Talk:Free speech zone/Archive 1

There are 10s of thousands of websites to express political viewpoints

Wikipedia is not one of them. I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, but this article is as loaded as any Wikipedia article I've ever seen with anti-Bush rhetoric and unsupported assertions. The references read like a who's who of partisan, anti-Bush publications: The Nation, Common Dreams, A San Francisco Chronicle *opinion* piece ... come on, people.

That by itself, of course, doesn't mean the allegations they make aren't true. But many are totally unsupported. Just one example, but an important one: "Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protestors on camera or speaking to them within the zone. [7]". I actually went to the referenced article, where I waded through four pages of tedious anti-Bush rhetoric to find support for this claim. Needless to say, it was fruitless. First, there was no evidence for the "often" claim -- the author cited ONE instance. Second, he offered ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for this. All he says is "the media were not allowed to talk to them." Period. There is no investigative reporting at all, just an unsupported assertion. But hey, he ITALICIZED the words "not allowed," so it must be true, right?

Who could possibly lead off an article with "Free speech zones have been used vigorously[1][2] by the George W. Bush administration to quash dissent when the President travels" and not understand the POV that this carries?

In the larger sense, don't you understand that it's stuff like this that makes people distrust Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA is for facts, not for promoting your own political viewpoint. Why is that so hard to understand?

Alaska Jack 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

'people who disagree with the president ar emoved to these areas... not allowed to be filmed... etcetc' doesn't sound very free speech to me! Saccerzd 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech Zones & "Offensive to Some"

I know some may disagree with my insertion of the line that these zones are offensive to some. But not having the line makes no difference. Such zones are offensive to some people whether we explictly say so or not. So we might as well say that the zones are offensive.

JesseG 23:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

As long as the wording makes it clear the statement is that it is to some people that the zones are offensive it's true. The zones clearly are offensive to some. If you had written the zones were offensive to all, or something similar, it would have been a different story.

Mickel 10:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Although it matters little, I (for one) do find the very concept of the FSZ anatehma to the very fabric of the Consitution--specifically the First Amendment. In practice and implimentation, the FSZs violate the First Amendment on several grounds: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress, and peacable assembly. Were this concept to be taken to the SCOTUS, I would predict it being struck down vehemently. The President is a person, the head of the government, as such he must be reachable via accepted methodology--of those is protest marches or the like. Whether the current administration likes it or not, citizens have the right to peacefully show their dissent. The FSZs violate the very concept outlined in the First Amendment. I can only hope that somehow the SCOTUS gets to rule on the issue in a manner that isn't dealt with a technicality elimination. 206.156.242.39 17:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Washington equals Seattle?

I noticed that "WTO Protests" didn't go anywhere, and since the specific mention was "Washington", I assumed Seattle. Was I right?

Ventura 16:42, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Bush supporters

I removed two paranthetical statements that implied that bush supporters were also targeted with these free-speech zones. I've come across no such cases, so until someone verifies that, I'll assume it's a POV attempt to whitewash.--Che y Marijuana 02:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

FSZs were utilized during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. There were images of them posted online, just not as many as those for the Republican National Convention, oddly enough. -RannXXV 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

POV and factually incorrect ?

It would be nice to know what motivates the placement of these tags on the article page, so that we could work this out. Rama 06:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree - if the disputer doesn't give reasons on the talk page, then we're fully justified in removing them. →Raul654 06:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article does need work, but I don't think the issue is pov or facts. If the disputer wants to place a notice, they should explain themselves as they do it, not a day after. I'm removing it, they can re-ad it again, and tell us why on the talk page.--Che y Marijuana 16:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I put up a POV and disputed sign here is because only one side is presented. The fact that after 9/11 the Secret Service has been taking extraordinary precaution to make sure that the president does not get hurt is ignored, the fact that Bush supporters were cordoned off at the inaugaration just as much as protestors, are ignored. These facts have to be cited. Not only that but very contentious claims are not supported by outside sources. This does not make it a balanced article when it turns into nothing more than a venting room for disgruntled left wing protestors. Guy Montag 18:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, they did cordon off supporters and protesters at the inaguration, which just happened to be broadcast to every corner of the earth. On the other hand, during less public events, "When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path... police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views'" [1] →Raul654 18:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

These events still have to be put in the article, and sources for other contentious claims cited.

Guy Montag 18:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know which other claims exactly you find contencious, if you do not have the possibility to google around yourself... Rama 17:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The anecdote I just releted is already in the article and cited! Did you even read the article before tagging it as POV and factually inaccurate? →Raul654 22:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Source?

"Homeland security along with the Joint Terrorism Taskforce of the FBI however have stated that war demonstators and protestors should be considered by local authorities as possible terrorists."

Quite a disturbing fact indeed, and worth mentioning, but shouldn't that be attributed to some particular report, press conference, statement, or something?

I'd appreciate a source for this one too, not because it's disturbing, but because it is so stupid! If someone is a terrorist, they would probably act like someone who liked their target. This measure would only weed out the most idiotic of assassins

Mihoshi 14:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Fix That Big Funky Space?

Is there any way to fix the photo positioning so that the big space between the first and second paras shrinks back to normal? It looks like something has been cut out of the article, but it's really only a coding issue. I only have minimal Wiki photo formatting skills so I would not attempt this myself. Also, the source link on Brett Bursey is inoperative; it merely dumps one on the Salt Lake Tribune main page. David Hoag 07:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a good link for Brett Bursey info, so I corrected the link. David Hoag 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Protecting the President...?

