Tony, thanks for that link - it provides the additional 'eyewitness' and 'third-party' reports Tobiasly was asking for. The guy (65 yrs old) really did nothing but stand outside the fenced area, and got arrested - as well as his sister who ran after him as he was being taken away in handcuffs.
Choice quotations from the article:
"Neville Police Superintendent Edward Selzer said keeping protesters behind a fence was his idea.
"You can't deny them the right to demonstrate, but you can restrict where they demonstrate," said Selzer, a Neville officer for 42 1/2 years. "It's best for everybody that way."
That example of double-speak is truly Orwellian. (without wanting to inflame the previous Orwellian thread) It's obviously not best for everybody, namely the people who want to protest, who this applies to. Jews need to wear yellow stars for their protection, it's best for everybody that way. Black people need segregated areas etc., to keep everybody happy. Girls need to study different subjects at school compared to boys - it's in everybody's best interest to cater to their talents. The government needs to protect its people from harmful information and imagery - it's best for everybody that way.
You really couldn't make that up. Re-read that last sentence: "but you can restrict where they demonstrate", which means any arbitrary designated area set by figures of authority, presumably. It's funny, really - some Eastern Block states had alternative parties as well, you didn't need to vote Socialist. You don't need to cheer for the incumbent regime either, you can be assigned to an area out of sight where most of the crowd won't see you, where the camera's most likely won't spot you, and where the candidates certainly will not detect your presence. You can't restrict freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc., either, presumably, but you can restrict where it is allowed, then. Excellent. I wonder how people would react if they were told that they could only carry firearms whilst standing on grass. Or that they could only practice their religion in areas designated by the government, somewhere on ten hectares in Colorado, where it's safe, and "best for everybody."
"Various people with signs friendly to Bush were allowed to stand along Neville Island's main street, where the president's motorcade passed. One Neville Island woman carried a homemade sign that said, "Hello, George." She said she stood along the street for about seven hours until Bush arrived."
The police superintendent, stated, however: "You can't have them meandering around, carrying signs. That's disorderly."
Ah, doublespeak again, in this case associating "them" with "those who are opposed to us." Mind you, I do agree with the Secret Service (who made sure that there would be no negative protesters running around freely) that stringent security measures need to be kept. The
way in which it is justified, however, seems utterly unbelievable.
X.
PS: I don't know if the Post-Gazette qualifies as major news media, I'd assume so. The fact that they have a special 'First Amendment Forum' category seems to make them somewhat special, even if it's tucked away far from the public eye in a subcategory of 'About Us'. Do you know if it made the print edition, by chance, or if it was just a web article made in the Gazette's First Amendment web forum? They certainly seem to focus on the 1Amendment angle, following it up with an article <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/FirstAmendment/20020905brian5.asp">here</a>. Interestingly, the followup <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/FirstAmendment/20020906edprotest0906p2.asp">editorial</a> then dismisses the first amendment threat as mere "bruising", claiming that it was an insignificant offence that doesn't merit such great attention. The abortion-clinic protester comparison drawn there is also fairly inaccurate, since those merely need to provide a corridor of considerable size but are allowed to picket around the clinics, as long as they are not on private property; comparing that with the right to assembly and speech on public grounds is grossly misleading.