Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published June 8, 2001
Re: Protesters kept at a distance; three arrested, June 5.
A "First Amendment zone"? What's next? An "African-American zone" or perhaps a "non-Christian zone." I would really like to know how American citizens expressing their opinions in a safe, legal manner constitutes a "security threat" to our president. I would also like to know how anyone can dictate what signs are allowed within sight of the president and which are not.
In one fell swoop, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances all were taken away under the guise of a security threat.
Should I fear reprisals from writing this letter? What if the president reads it? Will that be a security risk also?
Does anyone else find this to be just plain wrong?
-- Christopher Gross, Spring Hill
Re: Bush protesters say rights were muzzled.
Christopher Goffard's June 6 article on those crowd inciters at the Bush rally was one-sided.
Those "protesters" walked into a crowd minding its own business and formed a little circle. Three of them were wearing that superbright orange color. At first, they whispered about when they'd hold up signs and start chanting. Then they began to talk loudly among themselves. They said things like "everybody knows his brother stole the election for him. Oh, I can't wait till he's out of office." The color and their loud voices made them hard to ignore.
After a few minutes of that kind of talk, a Bush supporter yelled, "Well then, why don't you leave?" One of the protesters responded by calling him a vulgar name. Sonja Haught, another protester (who was pictured in your paper on Tuesday), then chanted "Heil (as in Heil Hitler) to the Thief" while she called other Bush supporters "Nazis."
Of course, tensions rose and the situation just grew worse from there. And that's how it happened. How do I know? Because I was there. The whole time. They were just ahead of me in the crowd as we all headed down to the field. We filed into the standing crowd together, and I watched the scene unfold.
The story should have been about some people determined to incite a crowd. It is not a story about the suppression of political expression. They were arrested because they were belligerent, somewhat violent, and because they were just your everyday, garden variety troublemakers.
As for the supposed sign problem, no one was allowed to bring homemade signs into the stadium. However, according to Howard Troxler's column on Wednesday, Haught was allowed to bring in a sign minus the stick that was attached to it. Why was she given special treatment? Why was she allowed to bring in her homemade sign when so many Bush supporters had their pro-Bush signs confiscated at the front gate? Sounds like there are Bush supporters out there who had their First Amendment rights ripped right out of their own hands, so to speak.
It's funny to see how easily the Times is manipulated. You guys fell right into the protesters' publicity-seeking trap and published a foolish account of a staged event.
-- Kelly Force, Tampa
Re: Protests not seen or heard: How polite, June 6.
In his column regarding aborted protests at the Bush rally, Howard Troxler states, ". . . a visit by the president for which any member of the public could obtain a ticket, is not really a "private' event. That should not be a pretext for choking free speech."
As a member of Pasco NOW, I was a driver of one of the cars in the caravan in which Sonja Haught and her friends traveled to Tampa. I had brought along a home-made sign, "Say Goodbye to Florida's Beaches," to protest off-shore drilling and planned to demonstrate somewhere outside of the stadium. The moment we parked, however, tickets to the Legends Field rally were literally thrust upon us. (I presume the organizers were desperate to fill the huge chunks of empty stadium seats.)
A police officer quickly informed me that the Secret Service would not permit me to go through security with my sign, so I stood just outside the entrance for perhaps 45 minutes and was eventually joined by another protester from the Sierra Club.
Though we created no disturbance of any kind and presented no security risk to the president (who was entering the stadium from a different direction), a Republic organizer persistently asked us to leave, stating that we were on private property. A polite Tampa police officer made several similar requests, saying that he was obeying "Secret Service orders." Neither of these men was able to reconcile their actions with First Amendment freedom of speech rights, but once I was inside the stadium (without my sign), another Republican organizer gave me an answer of sorts. "Did you think the O.J. trial was fair? Well, it isn't fair here, either."
After living abroad for more than 30 years, I returned to the United States only five months ago. At the Bush rally, I had the impression I was back in some totalitarian-era Eastern European country, where rights were not only routinely violated but also mocked and desecrated. My protest in favor of the Florida shoreline was hardly a radical one, but it was nonetheless forbidden. In the hands of such leaders, the future of our beaches would appear to be dire indeed.
-- Shelley Roitman, Holiday
Re: Bush rally.
