Free Speech ZONE?

Palomar · 2003-11-07 12:29:57

*Sorry, couldn't resist. Just when I think I'm going to go easy on the political stuff...

Get a load of this. Only pro-Bush people are allowed in proximity of the President and the area he's going to be in. Protestors (quiet, civilized, dignified protestors) of Bush's policies are physically censored and given this "free speech zone" baloney. An arrest was made of a peaceful placard-holder in criticism of Bush.

There are no "free speech ZONES" in America; we have this right 24/7/365, ANYWHERE. What bull-puky.

I wonder if Bill O'Reilly will pick up this little item.

"Bursey originally was charged by local authorities with trespassing when he refused to move to a "free-speech zone" at the Columbia airport. That charge was dropped, but the Justice Department (news - web sites) decided to prosecute Bursey five months later under a statute that allows the U.S. Secret Service to restrict access to areas during the president's travels. He faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine if convicted.

"We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached," said Lewis Pitts, Bursey's lawyer.

Bursey has said he was arrested because he was carrying a sign that read "No War for Oil" and contends others with pro-Bush placards were allowed to stay in the area.

The U.S. attorney's office has said Bursey was arrested not for what his sign said but for where he was carrying it."

*But PRO-BUSH placard holders were allowed to stay IN the area Mr. Bursey was told to leave.

I guess President Bush doesn't believe in free speech/expression for all. Just those who kiss his a$$. Big surprise...NOT.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-11-07 13:07:25

There are no "free speech ZONES" in America; we have this right 24/7/365, ANYWHERE. What bull-puky.

Meanwhile, in a nearby movie theater somewhere in New Mexico, police and fire fighters were still investigating into an alarm at the local movie Cineplex. One trampled patron hurt during the commotion and rush of everyone running from the theater claimed someone was running through the theater yelling "Fire! Fire! Fire!". If true, prosecutors have promised to bring the maximum penalties allowed by law to punish the criminal or criminals. The ACLU, which has traditionally defended issues involving individuals right to free speech has vowed to take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, in order to defend individuals right to say what they want, when they want, where they want, as accorded them by the First Amendment.

More sure to follow...

George H · 2003-11-07 14:07:20

Meanwhile, in a nearby movie theater somewhere in New Mexico, police and fire fighters were still investigating into an alarm at the local movie Cineplex. One trampled patron hurt during the commotion and rush of everyone running from the theater claimed someone was running through the theater yelling "Fire! Fire! Fire!". If true, prosecutors have promised to bring the maximum penalties allowed by law to punish the criminal or criminals. The ACLU, which has traditionally defended issues involving individuals right to free speech has vowed to take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, in order to defend individuals right to say what they want, when they want, where they want, as accorded them by the First Amendment.
More sure to follow...

So cause ya can get in trouble for yelling FIRE in a theater, cause poeple might trample each other, it's o.k. for the Prez & cronie's to arrest some protester for just holding a sign? No way Jose.

jadeheart · 2003-11-07 14:12:59

*But PRO-BUSH placard holders were allowed to stay IN the area Mr. Bursey was told to leave.
I guess President Bush doesn't believe in free speech/expression for all. Just those who kiss his a$$. Big surprise...NOT.

it'll be interesting to see how they corral 50k+ protestors when W. goes to 'jolly' olde england in 2 weeks... :;):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, … 90,00.html

clark · 2003-11-07 14:15:09

Ah, the redoubtable Jorge, ever onward to vanquish mighty monsters, and always on the trail of the poor defenseless ones in need of saving.

Oh Valient warrior, I beseech thee, spare me from your tempered blade and fearsome words. I cannot take the light of such nobility within this cave.

And with a sigh, I die. Eek.

Palomar · 2003-11-07 14:59:59

*But PRO-BUSH placard holders were allowed to stay IN the area Mr. Bursey was told to leave.
I guess President Bush doesn't believe in free speech/expression for all. Just those who kiss his a$$. Big surprise...NOT.
it'll be interesting to see how they corral 50k+ protestors when W. goes to 'jolly' olde england in 2 weeks... :;):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, … 90,00.html

*Yeah. I'm sure he'll simply be avoidant, if he's not allowed to have his detractors (even peaceful, dignified detractors) removed.

