Freedom Deadline Looms

September 9, 2005 5:28 AM

Planning on taking part in this Sunday's Freedom Walk? Better register today or you will face arrest on Sunday. If you'd rather cheer on the march instead, be prepared to peer over a four-foot high "snow fence."
posted by Otis (102 comments total)

posted by three blind mice at 5:41 AM on September 9, 2005

How long do you think it will take before one of the resident wingnuts says "Call me when someone's actually being repressed"?
posted by lodurr at 5:49 AM on September 9, 2005

Also don't forget the DC Unity Walk, sponsored by a cross-section of spiritual communities.

http://dcunitywalk.com/
posted by ao4047 at 5:52 AM on September 9, 2005

Freedom Walk™
posted by fleetmouse at 5:53 AM on September 9, 2005

Dunno, lodurr. How long do you think it'll be before one of the resident loony-lefters calls anyone with the brains to opt out of the groupthink, a 'wingnut'?
posted by veedubya at 5:54 AM on September 9, 2005

Don't forget the Reality-based protest on the 24th in DC.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:54 AM on September 9, 2005

Heh, and the best part is that the irony will be completely lost on every single Freedom Walker.
posted by xthlc at 5:55 AM on September 9, 2005

Call me when someone's actually being repressed.
posted by Necker at 5:57 AM on September 9, 2005

To a terrorist, having their attacks commemorated with monuments and gatherings must be like winning twice.
posted by Jatayu das at 5:59 AM on September 9, 2005

A perfect metaphor, really...here's your lovely walk where you can celebrate your "freedom" separated from messy reality by a large, isolating fence. I hope the eventgoers all have a wonderful time.
posted by alumshubby at 6:00 AM on September 9, 2005

I'm not surprised that an event orchestrated -- excuse me, organized by the DoD is so restricted. What does surprise me is what appears to be the severe restrictions placed on members of the press. From WaPo (linked above):

"One restricted group will be the media, whose members will not be allowed to walk along the march route. Reporters and cameras are restricted to three enclosed areas along the route but are not permitted to walk alongside participants walking from the Pentagon, across the Memorial Bridge to the Mall."

IANAL, but doesn't the First Amendment outlaw abridging freedom of the press? Why yes, I believe it does. Obviously, I'm wrong about the legality of the issue because we're not seeing media in an uproar about said restrictions. Any Constitutional lawyers care to clarify for us?

As a soldier I know how important morale is to effective operations, and I know that flag-waving makes some people feel better. But as an educated adult, I'm inclined to prefer substantive policy reforms like fewer, shorter international deployments for National Guard troops.
posted by ZakDaddy at 6:00 AM on September 9, 2005

Oh, yeah, and what xthlc said.
posted by ZakDaddy at 6:01 AM on September 9, 2005

How long do you think it'll be before one of the resident loony-lefters calls anyone with the brains to opt out of the groupthink, a 'wingnut'?

About as long as it will take some wingnut to conflate "what I don't like" with "groupthink."
posted by lodurr at 6:07 AM on September 9, 2005

Hopefully it'll be like those charity marathons and you'll get a medal and a free Subway from the sponsors for completing the march.
posted by tapeguy at 6:08 AM on September 9, 2005

How long do you think it'll be before one of the resident loony-lefters calls anyone with the brains to opt out of the groupthink, a 'wingnut'?

About as long as it will take some wingnut to conflate "what I don't like" with "groupthink."
posted by lodurr at 6:08 AM on September 9, 2005

ooops...damn opera bug...
posted by lodurr at 6:09 AM on September 9, 2005

Gosh, it's so good to see that the organizers of this pigfuck are so very confident in the rightness of their cause that they feel compelled to establish a cordon sanitaire around the poor, defenseless, right-thinkin' Murricans that they may not have to rub elbows with those who *choke* do not hold their Freedom™ so dear.

"Four-foot high snow fencing"? I'm sorry but the first and best image that comes to mind is that of cattle being herded down to the killing floor.
posted by the sobsister at 6:11 AM on September 9, 2005

ZakDaddy - In general, First Amendment rights can be restricted in "time, place, and manner" if needed to fulfill an "important government purpose," as long as those restraints aren't message-based (i.e., "content neutral"). Some communication channels must remain open, and the restraints must be "narrowly tailored" to the government purpose. Here's some more info.

