has Congress passed to restrict protests in Boston or NYC? Bloomberg is causing all this? Well, I don’t see anything in the Constitution which prevents him from doing so. Does the New York Constitution restrict him? I don’t know the answer. But, if folks are as upset as you say, he will pay a political price. I love how people throw around the word “Big” as an epithet. What Big Businesses are being given special treatment? I would guess that the little guy who vends food is probably being protected by these arrangements more than any corporation.
Neither convention will accomplish anything other than provide air time for the political elite of this country. The nominees are chosen, the platforms already set. All that is left is to have some prime time coverage of our “betters.” I have no interest in either convention. But the Conventions are not the reason for all the problems. Cities around the country, including both Boston and NYC, host conventions of all kinds throughout the year. This kind of disruption isn’t the rule but the exception. I think you need to look at why that is.
Comment by Bunker — July 26, 2004 @ 6:42 am
I was beaten to the punch on the Congressional restriction issue. Federal laws are not determining when and where these organized protests are going to occur. Is there some federal pressure on the security arrangements? Sure. But they are not the ones who are directing the actions outside of MSG.
I have been a part of the security plan for many of these sorts of events (World Bank conventions, Inauguration, etc.) and have seen the damage inflicted by these protestors. The local governments have to steer the problems away to where they can do the least amount of damage to their communities.
One cannot argue with a straight face that it is better for the community and the Constitution that people are allowed to destroy others
Comment by Slice — July 26, 2004 @ 8:12 am
While I think you have a valid point about the Federal vs. State issue…The convention is a Federal function. You yourself claim to “have been a part of the security plan for many of these sorts of events” as a Federal employee. But I digress. The Federal Constitution and the various State Contitutions are fairly similar as far as having a Bill of Rights.
New York Constitution Article I, Section 9, 1st clause:
Hmmm. Same thing. Pretty much every state has a similar clause.
My personal feeling is that “peaceably assemble” doesn’t mean rioting and NYCers have to live here the day after, so I doubt there would be any “trashed delis, burned out clothing stores”.
Slice, can you provide me a link verifing that NAACP claim? I pointed out over at Sarah’s blog that I think that is a misrepresentation.
And finally, my sig is actually poking fun at Kerry as much as Bush. The message is a result of McCain-Fiengold.
I am rfidtag and I approve this message.
Comment by rfidtag — July 27, 2004 @ 8:31 am
I wish I had a link to the NAACP thing, but I don’t. I’m pretty sure I saw it on CNN.com. It was about two days after the incident, if you want to back-track. The jist of it as i read it was that they did not see this as a civil rights issue any further once the vicitm’s race was discovered. And truthfully, I don’t think it was the entire organization that was behind it, just the California chapter leadership.
I would agree with you on the NYCers not trashing their place, but most of the major offenders will be out-of-towners–the “professionals” who are used in a lot of the G-8 and World Bank protests, especially for the Republican Convention. There will probably even be a lot of Europeans involved.
As a side-bar on the security, we, and other federal agencies, fell under control of the local police chiefs or other city officials who were in charge (OEM for the WTC response, for example). We were usually under the fire chiefs, as we were there to handle any chem attack and they typically handle HazMat responses. These days there is a wide array of federal support for any event.
Comment by Slice — July 27, 2004 @ 12:10 pm
By the way, Slice is sitting in the desert heat right now with limited internet access. I know…I was at the same place last year.
Comment by Bunker — July 27, 2004 @ 4:45 pm
Here is my main problem with areas like the Free Speech cage in Boston. It is designed solely for one purpose: to discourage the act of protest. And for that reason, it’s blatantly contrary to the ideals embodied by America.
Pictures:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007397.html#007397
I am rfidtag and I approve this message.
Comment by rfidtag — July 27, 2004 @ 8:55 pm
That’s a perspective I don’t share, although you may be correct. Riots and senseless vandalism are also contrary to the ideals of America. Based on experiences with groups who have been quite vocal about their desire to disrupt the RNC convention, I think it is a smart move. I doubt, however, that it will prevent all of the damage.
I checked the photos, and it is difficult to assess the environment based on those. The entire area could be 100 square miles or 10 square feet. The pictures were shot to make it look like someone was doing it from inside a dog run. Any idea how large the area actually is, or how close to the action? I’ve only been to downtown Boston once, many years ago.
Comment by Bunker — July 28, 2004 @ 11:41 am
Keep in mind this is the Democratic Convention in Boston – Accroding to my research, the “Free Speech Zone” is a under a highway overpass surrounded by barbed wire and chain-link fencing. It is an area 25,800 square-feet next to the parking area for delegates’ buses, is the only area where protesters are allowed within sight of delegates themselves.
Concerns about “security” led officials to fully enclose it with chain-link fencing, razor wires, netting ,and cement barriers. It is also capped by netting by elevated Green Line tracks that slope down to 5 feet 9 inches above the ground at one point.
There are only two entry points the size of a standard office doorway in and out.
Here are some better pictures…Very slow right now.
Does that look like a place *you* would want to go to?
I am rfidtag and I approve this message
Comment by rfidtag — July 28, 2004 @ 1:01 pm
No, I wouldn’t be interested. I’ve been in far worse places, however. Then again, I’ve always felt protests were for folks who simply wanted attention.
Comment by Bunker — July 28, 2004 @ 7:08 pm