Ever notice how snitty he gets when reporters ask him questions he doesn't like? I swear, you can almost hear the man's teeth grinding.

I think he gets it from his mom and dad. Oh well, I guess it's easier for folks born with a Silver Spoon in their mouths to be tyrannical...I really wouldn't know, it's just a hunch.

--Cindy :;):

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-07 15:01:52

I don't ever recall Clinton having "free speech" zones.

clark · 2003-11-07 15:06:33

I think that was only in the Oval Office.

Palomar · 2003-11-07 15:12:51

I don't ever recall Clinton having "free speech" zones.

*Good point. I don't recall that, either. In fact, this is the first time I've heard of such a thing during any Presidency.

Bush Sr. was quoted once, however, as saying he believed Americans had "too much" freedom, and that he seriously questioned whether "too much freedom" was really a "good thing." Sure...that's only for the elite wealthy, I suppose.

Despite Clinton's achievements and his faults, I think he's kept in mind where he came from: Obscurity and lower middle-class/single working mom household.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-11-07 15:23:32

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
--President Bill Clinton 8/12/93

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
-- President Bill Clinton, 5/29/93

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . . "
-- William J. Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

:laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-07 15:36:10

Source? Context?

Thanks.

I recall a incident where a crowed at a school Clinton was speaking at started acting rowdy. He stopped speaking, and made some comments about free speech, and said everyone gets a turn. It was pretty cool.

I think Clinton would've got in deep shit had he put up "no speech zones" for the oral sex fixated nutcases. Don't you remember the streets lined with moralists claiming that Clinton was evil and so on?

clark · 2003-11-07 15:45:41

Josh, et. al., I hope the point I am making is not lost. Stop being defensive and look at your reactions. Bush makes some jibe about limiting freedom, and you accept it. I point to actual dates and quotes showing Clinton saying similar things, and now you want context.

They are both scum, okay? Please also remember that these free speech zones are enforced by the Secret Service, you know, that group tasked with keeping El Jefe safe. Heck, only a few days ago some woman ran her car through the security gates where Bush was nearby giving a speech.

Should these people be prosecuted? No. Obviously not. There's nothing to prosecute. They only tried to say their piece. No harm, no foul.

But the powers that be have been doing things like this for a long time. Hello, was everyone asleep during the Clinton years while all those global trade deals were being signed and discussed? Most of that happened in Europe, so we missed out on the ten o'clock news, but the same thing happened.

[sigh]

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-07 17:53:01

Well, I know what you're saying, but for the record, I never had a problem with Bush's comment about how if the US was a dictatorship that it'd be easier to run or whatever (I knew it was a joke, and any self respecting person would know the same).

The only comment (of Bush's) I have ever really been bothered by was the "trifecta" comment. Because, c'mon, how cold can you be? It's not funny to me, not even in a somber context. It just annoys the shit out of me.

But anyway, these "free speech zones" are a new thing. It's disconcerting, because the next president might come right on in do the same crap.

Palomar · 2003-11-07 20:10:30

Josh: "...but for the record, I never had a problem with Bush's comment about how if the US was a dictatorship that it'd be easier to run or whatever (I knew it was a joke, and any self respecting person would know the same).

*I guess I'm not a self-respecting person, because I don't think he was entirely joking (based on his actions, and the crap Ashcroft is trying to pull).

Josh: "The only comment (of Bush's) I have ever really been bothered by was the "trifecta" comment. Because, c'mon, how cold can you be? It's not funny to me, not even in a somber context. It just annoys the shit out of me."

*What was the "trifecta" comment? I guess I missed it.

--Cindy

Spider-Man · 2003-11-07 23:27:57

...quiet, civilized, dignified protestors...