I don't know all the case law, but perhaps the press could make the case here that the restraints are not narrowly tailored enough.
posted by footnote at 6:19 AM on September 9, 2005

And oh yeah, I'll be there with my t-shirt that says "America Supports You, but This War Sucks." If they stop me, I'll be filing papers in the D.DC before they know what hit them.
posted by footnote at 6:21 AM on September 9, 2005

If you don't throw in your buck 'o five, who will?
posted by fire&wings at 6:23 AM on September 9, 2005

**ATTENTION**
We have registered every name in this thread for our "Enemies of Freedom" database. Please remain at your station. Our agents will arrive shortly.
posted by fungible at 6:40 AM on September 9, 2005

Attention: Irony now only means 'sort of like iron'.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 6:48 AM on September 9, 2005

Welcome to the Freedom Walk. Your papers, please.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:00 AM on September 9, 2005

I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free
posted by planetkyoto at 7:01 AM on September 9, 2005

lodurr, you prove my point admirably. You are, apparently, too stupid to understand that pre-emptively denouncing all those who would disagree with you as 'wingnuts', thus discouraging them from expressing any opinion, is encouraging groupthink.
posted by veedubya at 7:03 AM on September 9, 2005

If they stop me, I'll be filing papers in the D.DC before they know what hit them.

That'll show 'em!

Seriously, this is grossly illegal, and they're only getting away with it because they hold all the cards.
posted by odinsdream at 7:05 AM on September 9, 2005

veedubya, you prove my point admirably: You are apparently too stupid to realize that telling correspondents they're too stupid to understand you is tantamount to outing yourself as a person lacking the imagination to see any other points of view.
posted by lodurr at 7:09 AM on September 9, 2005

veedubya, you prove my point admirably: You are apparently too stupid to realize that telling correspondents they're too stupid to understand you is tantamount to outing yourself as a person lacking the imagination to see any other points of view.
posted by lodurr at 7:09 AM on September 9, 2005

"Participants should march in unison - with shoulders back, knees locked and right arms held staight out to salute dear leader."
posted by bk at 7:11 AM on September 9, 2005

Seriously, though: "Tight Constraints on Pentagon's Freedom Walk"

No, really. I mean, surely even the rightest of the right must be like "what?"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:13 AM on September 9, 2005

Nice to see the US start celebrating its defeats.
posted by signal at 7:17 AM on September 9, 2005

"groupthink" is such a cute way for the right to try and coopt "1984"... awwww. It must be one of those "talking points" I've heard so much about.
posted by clevershark at 7:19 AM on September 9, 2005

Hey, I can't make the Freedom Walk, but I sure hope to see you guys at the Support Healthy Literacy Book Burning. Look for my armband!
posted by Miko at 7:22 AM on September 9, 2005

Now, now, let's not play "the blame game".

For, if there's one thing I've learned from the benighted yobbo currently occupying the Oval Office, it's that "the blame game" should not now--or ever, really--be played.
posted by the sobsister at 7:23 AM on September 9, 2005

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
posted by wakko at 7:31 AM on September 9, 2005

Oh, W. believes in freedom all right, especially the "freedom" of the government to hold people prisoner in secret indefinitely, the "freedom" of the government to snoop on your library records, the "freedom" of police forces to search and seize your belongings without informing you, etc.
posted by clevershark at 7:40 AM on September 9, 2005

lodurr, you are, apparently, too stupid to understand that I opined that you were, apparently, too stupid to understand your own actions. Try to keep up, old chap.

Just for the record, on the particular issue that this thread addresses, there are no alternative points of view to my own. That is because, on this particular issue, I don't give one itty-bitty shit whether a bunch of right-wing idiots need a ticket to attend the celebration of their squalid little war. Likewise, I don't care that a bunch of left-wing idiots are outraged that a ticket is needed to attend.

Yup, clevershark, you really nailed it. In Orwell's 1984, the idea was that by eradicating certain words, certain concepts could no longer be considered. Did you see what you just did there? By ridiculing, you tried to make it unacceptable to use the term 'groupthink', thereby, presumably, hoping that those of us who disagree with the shrill shriekings of the MeFi glitterati, can no longer think such mutinous thoughts.

