vc318

Bush protest at Monticello 07-04-08 | SamSederShow.com

Protesters disrupt Bush speech at Monticello
Submitted by Kevin © on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 11:43pm.

CHARLOTTESVILLE — Protesters shouting "war criminal" and "impeach Bush" disrupted President Bush's speech Friday morning during the Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization Ceremony at Monticello.

Lee Catlin, community relations director for Albemarle County, said six protesters were asked to leave the ceremony. She said no arrests were made.

Protesters' shouts interrupted Bush at least five times. During the first flare up, in which a woman held a bright pink sign that read "Impeach Bush," the president acknowledged the protests.

Addressing the 72 people who were to be sworn in as U.S. citizens, Bush said, "We believe in free speech in the United States of America."

A Monticello spokesperson said that protesters were allowed to express their views unless they blocked views or passageways. He said that Monticello has no plans at this time to press charges against the six who were removed from the museum grounds.

Was this protest fair and appropriate? Is there a line to be drawn sometimes to "freedom of speech?"

4N6 DNA

With regards to the protest being appropriate, I do not think it was. I know we are all entitled to a right to free speech, but I feel that there is a time and a place to protest. This event wasn't even related to war (with regards to the individual who shouted "war criminal!"). The event wasn't about Bush, it was about the 72 people there who were being honored with citizenship. Maybe if they were protesting the citizenship laws, it would have been more appropriate, but what they did must have ruined what should have been a very important milestone in those peoples lives.

There must be a line drawn somewhere. My boyfriend was killed in Iraq and protesters protested his funeral claiming that he was being punished by God for protecting a country that harbors gays. Protesting is okay, but protesting anywhere about anything is not something that I feel is helpful in any situation. They should have been protesting at a speech about Gay rights, or somewhere where that issue is being discussed. Not to show up at a personal and closed ceremony to add salt to unrelated wounds. Protesting can be very effective, history has shown us this, but for it to be effective you have to protest to the right people at the right place. We don't see that with this article. Following Bush anywhere he goes and yelling things at him is not going to get the attention you want.

Thanks for sharing this.

sunnykerr

See, I was just gonna say that protesting can absolutely go too far and I was actually going to use the example of the nutjobs protesting at soldier funerals.

Jessie I am so sorry for you personal loss.

I don't think this particular form of protest was out of place, though. I'm sure the new citizens didn't appreciate that their moment was interrupted. On the other hand, some of them must have fled countries where such a thing wouldn't have even been allowed to occur. So, in a way, it was an excellent object lesson in how great the United States can be.

I think freedom of speech as embodied in protest goes too far when it protects KKK pamphlets and nutjobs disrupting the funerals of heroes with their hatred. I think it goes too far when it protects the right of pro-life supporters to litter highways with pictures of aborted fetuses. I think it goes too far when it protects their right to harass patients of abortion clinics as they go on their way to go through what must be one of the most difficult procedures of their lives.

I think the people who interrupted Bush could have probably picked a better locale, but considering how that man only usually talks in venues where all attendees have been vetted and cleared by his people... You take what you can get.

vc318

Jessie, thank you for sharing that. I'm sure that must've been hard to do.

With freedom of speech, we get the very civil demonstrations to the extreme acts of emotion. The Bill of Rights doesn't say how far we can go with these rights so we have to assume when it's appropriate. For these protestors, I guess they thought coming to this event would do the trick. Sometimes, it is indeed insensitive but it seems to be the only way to get heard.

Jerry D

I completely agree that there’s a time and place for protest demonstrations to take place, and they most definitely should not have taken place at that ceremony, and it’s completely disrespectful, and an outright disgrace, that those people marred that ceremony in the manner that they did.

Jessie, I’m truly appalled that protesters would show up at your boyfriend’s funeral and say such a thing about his loss, and they should be ashamed of themselves, and I’m very sorry for your loss.

So, in short, my answer is yes, some protests most definitely do go too far.

4N6 DNA

Thanks

Do you guys think that protesting could ever turn enough people off of an idea? In other words have the opposite effect? Sometimes I think PETA goes a bit too far in some of their attempts to get out their message. I may agree with some of the things they support, but I have never been a fan of their actual organization and the way they go about their protests.

TheAngel

Yeah, I agree. I was going to use PETA as an example in fact. I feel like protests are in fact very ineffective ways of policy change. Actions speak louder than words, and simply interrupting the president during a rally is not going to change policy in Iraq. However, getting out and campaigning for elected officials that are going to lead to policy change will, as will donating time and money to programs that support your cause. For the PETA example, to me, throwing a can of paint on a fur outfit during a fashion show doesn't garner support for the anti-fur movement. However, encouraging support to boycott industries that use fur in their products as well as creating a competing line of faux-fur items would be effective.
I've never seen protests as being effective, though. I find that they tend to be disrespectful and do very little in terms of changing policy.

ceilirose

Protests go to far when they turn into acts of violence themselves and the violent acts become the story and not the cause that's being protested.

In the 60's the protests against the Vietnam War did have a small part in turning public opinion against the war. I can't say that they're all useless

iheartjustinchambers

There is a time and place for protests to take place, saying that I can understand why people protest the war. What if that were your child fighting so we can all be free... and they were killed in action, no, they didn't die in vain, but it's your child...

sunnykerr

I think protest in and of itself is absolutely vital to the democratic protest, inasmuch as the right to disagree and to dissent is what makes it a democracy and not something else.

I do think that, as with every right, some people take it too far. But that's part of the game. Not that it makes it alright, and not that certains don't need to change... but I wouldn't have it any other way.

It's not everywhere on this planet that people get to oppose their leaders without being incarcerated. It's not everywhere that protests don't automatically lead to oppression and violence. It's not everywhere that protests can occur through the use of civil disobedience and the use of words.

vc318

Good question, Jessie.

I think so. Sometimes these protesters forget that there is providing information about your cause and then there's using every vehement method possible to make someone support your view. Like, certain celebs will blast other celebs for wearing "Real Girls Eat Meat" shirt of for wearing a fur coat to a movie premiere. Now, when you're hurting someone's feeling, the purpose of the protest just falls short. I'm not saying all protests have to be nice and sweet but there's always another way to get your message across better.

sunnykerr

Well, it's the old democratic standby, isn't it?

Your freedom of expression (whether verbal or physical) is wide and vast, but it stops precisely where that of someone else begins.

In other words, if you want to be respected, you have to respect those who disagree with you. Inasmuch as it is possible to be neutral on any issue. To make a dramatic example, just because I would have disagreed with Hitler's final solution had I been alive at the time does not mean I still have to respect him for holding those views. Nor does it mean that he should have been allowed to go about his business carrying it out.

But just because I think it's wrong to wear fur (which, in truth, actually is my personal belief) does not mean I should be allowed to douse those who do with paint.