*Arches an incredulous eyebrow.*...umm, quiet? Dignified? I can't recall the last protest (especially anything remotely resembling a "fight-the-machine protest") that was quiet (as noise must be made to fight the system), civilized (as it is inherently anti-civilization in favor of nature), or dignified. Not to be unfavorably annoying, but the very idea of something like this, dear Cindy, even brings a person who merely partially agrees with these protestors to be quite vocal about it with others, as you yourself have been. These issues are not quiet; pretending those who challenge this authority (Socratically a very good thing) would ever be content to hold signs without physical motion nor verbal uproar, or even for a moment trusting them to be cordial and respectful while a speech is in progress, is impossibly foolish.

Think of all the horribly violent protests that went on up until the recommencement of the war last Spring through its primary conclusion, in this country alone. Until all the terrorist activity that began after the major portion of the fighting, more people had died or gotten injured during the protests worldwide than the coalition forces' casualties in Iraq. Remember those two protestors who were pushed off a the Golden Gate bridge by the sheer volume of them and fell to their deaths? or the pedestrians who were trampled in New York in the last protest before the war?

There is nothing quiet, civilized, or dignified about such protesting. Don't have any illusions about the nature of these sorts of activities any more than you would about the current administration.

Indeed, and I'm glad to see no one has yet invoked any of the presidential challengers as emblems of potential progress. No matter how bad Bush gets, it seems (and he is quite unbearable anymore), his opponents can't find someone with even the slightest modicum of intelligence or speech (excepting possibly Lieberman) to run against the incumbant "tyrant", as Dean practically called him the other day. They're all idiots. None of them know anything. I absolutely hate this anymore; short of Colin Powell running for president, we're screwed either way until 2008 or later.

And by then, NASA will be dead, China will have landed on the Moon, and more people will have killed one another out of fear and hatred on our own soil than the terrorists could ever have performed themselves short of the temporary use of a jet airliner.

Sic imperium decidit, more e timore pro ferre.

Christina · 2003-11-08 03:53:48

*But PRO-BUSH placard holders were allowed to stay IN the area Mr. Bursey was told to leave.
I guess President Bush doesn't believe in free speech/expression for all. Just those who kiss his a$$. Big surprise...NOT.
it'll be interesting to see how they corral 50k+ protestors when W. goes to 'jolly' olde england in 2 weeks... :;):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, … 90,00.html

Meh.

We'll just set the hounds on him. After all, now hunting with dogs is about to be totally banned, they might as well have one last chase before they are all put down.
[contentious, provokative, deliberately over the top]

Maybe W just doesn't like being confronted with hecklers because he's not quite as quick with off the cuff retorts as some others are? So his minders take steps to protect him from such embarrassing situations?

Byron · 2003-11-08 07:03:04

*Arches an incredulous eyebrow.*...umm, quiet? Dignified? I can't recall the last protest (especially anything remotely resembling a "fight-the-machine protest") that was quiet (as noise must be made to fight the system), civilized (as it is inherently anti-civilization in favor of nature), or dignified. Not to be unfavorably annoying, but the very idea of something like this, dear Cindy, even brings a person who merely partially agrees with these protestors to be quite vocal about it with others, as you yourself have been. These issues are not quiet; pretending those who challenge this authority (Socratically a very good thing) would ever be content to hold signs without physical motion nor verbal uproar, or even for a moment trusting them to be cordial and respectful while a speech is in progress, is impossibly foolish.
Think of all the horribly violent protests that went on up until the recommencement of the war last Spring through its primary conclusion, in this country alone. Until all the terrorist activity that began after the major portion of the fighting, more people had died or gotten injured during the protests worldwide than the coalition forces' casualties in Iraq. Remember those two protestors who were pushed off a the Golden Gate bridge by the sheer volume of them and fell to their deaths? or the pedestrians who were trampled in New York in the last protest before the war?
There is nothing quiet, civilized, or dignified about such protesting. Don't have any illusions about the nature of these sorts of activities any more than you would about the current administration.