Also, just so you know, I'm not right-wing. I'm a socialist. Always have been, always will be. Sort of like George Galloway, but without the moustache.
posted by veedubya at 7:43 AM on September 9, 2005

The First Amendment also mentions "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:44 AM on September 9, 2005

Does anyone else have no idea what veedubya is trying to prove?
posted by odinsdream at 7:50 AM on September 9, 2005

FREEDOOOOOOOOM!

posted by anthill at 7:55 AM on September 9, 2005

Heh. It's like a joke.
posted by delmoi at 7:58 AM on September 9, 2005

That he's too cool for school?
posted by filchyboy at 8:01 AM on September 9, 2005

veedubya writes "Also, just so you know, I'm not right-wing. I'm a socialist."

So's Hitchens, if you believe what he says. Not that it prevented him from embracing the American far right in both the Clinton and Bush years.

Did you see what you did before? By encapsulating all the comments before yours as "groupthink", you tried to make them unacceptable, thereby, presumably, hoping that those of us who disagree with you, can no longer think such ovine thoughts.

Hey, this is fun!
posted by clevershark at 8:05 AM on September 9, 2005

I am too cool for school, but I gave up trying to prove that many moons ago.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Truth to tell, I'm just irritated that lately around here, the shouting down of dissenters has gotten louder and shriller, to the point where MeFi seems to be turning into an echo chamber. The thing that annoyed me about lodurr's comment, was that it was (whether or not it was his intent) pre-emptively shouting down anybody that dared to disagree with the prevailing view around here. At least that's how it seemed to me.

And clevershark, you're the one that referenced 1984 in an attempt to make a point. That was my point. I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning Hitchens. I'm not deliberately being obtuse, it's just that being in the UK, maybe it's a cultural reference I don't get. As for the socialism: in all honesty, I am a socialist, and I generally find the values of the right to be abhorrent. If you don't believe that, I can't think of anything I could tell you to persuade you otherwise.
posted by veedubya at 8:25 AM on September 9, 2005

Won't somebody think of the Clint Black?
posted by stet at 8:34 AM on September 9, 2005

And thus the left argues with itself whilst the right jauntily makes it's merry way walking over the graves of every man, woman etc that ever actually did anything for freedom.
posted by longbaugh at 8:43 AM on September 9, 2005

Meh.. I'll be working. Not to advance my particular version of the American Dream(tm) necessarily, but to just keep my head above water. You know, the water that keeps rising and threatens to drown us all, whether you attend Freedom Marches(tm) or not.

Next year the Freedom March(tm) will be mandatory.
posted by Balisong at 8:45 AM on September 9, 2005

Won't somebody think of the Clint Black?

I was trying not to, but thanks for reminding me.
posted by loquacious at 8:46 AM on September 9, 2005

veedubya writes "And clevershark, you're the one that referenced 1984 in an attempt to make a point."

You're the one who used the word "groupthink" to start with. Honestly, what IS the purpose of that word other than to ridicule and dismiss a stated point of view?
posted by clevershark at 8:51 AM on September 9, 2005

Nice to see the US start celebrating its defeats.
I’m now left with a picture of freedom walking with its back turned to US.

but doesn't the First Amendment outlaw abridging freedom of the press?
More like, how do you have freedom here if you have to register for the walk?

Why didn't they call it a Freedom Rally? That is what it is.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:52 AM on September 9, 2005

longbaugh writes "And thus the left argues with itself whilst the right jauntily makes it's merry way walking over the graves of every man, woman etc that ever actually did anything for freedom."

We lefties don't goose-step so well, I guess. Seriously, the diversity of opinion, and the idea that this diversity is worth keeping, is what makes the difference between left and right. Sometimes we happen to agree on certain things (like opposing Bush, there's no question about that); however it's obvious by the lack of a united voice that the left is not, in fact, stuck in so-called "groupthink".
posted by clevershark at 8:54 AM on September 9, 2005

Did someone say Clint Black?

You can wave your signs and protest
in support of Bush's illegal war,

the lies behind the invasion
can't be hidden any more.

If everyone would go for truth
there'd be no need for war.

But we can't ignore the lies Bush told,
he'll keep coming back with more.

