Only 7 amendments left

[Tobiasly]

And by the way, as to the original topic.. none of this shows that it's the Bush administration trampling the First Amendment. The secret service made the rules, and the local cops of Neville Island enforced them rather poorly. Same thing woulda (or coulda) happened if it were any other president.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by perth
syc, you should run for president.

Nah...I like being the King of Torresdale for the time being. Although, you may have seen my pipe dream of running for Philadelphia City Council.

[Xugumad]

It seems I'm haunted by the same spectres, no matter which thread. Let's see how well this one works out.

<I>Xugumad</I>
Why do you automatically assume people are only telling the half-truth if their statements are at odds with your own [...]

<I>Tobiasly</I>
Because there are two sides to every story. I make it a personal rule that whenever I hear one side of the story, I never, never, never make a judgment on it until I hear the other side.

But by saying "I guaran-fucking-tee there's more to this story than this pre-chewed thoughtbite summary" you are doing more than saying that there's another side; you imply that the author ("pre-chewed thoughtbite summary", I could swear I used that exact phrase in a posting about 12 hours ago) is tainting it with his own opinion. While it's true that he uses it to strengthen his own argument, there is little indication by default that he'd falsify the information given. By saying that it's "convenient" that he didn't give any links or sources, you strengthen the reader's impression that the author had something to conceal.

Sure, there are always two sides to a story, although the given example is particularly one-sided. Nonetheless, the impression given by your response seems overly harsh and (since you're swearing, which I haven't seen you do too much in other posts), adds another, incensed-seeming dimension to it. That is why I claimed that your response was emotional, because it seemed like a typical knee-jerk response, in the vein of 'it seems one-sided, where are the sources, I bet there's more to it, it's probably false since the press would have reported it otherwise.' (note that it's not a quotation, merely my impression of a given thought process, and the resulting reaction).

I hope you'd note that I was mostly disappointed with your reaction because you attacked the posting without checking anything yourself first. As I wrote in its introduction, it was a posting to Slashdot, not a scholarly treatise on civil rights erosion in the US. Thorough references are not to be expected; since its writer isn't on the board, it ought to be your duty to check if it's true before attacking it; if I had written it, it'd be my duty to present at least some sort of circumstantial evidence.

The links I provided were eyewitness reports by the people who got arrested, or who took part in the protest. Indeed, they belong to a partisan organisation, but that doesn't mean they aren't accurate. The link provided by Tony, which I thanked him for, fully backed the links that you didn't take seriously because they didn't represent "the other side." I understand you want both sides, but personally I would try to avoid attacking a report before I have heard both sides. My criticism of your initial posting was over that - imho unwarranted - attack. You didn't have both sides, but your posting sounded like it was discrediting the author's intention. That was my problem.

Why is it that you chide me in one thread for what you consider as my blythely accepting the president's PR as truth, but expect me to do the exact same thing when I hear it from somewhere else?

Not at all; I was just appalled by what I perceived to be a knee-jerk emotional response intended to discredit something before obtaining proof to the contrary. (emotional, as explained above)

I am uncertain how involved Bush's policymakers and PR people are in instructing the SService to keep dissenters out of the way; the SService is not incorruptible by the incumbents' decisions. Speculating whether it would/could have happened with another president is moot; the current socio-political climate simply doesn't seem to permit much, if any, dissent. Thus the First Amendment slant of the poster.

Nonetheless, thank you for contributing to this thread. I intended to solicit opinions, and I am happy that you are adding to it, even if I didn't agree with the way you presented your opinion at first. (or supposed lack thereof) Let's keep the conversation on-topic.

If you want additional links and information regarding the current administration's restrictions of the First Amendment, have a look <a href="http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.alert.html">here</a>. (or <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+first+amendment">here</a>, the first link is somewhat out-of-date)

X.


--
"[T]o those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists -- for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." -- John Ashcroft