Police explain "free speech" to Cuban Baseball Official

[headscratcher4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/puerto_rico_cuba_brouhaha

I love this story. A man holds up an anti-Castro sign at the World Baseball Torunament in Puerto Rico -- where it is flashed on TV to Cuba. A Cuban baseball offial rushes over and berates the man. Police remove the Cuban, take him to the station and explain to him what free speech is.

indeed.

Now, had this been an event with President Bush, I suspect the man exersizing free speech and holding up an anti-Bush sign would have been escorted from the premisis by the secret service or GOP functionaries playing cops. I know this is mere conjecture, but it's happened enough over the last couple of years.

Hopefully, the San Juan police will inspire us all to understand freedom of speech a little better.

 

[Grammatron]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/puerto_rico_cuba_brouhaha

I love this story. A man holds up an anti-Castro sign at the World Baseball Torunament in Puerto Rico -- where it is flashed on TV to Cuba. A Cuban baseball offial rushes over and berates the man. Police remove the Cuban, take him to the station and explain to him what free speech is.

indeed.

Now, had this been an event with President Bush, I suspect the man exersizing free speech and holding up an anti-Bush sign would have been escorted from the premisis by the secret service or GOP functionaries playing cops. I know this is mere conjecture, but it's happened enough over the last couple of years.

Hopefully, the San Juan police will inspire us all to understand freedom of speech a little better.

I love the spin, which is beneath you btw. I also love how you changed few keywords in the story.

The top Cuban official at the game at Hiram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan rushed to confront the man.

Confront implies a whole lot mote than berate.

Anything else you want to blame Bush for? It rained in Los Angeles today, I am sure GOP was behind it as its a key city in a Blue State and all.

 

[jj]

Now, had this been an event with President Bush, I suspect the man exersizing free speech and holding up an anti-Bush sign would have been escorted from the premisis by the secret service or GOP functionaries playing cops. I know this is mere conjecture, but it's happened enough over the last couple of years.

Actually, you're being far too kind. In Seattle, anti-Bush protesters were forcibly priorly (what's the proper term there) restrained, forced to remain without legal advice or recourse to law in a compound for part of a day, and then ordered to disperse in a specific direction. At the same time, the press was prevented from reaching or talking to these people.

I have indeed, long ago, cited the Seattle Times article on this, and it's from '04 so don't aske me for it again.

 

[Tony]

I didn't know the Netherlands had a baseball team.

Now, had this been an event with President Bush, I suspect the man exersizing free speech and holding up an anti-Bush sign would have been escorted from the premisis by the secret service or GOP functionaries playing cops. I know this is mere conjecture, but it's happened enough over the last couple of years.

Hopefully, the San Juan police will inspire us all to understand freedom of speech a little better.

I suspect you're right.

 

[Tmy]

A baseball park is not the same as a street corner. People get tossed all the time for offensive signs and language.

 

[Bjorn]

A baseball park is not the same as a street corner. People get tossed all the time for offensive signs and language.

I'm not sure if this was an "offensive" sign, but forget that: I didn't get your point. Should such demonstrations be

- allowed on street corners, but not in a baseball park
- allowed in a baseball park, but not on street corners
- allowed in both places
- prohibited in both places

 

[Euromutt]

I didn't know the Netherlands had a baseball team.

I'm surprised too, and I'm Dutch. Apparently, in the case of both the Dutch and Italian teams (the only Europeans who bothered to show up), the rules were fudged to a certain extent to allow a limited number of American nationals claiming Dutch or Italian descent to fill out the respective teams.

 

[Mephisto]

A baseball park is not the same as a street corner. People get tossed all the time for offensive signs and language.

Yeah? Look at Fred Phelps, his signs (and opinions) are about as offensive as you can get, but no one has "tossed" him yet.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah? Look at Fred Phelps, his signs (and opinions) are about as offensive as you can get, but no one has "tossed" him yet.

Has he demonstrated inside a baseball stadium? That would be...interesting.

 

[headscratcher4]

I love the spin, which is beneath you btw. I also love how you changed few keywords in the story.



Confront implies a whole lot mote than berate.

Anything else you want to blame Bush for? It rained in Los Angeles today, I am sure GOP was behind it as its a key city in a Blue State and all.

1. Clearly, the "spin" is not beneath me. I do it constantly. So, it is exactly like me.

2. My description was inadequate, I should have used the word confront, but I wansn't trying to minimize the confrontation. I think it was great that the police hauled the guy in. I also think that if you can advertise beer at a ball game, why not politics? He was only holding up a sign. They don't drag the Mathew 9-23 (or whatever it is) funny hair guy away for holding up his sign. More power to the guy...and I say this believing that our embargo is wrong. Castro is a ego-maniac, murderer and dictator who has held that country hostage to his ego for 50 years.