If it wasn't for "protests," we wouldn't have democracy or our modern, technologically advanced civilization. Protesting is what keeps power in check...without it, the world would quickly descend into tyranny and chaos.

How do you think America was founded? If people hadn't protested the unfair tax policies of England (like the Bosten Tea Party,) the Revolutionary War would have never come about, and the U.S. would have been nothing but a sleepy backwater in the centuries to follow.

How do you think civil rights for African-Americans came about? Just because the government decided to play "nice" by passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964? No, people had to put their lives on the line on the mean streets of Alabama just so African-Americans can enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. If these people had never engaged in "undignified" protest, we would still have segregation and Jim Crow laws repressing a significant percentage of the American population. (Of course we have drug laws in place that are specifically targeted towards blacks, but that's a whole different story.)

How do you think gay rights came about in America? When the word "queer" no longer was used as an insult? (Think "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"..lol) No siree. Gay rights came about from a very violent protest called Stonewall in the late 1960's. Several people died in this protest, but because of that, gays have been able to achieve more or less equal rights in the span of a single generation, a remarkable achievement in light of things like AIDS and rabid, hate-filled "Christians" running around all over the place back in the '80's.

How do think women finally won the right to vote in 1920? They certainly didn't win that right by being "dignified" and "civilized." No siree. They got out on the streets and made a bunch of noise...lots and lots of noise...which shocked the male population at the time...how dare women do such a thing!?!

How do you think labor rights came about? Think about how all those people died in the Pullman riots back in the late 1800's...at least those brave fighters didn't die in vain.

Even in cases where tyranny did suceed for a time, like Nazi Germany...there were people bravely fighting the system - even in the face of complete hopelessness. Believe me, the Jewish resistance movement was alive and well throughout the Nazi era, not to mention the people of Mother Russia who had the foresight to burn everything in sight to prevent the Germans from taking over their country, even though that often meant sacrificing their own lives in the process.

You see, the world thrives on protest....without it, civilization would unwind back to a time when people could beat up on other people just because they were bigger and stronger than they were. That's why when I see a protest on TV (like the ones in Europe...boy, they sure can put on some good ones!,) my heart goes out to them, even when I don't exactly agree with what they're protesting.

Protest is good. Protest is free speech in action. If the U.S. ever finds a way to squash protest for good, then it's time to say a long goodbye to the good 'ol U.S. of A., for this country won't be around for much longer as a nation...

B

P.S. Didn't mean to come down on you so hard, Spider-Man...this is just something that I feel very strongly about...
:;):

Palomar · 2003-11-08 08:26:08

*I agree, Byron.

The ability to protest, IMO, keeps the wheels of civilization and society oiled. I think back to all the instances in the past of tyranny, oppression and abuses just building and building and building...until finally, somewhere along this long and accumulating process, something snaps and then there are very bloody upheavals spilling over with tremendous amounts of carnage and etc. The past history of the West (and current history in some parts of the world) have that pattern. And the end result is very little advancement, just a new tyrant emerging from the rubble (look at the Shiites in Iraq; they want to install the next DICTATOR...their dictator, of course; same for the Sunni; they don't understand democracy, nope -- gotta have another DICTATOR...their dictator; no advancement there, just a mere changing of hands -- that's all).

Protest allows for progress, allows for "nip it in the bud," allows for communication -- which is especially essential to society.

Of course, I prefer non-violent protest.

Going back to this situation with Dubya and his detractors: From what I gather, the anti-war protestors were not being unruly or violent. It goes back to this:

"Bursey has said he was arrested because he was carrying a sign that read "No War for Oil" and contends others with pro-Bush placards were allowed to stay in the area.

The U.S. attorney's office has said Bursey was arrested not for what his sign said but for where he was carrying it."

That is CENSORSHIP. That is DISCRIMINATION.

If Bush cannot tolerate the voice of dissent, then he is unworthy of being the President (has he ever read the Bill of Rights, I wonder?). He's supposed to be the UPHOLDER of those rights, not trampling on them at whim.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-11-08 08:57:40

That is CENSORSHIP. That is DISCRIMINATION.