I have ancestors who have fought in every major war this country has been involved in. Today I am sad for their memory. The freedoms they risked their lives to preserve for us are in jeopardy, namely the one our founding fathers valued so much that they put it first: freedom of speech.
On Monday, my husband and I attended the Bush rally at Legends Field. We brought our children and sat among mostly openly supportive Bush fans. But not all members, including ourselves, were there to cheer on the president. We were there to listen and, when so moved, to voice our disapproval of policies that, in our opinion, are irresponsible and short-sighted at best. We did this by booing and commenting loudly. None of us in our section of the stands carried signs, although there were several pro-Bush ones visible.
Almost immediately, a contingent of "semi-official looking" men and women surrounded a handful of fellow dissidents seated just to our right. This "contingent" grew from both sides of the aisles and began staring, whispering and then making comments to these Americans who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights. None yelled anything profane or remotely threatening to President Bush, although I heard several Bush fans do so to them.
I don't know whose decision it finally was, but the dissidents left before the end of the speech, and we remained in that section of the stands, alone in our politics.
I think it was only because we were a family that we were not harassed more by the Republican volunteers/operatives, whoever they were. My 10-year-old was intimidated by them; he admitted to being afraid they would do something to me. I explained to him, as well as some other audience members, that this is not China and we have every right to criticize our leaders. And while I was not surprised that Bush supporters would not be appreciative of critics in their midst (one actually told me I was "corrupting my children"!), I was surprised and chilled by the suppression of free speech by organizers.
These fears were confirmed Tuesday morning when I read in your paper that people were actually arrested for trespassing, and the Tampa Police Department spokeswoman says she was merely following orders from the Secret Service, which considers anti-Bush signs "a security issue." Since when is free speech a "security issue" in this country? Doesn't that sound more like a policy of a country due south of us, where people are sitting in jail because they threaten Fidel Castro's security? I fear for the future of our democracy.
-- Sarah J. Robinson, Safety Harbor
The shooing away of protesters from President Bush's appearance in Tampa smacks of a totalitarian regime. This was a public event. Claims to the contrary fail when you look at the fact tickets were publicly advertised as being available free for the asking.
Any politician should anticipate opposition at any public appearance. The responsibility of the police to prevent violence should not ever include the right to stifle vocal or visual protest, no matter how loud or obnoxious that protest might be to the politician or their supporters.
Any individuals engaging in violence, whether supporter or opposition, should be removed and probably arrested. But protest at political events is a basic part of the American freedom of speech and should be tolerated, perhaps even encouraged. Many of our most defining moments for politicians have come in response to hostile dialogue.
-- Mitch Almon, Wesley Chapel
I must comment about the several protesters who, because they displayed small protest signs, were accosted, arrested and carted away by police.
What was their crime? Exercising their right to free speech? And since when have we begun living in a fascist society? Meanwhile, all the good little "Bushies" were allowed their signs and the right to express themselves as they wished.
I do understand the need not to ruin George W. Bush's photo-op in light of recent public opinion, but security's use of those heavy-handed tactics was a violation of those protesters' right to voice their opinion without fear of arrest and prosecution.
-- John R. Urban, Palm Harbor
Re: Children's needs still go unmet, letter, June 5.
The letter writer, a retired teacher, suggests that President Bush has failed our children. The writer feels we are victims of too much bureaucratic nonsense from our politicians and that this is driving teachers away from our schools. She goes on to say our president chooses not to support our children with "proper funding for, education, health, day care, prenatal care and parental training."
Where in the Sam-Hill does this teacher get the idea that it's the federal government's job to provide anything other than assistance to our state's educational costs? Parent training, prenatal care! This is outrageous!
It is not and never was the job of the federal government to be involved in such unrelated areas as mentioned in her letter. So why is it that some people think that the federal government needs to provide everything from soup to nuts from cradle to grave? That's because some past administrations have forced themselves into local and state areas of government, going where they should not be.
If you feel it's a government's responsibility to provide such items, you may wish to look to a city or county government. But please stop looking to the federal government for all that you imagine is your entitlement.
The real answer is our that kids are the responsibility of Mom and Dad, and help is found at the local level -- not from Washington D.C. Let's keep Uncle Sam out of our homes and schools!
-- James W. Coakley, New Port Richey
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.