What kind of idiot would go to a rally with an anti-Bush sign with an intent to assasinate him? I know I'd try not to stand out in the crowd waving a 'War for Oil' sign, as that would be plain ol' stupid to do so if I wanted to do something like murder. --Tiler 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some citations needed

There are some statements in the article that are probably true, but which need citations. They are in the form of "some people feel..." and "civil libertarians claim..." Guidelines are to avoid generalities and weasel words and to cite specific, noteworthy people who hold these views. I'll tag the statements. Johntex\^talk 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Raul, at finding some citations to back up some of the most problematic statements. Johntex\^talk 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples

The examples are over-wordy. They aren't needed to describe the subject of the article, which is Free speech zone. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ludicrious. The WHOLE POINT of the free speech controversy is that it's being used to censor protestors. So yes, when a police detective says he was told by the secret service to target protectors, that's QUITE relavant. Raul654 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please call down and stop shouting. The point of the article is to describe what a free speech zone is. It is perfectly within that scope to indicate that there is controversy over their use. The version I created cited all those concerns and the same sources. The version you are trying to create is very one-sided. There is nothing here about any beneficial aspects of the zones. No government response to the criticisms, etc. We must conform to NPOV. Johntex\^talk 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The version you created deleted every single first-person account, including the fact that police were told to target protestors but not supporters. You deleted the fact that the law used against protestors is seldom-used (it took me 15 seconds to find the NY times cite). In short, your edits made the article significantly less informative. Raul654 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added {{npov}} because you are tyring to turn this into anti-Bush polemic instead of an article about what free speech zones are. First person quotes from individual protestors do not merit so much space in the article. The slimmer version makes all the same points, but in a form that is more accessible to the reader without having to slog through huge quote blocks. Johntex\^talk 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with using summarizing the quotes; I am not OK with your style of "summarizing" (e.g, mass deleting them), especially when those you deleted quotes establish facts that run directly against the Bush administration's stated (and provably false) policy of not singling out protestors. ANd if you want the administration's side of the story, that just about sums it up - they deny singling out protestors and every bit of evidence proves them to be lying. Raul654 22:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Would you like to try your hand at a summary? Johntex\^talk 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

About.com reference

How reputable is "about.com". I know that their article is relevant, but I am wondering whether there are any references that can be found on possibly more reputable sites. Ansell 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive that about.com often mirrors Wikipedia (though not always) so it's often not that reputable. LaszloWalrus 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's answers.com you are thinking of, not about.com. And secondly, since Ansell's comment, a second reference (the San Francisco Chronicle) has been added. Raul654 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bursey incident

I'm ashamed that I haven't even heard about this case before, but when I read the Bursey verdict hearing transcipt, it became clear that the wording in this article is POV: Bursey was the only civilian in a restricted area; officers "suggested" he should go to the "FSZ"; and the judge strongly suggests that the government should never have brought the case. Anyway, the source doesn't corroborate the wording in this article.--Son of Somebody 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout, POV wording

Three points:

1. the lead section should summarise the general topic. It should not only have criticism without having similar coverage explaining the rationale (benefits I guess) behind them. As such I have moved critical statements from the lead section to /*criticism*/
2. the word aggressive was used throughout regarding the use of these FSZ's. That is a point of view which does not seem to be expressed by the cited references (reading only the references provided I can see how one comes to that point of view though). Wikipedia is meant to portray the topic in a NPOV manner. I have replaced the word aggressive with extensively or simply removed it in some instances, the meaning of the sentences really is not altered.
3. There really should be some discussion of the critical incidents which seems to have lead to the widespread use of this type of restriction on politicial expression. ie, put it in the context of the methods used by those expressing discontent with the WTO meetings.

I would like someone to explain to me how you can be aggressive in telling people "if you are going to dissent, do it here". Being aggressive, is smashing them in the face with a billy club. If the references which were provided all state, "local agencies are agressively making use of FSZ's in discouraging dissenting viewpoints" then I would agree with the wording in this article.

I understand that people are pasionate about protecting their rights (hey, we don't have them enshrined in Australia) but the article needs to remain dispasionate and NPOV. It is articles such as this that the media use to portray professionalism of wikipedia and if this article becomes overly pasionate then it will cease to be NPOV. If it is well written and presented it can be dispassionate and NPOV whilst still leading to the obvious conclusion that FSZ's are an obvious barrier to Free Speach.Garrie 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They are aggressive about it because it's not like they've done it once or twice; they do it everywhere Bush goes. Raul654 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not for editors to assert on WP. If you find a variety of sources you can reference who are notable commentators on free speech in the USA or worldwide, or law enforcement locally or worldwide, who say these things are being used agressively, then that's fine. But nobody should be using Wikipedia to initially make the statement they are being used agressively in Seattle, and being used agressively in New York, and being used agressively in Los Angles.

Being used repeatedly does not mean they are being used agressively.

I use my car every day. I have never used it in attempting to intimidate anyone. The Secret Service would hold the opinion they are using FSZ's routinely as a component of protecting important public figures. Garrie 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Many of the references used on this article are used more than once. It would assist the layout if these references were done using named references, that way the details only need to be included the first time a reference is used.

An example from my user page is

 <ref name="Blacktown Social Plan">
 {{cite web
 | url = http://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/our-city/statistics/suburb-profiles.cfm
 | title=The 2001 City of Blacktown Social Plan 
 | author=WESTIR Ltd | year=2003 
 | accessdate=2006-08-26 
 | format = PDF 
 | publisher = City of Blacktown }}
 </ref>
 

Subsequent use of the same reference would look like <ref name="Blacktown Social Plan"/>. I tried to implement this the other day but messed it up. I will reattempt in a couple more days when I get some time. Garrie 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW - is there any problem with breaking the template up with new lines before each |? It is an editing style issue which apparently causes aggravation for some editors. I find it easier to edit each segment of the template using this layout. It does not effect the reader's view of the article.Garrie 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources This article cites www.thenation.com as a source which has a liberal bias