Just like what the Bush administration is doing going after people who have visited Cuba, even as Congress is working on legislation to open up travel to Cuba. I don't agree with Castro either, but I do believe in the right of free travel.

What Bush is doing to those people who went to Cuba by way of Canada and Mexico is out of pure spite...and I hope Congress shows him up by opening up free travel to Cuba...in spite of his veto threat...

Enough is enough....

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-08 09:57:41

Spider-Man is essentially correct, these protesters are neither civil nor dignified for the most part. I've been on the ground with them, stirring the pot. They are loud, confrontational, disrespectful of any opinion but their own, and utterly unwilling to acknowledge the possibilty that they may be wrong or that the other side has a right to make their case without interruption.

Censoring protest and keeping protestors at a distance are very different things. For example, if I have an issue with Dr. Zubrin I can state my case. But is there anyone here who would not think me a complete a$$hole if I stood up at the opening plenary of the next Mars Society conference and starting shouting at him in the most disrespectful manner? Would anyone object as the cops dragged me out, kicking and screaming, spewing venom and curses at all who dare to disagree?

Protest is a good thing, but it has its place. Does anyone think the President should degrade himself and the office by responding to every heckler that calls him a oil-sucking tyrant? Next thing they'll be upset they can't have an anti-war rally on the White House lawn.

Palomar · 2003-11-08 10:49:33

CC: "Spider-Man is essentially correct, these protesters are neither civil nor dignified for the most part. "

*You were at that airport? All protesters are uncivil and undignified? People who agree with Bush should be allowed to stand -anywhere- with their placards...but not the people who disagree?

CC: "I've been on the ground with them, stirring the pot."

*Uh-oh. You just told on yourself. Nyaaaa!

CC: "They are loud, confrontational, disrespectful of any opinion but their own, and utterly unwilling to acknowledge the possibilty that they may be wrong or that the other side has a right to make their case without interruption."

*I'm sure some protesters are this way. Many probably are. But not ALL are, ALL the time, at EVERY occurrence -- ?

CC: "Censoring protest and keeping protestors at a distance are very different things. For example, if I have an issue with Dr. Zubrin I can state my case. But is there anyone here who would not think me a complete a$$hole if I stood up at the opening plenary of the next Mars Society conference and starting shouting at him in the most disrespectful manner?"

*Depends on what you'd be shouting about, and what he might have said to provoke that reaction in you. At the very least, wait until he's done, stand up and say you have an objection. Geesh, if the Mars Society ever does go in the direction of Agree With Zubrin On Everything, Don't Question Him -- Or Get Kicked Out, I'll be late for the door! It is possible to be calm and reasonable (disagree agreeably) in many matters. And by the way, the placard holder in the news story I posted yesterday wasn't shouting.

CC: "Would anyone object as the cops dragged me out, kicking and screaming, spewing venom and curses at all who dare to disagree?"

*Well, becoming physically aggressive, physically combative, violent, and threatening bodily harm to others IS where I'd draw the line. Your right to protest stops when you attempt to deprive me of my right to be heard, to intimidate me or attempt to physically harm me if I don't "back down." But the man in the story wasn't doing this.

CC: "Protest is a good thing, but it has its place. Does anyone think the President should degrade himself and the office by responding to every heckler that calls him a oil-sucking tyrant?"

*Of course not. Who'd have the time for such a thing anyway? He doesn't have to respond, he didn't have to read that man's placard. But he can't stomach the voice of dissent...even if written in 4 simple "clean" words on a placard? Oh, peel me an onion so I can cry...boo hoo hoo.

CC: "Next thing they'll be upset they can't have an anti-war rally on the White House lawn."

*Well, that might present a security problem, terrorists could sneak in and detonate a bomb, lots of people get hurt, etc. I believe in trying to use common sense and "the lesser of two evils" approach in matters like this, which can (I admit) become sticky very easily.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-11-08 11:33:23

Speaking of protests, they're planning to have a march on the FTAA beginning about 3 or 4 miles from where I live on the Sunday after next. I might just go to check it out to see how these "protesters" really behave without depending on the media for the story...