3. Grammy, I know you've read in the papers and heard on the news (well maybe not Fox) the stories of quiet protesters trying to hold up anti-bus signs either being denied access to "public" events, or being escorted (there's a spin word for forcibly removed) from events with the President. Of course, it didn't start with Bush, all President have people that try to do this. I would say that it seems more pronounced with Bush. I also think it is an interesting contrast, free speech can't be just for speech we approve of. We both don't like Castro, so this guys free speech is appropriate even in a potentially inapproriate setting, but a anti-Bush sign isn't?

My point is, for a free society, what is good for the goose, etc.

My spin.

 

[luchog]

I'm not sure if this was an "offensive" sign, but forget that: I didn't get your point. Should such demonstrations be

- allowed on street corners, but not in a baseball park
- allowed in a baseball park, but not on street corners
- allowed in both places
- prohibited in both places

Street corners are public places. Baseball parks are technically private places (though often paid for with public money, they are still officially "privately" owned, it's a weird sort of double-standard situation).

 

[Grammatron]

1. Clearly, the "spin" is not beneath me. I do it constantly. So, it is exactly like me.

Very well mr O'headscratcherly.

2. My description was inadequate, I should have used the word confront, but I wansn't trying to minimize the confrontation. I think it was great that the police hauled the guy in. I also think that if you can advertise beer at a ball game, why not politics? He was only holding up a sign. They don't drag the Mathew 9-23 (or whatever it is) funny hair guy away for holding up his sign. More power to the guy...and I say this believing that our embargo is wrong. Castro is a ego-maniac, murderer and dictator who has held that country hostage to his ego for 50 years.

Well you pay for beer advertisement.

3. Grammy, I know you've read in the papers and heard on the news (well maybe not Fox) the stories of quiet protesters trying to hold up anti-bus signs either being denied access to "public" events, or being escorted (there's a spin word for forcibly removed) from events with the President. Of course, it didn't start with Bush, all President have people that try to do this. I would say that it seems more pronounced with Bush. I also think it is an interesting contrast, free speech can't be just for speech we approve of. We both don't like Castro, so this guys free speech is appropriate even in a potentially inapproriate setting, but a anti-Bush sign isn't?

My point is, for a free society, what is good for the goose, etc.

My spin.

I drive by a Federal building every day when I got to and from work. There have been the same group of people there holding up anti-Bush signs since 2002.

 

[Beerina]

I'm not sure if this was an "offensive" sign, but forget that: I didn't get your point. Should such demonstrations be

- allowed on street corners, but not in a baseball park
- allowed in a baseball park, but not on street corners
- allowed in both places
- prohibited in both places

Street corner: Public land, hence freedom of speech is supreme

Baseball park: Nominally private, though sometimes partly or wholely funded by public money. If private, should be at the discretion of the owners. If fully public, same as a street corner. If mixed...?

 

[Beerina]

Very well mr O'headscratcherly.

Well you pay for beer advertisement.


I drive by a Federal building every day when I got to and from work. There have been the same group of people there holding up anti-Bush signs since 2002.

I recall a study of protestors a few years ago. A significant chunk were basically professional protestors who had nothing better to do but go to each other's protests over and over again.

I also like to count the numbers of protestors vs. the numbers of non-protestors at an event, to try to expose the media bias.

Gotta love a ballgame of 50,000 people, but the news has a 30 second article about 2 dozen people protesting it.

Or "large numbers of people", as the camera shows about 50 people milling about chanting something.

 

[Bjorn]

Street corner: Public land, hence freedom of speech is supreme

Baseball park: Nominally private, though sometimes partly or wholely funded by public money. If private, should be at the discretion of the owners. If fully public, same as a street corner. If mixed...?

OK. I asked because grumpy old jj posted this:

Actually, you're being far too kind. In Seattle, anti-Bush protesters were forcibly priorly (what's the proper term there) restrained, forced to remain without legal advice or recourse to law in a compound for part of a day, and then ordered to disperse in a specific direction. At the same time, the press was prevented from reaching or talking to these people.

If freedom of speech is supreme, how could they?

 

[RandFan]

OK. I asked because grumpy old jj posted this:

If freedom of speech is supreme, how could they?

I'm not sure that is the point. Sadly there will be infringements on free speech in public from time to time due to idiot leaders or idiot bureaucrats. Yes, the principle for free speech in public should reign supreme and in general it does. Sadly it doesn't always and that is where the ACLU and other similar organizations come in.

That being said, in a private or semi-private setting the rules can and often do change. I remember a case where some grocery clerk was fired for hounding Sinead O'connor at the grocery store for her controversial stint at SNL. He asserted first Amendment rights but the courts told him to go pound sand since the grocery store was a private business and had the right to infringe his speech.

 

[Manny]

They don't drag the Mathew 9-23 (or whatever it is) funny hair guy away for holding up his sign.

Heh.

 

[headscratcher4]

Heh.

Well, maybe they drag him away for killing people. STRANGE story.