Some see this in black and white,
others only gray.

Bush was looking for this fight,
no matter what you say.

There were no WMDs
that should put 'em all to shame.

But it's a different kind of reality
when Bush is leading the game.

Iraq, Bush racks up the lies and I know,
There's no reason for one more dead GI Joe.

I pray for peace, Bush prays for war

and I never will forget ~
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

so be careful why you march.
The terror wasn't coming from Saddam,

they can be no more than liars.

If they won't show us the truth
we might have to show them ours.

Now it might be a smart bomb,
they find Republicans too.

If you stand with the likes of Bush,
well, one might just find you.

Iraq, Bush racks up the lies and I know,
There's no reason for one more dead GI Joe.

I got internets, I got metafilter,
I got that good old fashioned sense.

No more lies from the President
His words aren't worth two cents.

Now you can come along
or you can stay behind
or you can get out of the way.

But Mefites are taking out the garbage
for the good old USA.
posted by three blind mice at 8:56 AM on September 9, 2005

Honestly, what IS the purpose of that word other than to ridicule and dismiss a stated point of view?
posted by clevershark at 11:51 AM EST on September 9 [!]

None.
posted by Rothko at 8:56 AM on September 9, 2005

I'm glad I have another party to attend that day, in celebration of my immigration to Canada.
posted by kika at 9:02 AM on September 9, 2005

clevershark, to me, 'groupthink' is a term that means active hostility to any idea that disagrees with the ideas of a majority. Personally, I think that MeFi is becoming more and more hostile to the expressing of notions that are incompatible with the views held by the majority here. I think that we're all the poorer for it.

If it came across as ridicule, I'm genuinely sorry. In my defence, I'll ask you to read lodurr's comment, the second comment in this thread. For me, once somebody uses an insult in order to discourage argument, the gloves come off, and I feel free to insult them right back.

I've got no strong feelings either way about this Freedom Walk. However, I would have loved to see a reasoned comment by a person that was planning to attend because they agreed with its intent. The chances of that happening, alas, are slim, due in no short part (I would guess) to a fear of being shouted down, and the chances of it not turning into a pile-on even less so.
posted by veedubya at 9:08 AM on September 9, 2005

Try to keep up, old chap.

<chortle /> Oh, jolly good, wot! <chortle count="3" /> By Jove, you certainly tagged me, old bean!

Just for the record, on the particular issue that this thread addresses, there are no alternative points of view to my own. That is because, on this particular issue, I don't give one itty-bitty shit.... [quote truncated at logical endpoint]

Welcome to the "idea based community", where you get to pick what's real based on what you care about!
posted by lodurr at 9:09 AM on September 9, 2005

Truth to tell, I'm just irritated that lately around here, the shouting down of dissenters has gotten louder and shriller

There's a time for exploring "both sides of every story" and times where it is not appropriate. Evolution vs. creationism is one of those times where it is not appropriate. A propaganda march on the 4th anniversery of september 11th ironically called a "freedom march" is another one of those times.
posted by deanc at 9:17 AM on September 9, 2005

so... the police will then also be arresting any of the right wing "Protest Warriors" that come out to this month's peace march, right? Right guys? Guys?
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:22 AM on September 9, 2005

Nope, no Freedom Walking for me, I'm going to make some cookies and take them to the local firehouse and maybe to the local police station to let them know I appreciate what they do.

And then I'm going to get drunk because its also my birthday and that's what you're supposed to do on your birthday, right?

It could only be more ironic if they forced people to march in the Freedom March. And by ironic, I mean an affront and insult to every person who died or lost someone on 9/11/2001. Will they have the recruiter tables at the beginning or the end of the march or both?
posted by fenriq at 9:26 AM on September 9, 2005

lodurr, if I don't have a point of view, there can't be an opposing point of view. Correct? You accused me of lacking the imagination to understand an opposing point of view to my own, when I hadn't expressed any particular view. You do your case no service by selective quoting.

Welcome to the "idea based community", where you get to pick what's real based on what you care about!

I have absolutely no clue what you're on about, but I'll take a stab at responding by addressing the notion of 'community'. In this thread, I have publicly stated that I would have loved to see alternative viewpoints expressed. In this thread, you have publicly used an insult in an attempt to suppress alternative viewpoints. It's up to others to decide for themselves which of us is more rooted in reality.

At this point, I'm not going to try and convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, because I don't believe that you deserve that courtesy. You could learn a lot from the way that clevershark addresses the point.
posted by veedubya at 9:27 AM on September 9, 2005

However, I would have loved to see a reasoned comment by a person that was planning to attend because they agreed with its intent. The chances of that happening, alas, are slim, due in no short part (I would guess) to a fear of being shouted down, and the chances of it not turning into a pile-on even less so.

Seriously, do you actually come here much?

Let me see if I can make my question clearer for you: Why is it, exactly, that you think people who'd go on the Freedom Walk would be upset with what I said? So upset, that they wouldn't post their sincere account of why they want to go?

I'd personally love to hear that account, too; in my little fantasy world idea of consistent human behavior, people interested in going on a Freedom Walk would be concerned about the appearance of repression even when they don't personally know of anyone who's being repressed. Though, to be perfectly honest, that is only a fantasy world and I do actually think that most people who'd go on the Freedom Walk will be quite happy that they're being protected from people who might encourage them to engage in Though Crime....

BTW, you really need to start working on that log, dude. You know -- the one in your eye?
posted by lodurr at 9:28 AM on September 9, 2005

Veedubya, perhaps, rather than just attributing this to groupthink, there is a growing consensus among members of this board that the Iraq War was a mistake, or at the least, incompetently prosecuted, and more broadly, that the Bush Administration is a failure on many levels.

I'm not denying the power of groupthink, but you are subject to it too. Remember, groupthink is not just about consensus, the theory predicts polarising viewpoints.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:29 AM on September 9, 2005

lodurr, if I don't have a point of view, there can't be an opposing point of view. Correct?

Golly, I'm not so sure about that. You said you didn't care whether people who wanted to participate in a "freedom walk" needed to get a ticket, or whether people could get arrested for participating in (or engaging in free-speech related to) a "freedom walk" without registration.

Doesn't that at least constitute a point of view? Isn't that kind of like saying "call me when somebody's really being repressed"?

So, I guess maybe I chilled the atmosphere so much that you didn't feel safe expressing that view directly, and had to express it indirectly, through a series of defensive posts wherin you pretended to be a defender of the timid social-order conservatives in the MeFi fold?
posted by lodurr at 9:39 AM on September 9, 2005

Clevershark - it should be noted (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that the term 'groupthink' never appears in 1984 - you're thinking of the term doublethink. Groupthink is what veedubya has described - when the prevailing views of a group tend to stifle any alternate views without those views even being stated. It's a totally different concept than doulbethink.

And whether or not it is currently occuring on mefi, just a suggestion lodurr - wait to call people out as wingnuts until after they've already proven themselves so. It'll make you look like less of a wingnut yourself, and just generally avoid ridiculous bickerfests like this one from ever occuring until they're at least, well, reasonable bickerfests.

Thanks.
posted by vernondalhart at 9:41 AM on September 9, 2005

I'm not denying the power of groupthink, but you are subject to it too. Remember, groupthink is not just about consensus, the theory predicts polarising viewpoints.

[expletive deleted], I've actually thought a lot about exactly that thing. The question I ask myself is, "Am I disagreeing because I instinctively oppose this idea, or am I disagreeing because I'm offended by the manner in which the idea is presented?"

The truth is, I'm not sure where I fit into this place. Politically, I'm pretty strongly aligned with the majority here. However, I'm totally turned off by the horrible way that people with a right-wing point of view get shouted down whenever they appear. Emotionally, I don't want to align myself with anybody that does that.

lodurr, grow up. I never mentioned anything about protesters, or about getting arrested. The more you misquote, and the more untruths you tell, the bigger favour you do me.
posted by veedubya at 9:49 AM on September 9, 2005

vernondalhart writes "it should be noted (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that the term 'groupthink' never appears in 1984"

Whether or not it actually appears in 1984 is rather germane; I wished to point out that it is, grammatically, the same sort of neologism as "newspeak" or "doublespeak/doublethink". Clearly it's an expression that was inspired by Orwell's prose.

