OFF: Free speech entended at US University!

[Paul Mather]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:51:40PM +0000, M Holmes wrote:

=> Paul Mather writes:
=>
=> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 01:45:06PM +0000, M Holmes wrote:
=> >
=> > => That University previously mentioned now has no fewer than six places
=> > => where you can speak freely:
=> > =>
=> > => http://www.thefire.org/pr.php?doc=texas_tech_120903.html
=> >
=> > Are these like the free speech areas into which President Bush corrals
=> > protesters during his campaign and official visits?
=>
=> Who knows? I can't be a protestor because I have a day job (and let's
=> face it, because "You can't borrow your way out of debt dumbass!" isn't
=> as telegenic as some of the other, albeit less accurate, banners) and
=> the nearest I've ever been to an official Bush campaign is a flashing
=> "W" badge that someone ( a pal who's the son of a Republican Party
=> bigwig) gave me and which I use to locate the tent at night at Glasters.
=>
=> > (Areas that are
=> > so far away from where he is appearing or passing by that they are
=> > literally out of his sight.
=>
=> I daresay he needs room to squeeze in the two and a half phalanxes of
=> armed guards who accompany him on these walkabouts.
=>
=> > They are also areas into which pro-Bush
=> > supporters are not required to be confined.)
=>
=> Not that it makes much difference since both the folks inside the
=> conferences and outside are anti free-trade. The folks inside are just
=> more willing to be hypoccritical about it.

The example I was thinking of is not the WTC/Republican Party
Conference-type appearances.  It was a fairly recent report on the CBS
evening news.  A specific example they cited was when Bush was doing
some kind of whistle-stop appearance at a small town.  The anti-Bush
protesters were herded off the beaten path, completely out of his
sight and earshot.  However, pro-Bush supporters (or those neutral to
him) were allowed to line Main Street and cheer and wave signs as his
motorcade drove buy.

Apparently this is standard MO at his personal appearances.

=> What's clearly needed is another Amendment that says:
=>
=> "Nobody has a right to never feel upset. There's upsetting shit going on.
=>  Deal with it."

I'm not sure that would help at all, except maybe the bank balances of
lawyers.

A corollary of the amendment would be that there are times when one
can legitimately feel upset.  The question then would be to delineate
exactly what and when they are.  (Hooray for the lawyers!)  The other
interpretation would be that any upsetting feelings could be
attributed to the "deal with it" part, meaning there are no times at
which you could legitimately be upset.  (Hooray for authoritarians!)
So, although superficially pragmatic, the amendment would appear to be
self-contradictory, or at least ambiguous. ;-)

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa