Freedom Cage
The Democratic Party should be ashamed of the Freedom Cage that blights this convention: the “Free Speech Zone,” a parking lot out of sight of everyone at the back of the enormous downtown security area, ringed with two sets of 10-foot tall steel barriers guarded by black-clad riot commandos armed with gas and guns. This is the location for anyone who wants to demonstrate at the convention.
This Orwellian creation, invented in Atlanta in 1988 and used with enthusiasm by the Bush administration, is a disgrace and should be abolished. It is not about freedom of speech but about silencing dissent: these cages weaken us by limiting discussion, and represent a failure by the civil authorities to do their job, which is to protect freedom, not to destroy it.
David and I bicycled to the Denver freedom cage, which is the only practical way to get there. We found it predictably deserted (see photo above). We chatted with the police, who were excellent individuals, and David sang God Bless America and the Star Spangled Banner for them, to applause. An MTV camera crew trundled up a few minutes after we arrived. They reported the story on their blog and recorded David. We’ll see if he is on TV. Pictures of the Justice Tower and Liberty Microphone are after the flip.
A sorry reminder of the limits to freedom in America. Where are the editorials excoriating this tragic creation in Denver, and why does the Democratic Party — which has made a lot of speeches here about the Land of the Free (“When you see the abuse of power, you have got to speak” – Joe Biden, acceptance video tonight) — tolerate them.
Liberty Tower
First Amendment Podium
Public Viewing Speaking Timetable (note that this sheet is from the day before, and has not been replaced with a new one because no one is using the cage)
Discuss
12 Comments . Leave a comment below.see my post from yesterday.
I know this setup sounds awful, but there are logistics to consider. I believe it is legal to regulate time, place, and manner should the public safety require it, so long as content is not censored. The convention needs to be secure and traffic needs to keep flowing. I am not in Denver so please answer me seriously. Have you found a spot closer to the action that can be set up for this purpose? Unfortunately, we can't trust everyone to protest politely and stay where they are asked to, hence the cage.
the ACLU sued over this freedom cage (as they do every four years), and lost (as they do every four years).
But that doesn't make it right. I find it impossible to believe that they couldn't have found a location that was at least within sight of the Pepsi Center.
There are lots of places they could have put it where the delegates would have seen protesters. You have to realize that the double steel barriers and huge numbers of riot police make it almost impossible to see anyone inside the cage anyway. It really is farcical, and completely at variance with the rhetoric inside the hall.
yip
nope. Sure, emergency services need to be handled, and I imagine that helicopters and significant medical arrangements are already in place given the number of dignitaries in the Pepsi Center. Commerce shouldn't supersede the inconvenience of the First Amendment. Regular traffic is not more important than free speech.
There's no reason why they can't build a wider perimeter fence and include a "Free speech zone" inside that fence, meaning that those protesters have already been through security clearance. Then, you don't need a secondary fence at all, just police ready in case a protester attempts to incite violence. Let them march and cheer and perform street theater right outside the Pepsi Center doors, right outside the media center doors, right outside the big tent, so long as they've gone through the same security we use to prevent weapons and bombs from getting on to airplanes or inside certain government buildings.
Would it really be a burden to just allow protesters inside a secure zone? Especially as I expect that the # of protesters would have been small this year, generally.
Of course, I hear the security caused something of a bottleneck, which just seems to me to be poor planning.
You weep for protests during the good old days; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that keeping protesters out of sight, while tragic, probably saved lives and that the freedom cage, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want the freedom cage, you need the freedom cage!
Cough
As an unenrolled voter, this strikes me as repression. If you protest or voice your opinion that which does not agree with THE PARTY, you are jailed. Smacks of communism to me. Didn't the Dems learn anything from the Boston cage in 2004? Or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII? Forgive me if I appear to be slamming here, but I seriously believe in freedom of speech and expression.
It's not as if the Dems are standing around choosing which protesters get arrested. I suspect that the political parties actually have little influence over the location or security of the zones.
That written, I suspect that the political parties could make a much bigger deal about protecting free speech, and their silence is deafening.
We have, through our elected representatives, given ourselves over to the terrorists. They rule our country through the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, militarized police and soon the military and the mercenaries. They arrest without cause, break into homes without warrants, hold and torture women and children in secret cells for years. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic leaders speak a word about the loss of the freedoms the people once enjoyed. If it wasn't that they had to get a voter turnout every so often, they wouldn't even talk to us.
Yes, their deafening silence shouts their contempt of the ideals that founded our nation and the people living in it.
Is the Democratic National Convention! That is what a political party has to do with it.
given the way that many protesters have behaved in both the distant and not-so-distant past (i. e. the blocking of traffic, complete disorganization, etc.), it's understandable that a fence be built to keep protesters under control. I also agree, however, that police have to be better-trained at restraint, and not to go to excesses when they arrest people, or to use things such as pepper ball guns, etc., unnecessarily in a crowd. Sorry to say, but I really think that the past has resulted in the present.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 22 May 10:52 PM