Anyway, I think I explained what I found to be objectionable about it.
posted by clevershark at 9:52 AM on September 9, 2005

Great short-form title for this post. Three words convey the irony. Otis rocks!
posted by rolypolyman at 9:56 AM on September 9, 2005

Whatever else is true, veedubya, don't you think it rather ironic that officials should warn people that joining something called the "Freedom March" without prior registration will result in arrests? It's not protesters saying that this will happen, it's actually a law-enforcement officer:

"Park Police Chief Dwight Pettiford says anyone who joins the march or the subsequent concert on the Mall without a permit and refuses to leave will be arrested. The media will also won't be allowed to join walkers on the route. "

Evidently a great majority of MeFites are indeed cynical about the event, but don't you have to admit that, given the official warnings, this cynicism might be at least a little bit warranted?
posted by clevershark at 10:05 AM on September 9, 2005

"Grow up"? Oh, veedubya... that stung.

I never mentioned anything about protesters, or about getting arrested. The more you misquote, and the more untruths you tell, the bigger favour you do me.

Well, let's see:

Just for the record, on the particular issue that this thread addresses, there are no alternative points of view to my own. That is because, on this particular issue, I don't give one itty-bitty shit whether a bunch of right-wing idiots need a ticket to attend the celebration of their squalid little war. Likewise, I don't care that a bunch of left-wing idiots are outraged that a ticket is needed to attend.

Yep, you never used the word "protesters", that's true, and you never mentioned the fact that going without a ticket means you get arrested. So I guess I was wrong for not taking you at the literal content of your words. I should never have tried to figure out what their logical extrapolation was. Excuse me for that error.

I did find something else interesting up-thread, though:

Yup, clevershark, you really nailed it. In Orwell's 1984, the idea was that by eradicating certain words, certain concepts could no longer be considered. Did you see what you just did there? By ridiculing, you tried to make it unacceptable to use the term 'groupthink', thereby, presumably, hoping that those of us who disagree with the shrill shriekings of the MeFi glitterati, can no longer think such mutinous thoughts.

Methinks I detect a thread of resentment against those "MeFi glitterati", but it's interesting that you take pains not to directly piss off a member of the "glitterati" -- rather, you pass on your angst to someone who's decidedly not a member of that class. (I say that while fully acknowledging the risk that you'll paint me as projecting.)

The truth, of course, is that folks such as you and I will continue to say whatever the hell we think, regardless of what we think people will think of us. And that a comment such as mine wasn't likely to stop anyone from saying the kinds of thing you pretend to be defending their right to say. You're just looking for someone to kick.

That's cool; I can take it. Just admit that's what you're doing, is all.
posted by lodurr at 10:05 AM on September 9, 2005

In Russia, freedom marches you!
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 AM on September 9, 2005

I think it's more likely that veedubya is attempting to raise the level of discourse by not automatically naysaying people prior to their input into the thread. I personally, think this is a good thing and welcome calm rational discussion within the halls of MeFi.

As much as I and many other MeFites dislike the actions of the right we should not refuse them the chance to have their say, nor preemptively strike at them. Any more bitching would probably be better suitung to MeTa.
posted by longbaugh at 10:42 AM on September 9, 2005

suitung suited
posted by longbaugh at 10:43 AM on September 9, 2005

ZakDaddy writes "IANAL, but doesn't the First Amendment outlaw abridging freedom of the press? Why yes, I believe it does. "

This isn't a 1st admendment issue, no one is stopping them from reporting anything, just collecting the information in the first place. Whether that is illegal or not is going to depend on the parade rules of the state/city/district.

kika writes "I'm glad I have another party to attend that day, in celebration of my immigration to Canada."

Congradulations kika, did you emigrate from the US?
posted by Mitheral at 11:23 AM on September 9, 2005

as I and many other MeFites dislike the actions of the right we should not refuse them the chance to have their say

The left think a right-winger using some common sense would register for this walk? Especially looking at the walk’s name, Freedom. Real Freedom has privacy, which would stumble a walker here.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:25 AM on September 9, 2005

I meant here on MeFi thom - apologies for not being specific. Just getting sick of people who should be working together bitching at one another.
posted by longbaugh at 11:51 AM on September 9, 2005

Mitheral - "...no one is stopping them from reporting anything, just collecting the information in the first place."