B

Palomar · 2003-11-08 11:42:40

*Just some food for thought.

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both. "

- Benjamin Franklin

*

"They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

- Benjamin Franklin

*

"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."

- Albert Camus

*

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you."

- Samuel Adams

*

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-08 13:51:39

Cindy, I always felt the dictator joke was overplayed in the media, it makes left-leaning people look rabid, as if they're out to pick at every little thing, in my opinion.

After 9/11, Bush said something like this on various ocassions:

I remember when I was campaigning, I said, would you ever deficit spend? And I said, yes, only if there were a time of war, or recession, or a national emergency. Never thought we'd get -- (laughter and applause.) And so we have a temporary deficit in our budget, because we are at war, we're recovering, our economy is recovering, and we've had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have the trifecta. (Laughter.)

---
Ironically, he never said that he wouldn't deficit spend during war, recession or a national emergency. Al Gore did.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-08 14:37:02

CC: "They are loud, confrontational, disrespectful of any opinion but their own, and utterly unwilling to acknowledge the possibilty that they may be wrong or that the other side has a right to make their case without interruption."
*I'm sure some protesters are this way. Many probably are. But not ALL are, ALL the time, at EVERY occurrence -- ?

Certainly not, but if you see ten leftist loonies scream and rant at a protest, when numberr 11 comes along you're justified in suspecting similar behavior. Actually I think removing this guy with the placard was a safe move, imagine if he'd actually caused a disturbance and had to be forcibly removed. We'd be seeing that tape for weeks.

*Depends on what you'd be shouting about, and what he might have said to provoke that reaction in you. At the very least, wait until he's done, stand up and say you have an objection.

I agree, unfortunately not everyone has the courtesy to wait and respond in a rational and dignified manner.

*Well, becoming physically aggressive, physically combative, violent, and threatening bodily harm to others IS where I'd draw the line. Your right to protest stops when you attempt to deprive me of my right to be heard, to intimidate me or attempt to physically harm me if I don't "back down." But the man in the story wasn't doing this.

Some of these protestors do become combative, which I find amusing from a bunch of people at a peace rally, but no one ever said they weren't hypocrites. If the man in the story wasn't being disruptive, good for him, I can actually respect his opinion. Was removing a non-violent protestor right? Probably not. Is it the first time a politician has done it? No. Can I understand why they'd do it? yes. Does that make a President a threat to the fundamental liberties of the American people? No.

Just for comparison, back in '92 I went to a Clinton/Gore rally. Yes, I confess, I couldn't pass on the invitation. There was a group of anti-abortion protestors there, peacefully holding signs. They were not allowed beyond a certain point. I didn't think it was big deal.

Oh, and great quotes Cindy, both sides need to pay them more heed.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-07 12:29:57

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#2 2003-11-07 13:07:25

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#3 2003-11-07 14:07:20

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#4 2003-11-07 14:12:59

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#5 2003-11-07 14:15:09

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#6 2003-11-07 14:59:59

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#7 2003-11-07 15:01:52

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#8 2003-11-07 15:06:33

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#9 2003-11-07 15:12:51

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#10 2003-11-07 15:23:32

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#11 2003-11-07 15:36:10

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#12 2003-11-07 15:45:41

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#13 2003-11-07 17:53:01

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#14 2003-11-07 20:10:30

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#15 2003-11-07 23:27:57

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#16 2003-11-08 03:53:48

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#17 2003-11-08 07:03:04

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#18 2003-11-08 08:26:08

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#19 2003-11-08 08:57:40

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#20 2003-11-08 09:57:41

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#21 2003-11-08 10:49:33

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#22 2003-11-08 11:33:23

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#23 2003-11-08 11:42:40

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#24 2003-11-08 13:51:39

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

#25 2003-11-08 14:37:02

Re: Free Speech ZONE?

Board footer