Um...

This is completely, totally not snark, I swear to god, but isn't it necessary to gather data in order to report? Maybe I'm being dense. I don't mean to be; can you expound a little?

footnote - Wading back through the derail to your post, I followed the link you provided and found some good information on speech but had a hard time equating it to journalism; it seemed to me as though most of the case law referenced had to do with citizens expressing themselves and municipalities seeking to restrict that for various (sometimes legitimate) reasons. Isn't there a legal difference between a citizen's Constitutional right to express themselves and a journalist's right to gather and report information? And assuming the answer to that question is "yes," is there a reference to legal restrictions on journalism (above and beyond the obvious "National Security" argument) that you can direct me to?

And for the love of god, can I please learn to get my point across with about 60% less words?
posted by ZakDaddy at 12:05 PM on September 9, 2005

Just getting sick of people who should be working together bitching at one another.
Gotcha Ya...
your above comment made me realize - today's America is becoming a mirror of its TV & radio "talk shows."
posted by thomcatspike at 12:14 PM on September 9, 2005

"This isn't a 1st admendment issue, no one is stopping them from reporting anything, just collecting the information in the first place."
Are you high?
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 PM on September 9, 2005

The White House has generously agreed to let us use its bathrooms.

Those who intend to camp on The Mall should bring tents and bail.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:37 PM on September 9, 2005

This isn't a 1st admendment issue, no one is stopping them from reporting anything, just collecting the information in the first place.

Maybe reporters should just go in with blinders on their eyes and their ears plugged up.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:40 PM on September 9, 2005

After they finish up at the Mall, everyone between 18 and 42 is hopping on a C-130 and heading to Iraq, right?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:41 PM on September 9, 2005

ZakDaddy writes "This is completely, totally not snark, I swear to god, but isn't it necessary to gather data in order to report? Maybe I'm being dense. I don't mean to be; can you expound a little?"

The 1st only is a guarentee that the press can distribute information collected, not that they can collect it in the first place. I'm outraged that a private oranization could take control of a public space (and it doesn't get much more public than the streets of DC) but I don't think a plea of violating the first is going to get anywhere. Right of assembly maybe.

There are lots of places the press is not allowed to record, many of them quasi public like stadiums and convention centres. For example a reporter can be bared from recording a musical performance in a ampitheatre if the organisers have rented the space and wish to disallow it.
posted by Mitheral at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2005

I wonder why they're not having The Freedom March in New York? I sorta remember something going on in New York that day ...

Also, will it be called off if their are terrorist threats against the Freedom March? Probably not, I guess. Gotta stay resolute.

What a bunch of crap. Congrats, Pentagon & White House: You've managed to turn the brutal mass murder of 3,000 Americans into a sick joke ... in just four short years!
posted by kenlayne at 1:29 PM on September 9, 2005

Actually the DOD has been running their commemoration every year, it's just a touch more public this time. But that explains why DC rather than NYC, this is essentially a DoD/Pentagon effort.
posted by Mitheral at 1:47 PM on September 9, 2005

People who march on Sunday will be receiving their very own fake dog tags. Sweet!
posted by fungible at 2:25 PM on September 9, 2005

receiving their very own fake dog tags.
More like cow bells for the walking crowd...Moooo!
posted by thomcatspike at 2:52 PM on September 9, 2005

Maybe in four years' time the Republican party can organise a sponsored swimathon for the people of New Orleans.
posted by tapeguy at 2:59 PM on September 9, 2005

How long do you think before this entire thread fill up with "How long do you think..." buttockhaberdashery?
posted by jonmc at 3:35 PM on September 9, 2005

The obvious counterprotest: erect an eight-foot-high fence right behind the four-foot-high one.

Enjoy your march!
posted by furiousthought at 3:50 PM on September 9, 2005

People who march on Sunday will be receiving their very own fake dog tags.

Maybe the protestors can give out toe tags! It would fit the theme.
posted by Miko at 4:14 PM on September 9, 2005

I like the "Affiliation" section of the registration form. Army, Navy, Air Force, ... Subway, McDonalds..." WTF?

Freedom...brought to you by the courageous folks at the Department of Fast Food.
posted by afflatus at 4:18 PM on September 9, 2005

Funny. I don't, however, think this is as ironic as it is realistic. The Bush admin has pushed policies that make any celebration of "freedom" a logistical nightmare. If they let anyone march the odds of a terrorist event would be pretty high. After all, such an event comes with its own gigantic bullseye. If there is any irony to this, it's somewhat deeper: by pursuing a war on terror in a unilateral and short-sighted manner the government has created an environment were "freedom" is no longer really freedom at all, but a stand in word for "security." Not that we really have any more security either.
posted by elwoodwiles at 5:14 PM on September 9, 2005

Goose stepping mandatory.
posted by trii at 5:17 PM on September 9, 2005

At least the "four-foot-high snow fencing" will shield the little kiddies from the circle-jerk going on inside.

If I was the press, I'd just decide to cover the whole event from the POV of a 3 year old.
posted by Pinback at 6:54 PM on September 9, 2005

I have to come to Veedubya's defense. There is a general intolerance of dissent here that often rivals what the "right" is guilty of or is accused of. The only problem is, you didn't exactly start off expressing yourself in a manner to bring sympathy to your position.

The comment by deanmc that dissent on certain key issues should not be allowed on metafilter is different from the limits on freedom being discussed in this thread how? Other than this is not in the "real" world of course, but the basic idea is not much different.
posted by blue shadows at 7:49 PM on September 9, 2005

So, basically it's a march in support of the government, organised by the government? That does seem kinda lame.
posted by Sparx at 8:51 PM on September 9, 2005

Mitheral writes: "The 1st only is a guarentee that the press can distribute information collected, not that they can collect it in the first place. ... "

Hmm. Still not snark, but I'd have to posit that preventing or interfering with information collection in a public place is a pretty steep infringement. And the Constitution specifically says "infringe," not "collect" or "disseminate." Is there case law I don't know about to support your assertion?

"There are lots of places the press is not allowed to record, many of them quasi public like stadiums and convention centres. For example a reporter can be bared from recording a musical performance in a ampitheatre if the organisers have rented the space and wish to disallow it."

Well, sure, stadiums and concerts are open to the public (usually) for a fee (usually) but those are privately owned (usually) venues. So, if I want to host a concert at my house, I have the right as the property owner to exclude the press. Public streets, on the other hand, seem to me to be a different matter. It just seems counterintuitive to me, but there may be subterranean issues that I'm missing; case law for reference here would be great. Anyone?
posted by ZakDaddy at 9:17 PM on September 9, 2005

The 1st only is a guarentee that the press can distribute information collected, not that they can collect it in the first place
Perhaps a misguided statement, but I would think were this true one would be opposed to such a state of affairs.

Mitheral, the burden of proof is on government officials who want to withhold information. There is no need for secrecy here. There is no reason to restrict a reporters access to the information. It is absurd to think the government could withold information relevent to the public trust. In the United States at least. Here we have this thing called "the right to know."

As a f'rinstance:
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

The press is supposed to go and inform those people. They can't do that if they don't get the information.

ZakDaddy, case law, unfortunately is all over the map under the current administration.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:28 AM on September 10, 2005

That said I remain unconcerned at being shut out by a four foot fence. A well pressurized fire extinguisher filled with urine could easily breach that.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:30 AM on September 10, 2005

I forget, did we celebrate Pearl Harbor during World War II, or did we wait until after the war to celebrate it?
posted by moonbiter at 7:23 AM on September 10, 2005

So how was it?
posted by homunculus at 4:47 PM on September 11, 2005

Apparently it wasn't all that:

Although the Pentagon required walkers to preregister for the event, officials did not provide a crowd estimate. Metro officials said about 4,000 people arrived at the Pentagon's Metro station yesterday morning.

I grew up outside DC; every time there's a rally on the Mall, the organization that sponsors it reports the number of people who attended (or argues about it with the Park Service). It's unusual for event sponsors not to report numbers, especially since people had to register in advance. The Washington Post's photo gallery only has shots of small groups, including what looks like the same family in photos 1 and 7. The crowds look pretty sparse in the Defense Department's photo essay, too.

AMERCIABlog went to the Mall after the concert, and it looked amazingly clean 2 hours later.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:41 PM on September 11, 2005