Talk:Free speech zone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Free speech zone is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

• /archive1

Contents 1 Author's intention 2 What's the significance of the photos 3 NPOV tag 4 Muzzle award 5 Reverted edit 6 Jim Hightower article 7 Arrested Development 8 Youtube 9 In Canada 10 Historical usage should be listed first 11 Contradiction 12 V for Validity 13 Similar restrictions

[edit] Author's intention

A sentence of this article says, "The Secret Service routinely forces protestors into designed areas far from the locations visited by Bush administration officials." It says "designed" and not "designated"; was this the original intention?

That would be a typo. Raul654 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the significance of the photos

What's up with the photos at Washington University and Muir Woods National Monument? Who authorized these free speech zones and why? Anyone know? Regards, --Jayzel 04:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the Wash U pic - Presidential candidates are given secret service protection (and have been since June 7, 1968 - the day after RFK was assassinated). So that was likely the Secret Service.

As to the Muir Woods pic - the sign itself seems to imply it was the National Parks service (probably for the protection of the land itself). Raul654 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I shoulda guessed regarding the Washington U pic. That park pic is bizarre, though. It's in San Francisco so it has nothing to do with the president and Secret Service and I don't understand how that sign protects the land. I'll have to research that one tomorrow. Regards, --Jayzel 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty easy to figure out. The National Parks Service is responsible for regulating traffic through the parks, to prevent damage. (Think what would happen to Yellowstone if Britney Spears had a concert there) It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me that that mandate includes setting aside specific areas for political demonstrations. Raul654 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Sorry, but after thinking about this for a while, I have decided to add the tag. The multiple use of extended excerpts from editorials by non-neutral activists without attribution is without a doubt POV pushing (And brings it to a whole new dimention here at Wikipedia). One of the more egregious examples of this, in addition to the extended quotes repeating the wording on protestors signs and shirts, is this passage: "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represents another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places—building vestibules, parking garages, or vans—and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO NOT CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."

These extended excerpts desperately need to be summarized in your own words to remove the POV aspects -- if they are to be kept at all. --Jayzel 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The very existence of wikipedia as a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia is a non-neutral statement about the values of knowledge and freedom. We don't present the positive side of ****** ****** to my knowledge. Why undermine freedom by downplaying the reality of Bush's behavior with weasle words? 4.250.168.43 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality is relative. Your "weasle words" may be another's absolute truth. Also have to agree that this article does need cleaning up some.Jasontheperson 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; it doesn't seem incredibly POV to me. Free speech zones are repression. Why call them anything else? The major debate is not whether or not they are repression, but whether they are necessary repression. 66.81.49.203

No repression is necessary in a free country. Because the government is owned by the people and not the other way around. Hence the government is legally obligated to obey the people's wishes or otherwise commit fraud through the oath of office/service they taken and/or treason against the country. Lord Metroid 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't review the article so I can't comment on the NPOV, however this is a very loaded topic. Specially considering how the federal government is just out of control post-9/11. I don't think the founding fathers had this kind of practice in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendement. Lord Metroid 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, but I didn't see these comments until now.

I find most of the above commentary confusing to say the least. I don't really understand how having protests in a zone is "repression". In fact, with the invention of the internet there is more free expression now that any time in history. To call not being allowed to shout "Hitler" to Bush's face "repression" diminishes the meaning of the word and is, IMO, insulting to all the people of the world who are truly repressed. With that said, I would not have a problem with the above text being in the article so long as it was actually attributed to the person saying it. This is common practice in writing. When you use a quotation, both attribute it and cite it. As it and other examples in the article stand now, the quotes are offered as facts instead of the opinions they are. Regards, --Jayzel 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand how having protests in a zone is "repression". - (a) It violates the constitution, and (b) is used to make dissent disappear.

In fact, with the invention of the internet there is more free expression now that any time in history - Until about 100 years ago, anyone could walk into the White House unannounced and have a chat with the president (Charles Guiteau nearly assassinated President Garfield this way). It was literally the peoples' house. Our leaders are more inaccessible now than at any other point in history, and this just takes that to its natural conclusion - hiding all dissent. You were saying?

To call not being allowed to shout "Hitler" to Bush's face "repression" diminishes the meaning of the word - "Free speech is the rule, not the exception. The restraint to be constitutional must be based on more than fear, on more than passionate opposition against the speech, on more than a revolted dislike for its contents. There must be some immediate injury to society that is likely if speech is allowed." - William O. Douglas

As far as issues relating to statements in this article, I will be happy to add statements defending the use of the zones when someone finds them. The Secret Service denies it uses them to quash dissent (as is stated - repeatedly - in the article) but the simple matter is that their actions do not coincide with their words. And nobody in the media is defending them. Raul654 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

this might be a possibility. But cleaning up the article by replacing partisan sources with more reliable sources where possible, and adding some serious articles that give a good overview of the history of FSZs is probably a higher priority. Andjam 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

with the possible exception of #44 (The Marquett Warrior, a blog about Marquett University), every single sourced cited by this article is reliable. Raul654 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(I guess we have different ideas of what a reliable source is) Funeral protest ban passes Senate is another case where buffer zones are supported. Andjam 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I attributed the quote in question, therefore I removed the NPOV tag. That wasn't very difficult now, was it? --Jayzel 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle award

With regards to the mention of the muzzle award, the organisation currently lacks a wikipedia entry, and the citation given is from the organisation's web site. How would a reviewer (without doing their own original research) be able to judge that the award given by this organisation is notable? Andjam 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit

this edit got rolled back. I had a look at the IP's edit history, and it seems to be non-vandalistic (for example, it added specific information on a flag desecration event). The edit to this article removed a quotation of several sentences which promoted a certain POV. Andjam 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of the first sentence, every single sentence in that edit is a simple declaratory sentence that is objectively true. Removing large chucks of sourced material is vandalism. Not to mention the fact that removing it makes this article less informative. Raul654 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourced or reliably sourced? Andjam 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing large chucks of sourced material is vandalism. Do you have a link to show that policy? I am having my own problem with an editor deleting large chunks of sourced text from an article. --Jayzel 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. - Wikipedia:Attribution

Nonviolent activist magazine, from which the quote originated, is a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia policy. Raul654 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

If you were characterizing the protestors, that'd be fine, but you were trying to cite them as the source on what happened at the protest. Andjam 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Hightower article

The Jim Hightower article cited doesn't seem to be giving a full history of free speech zones, and doesn't seem to be a reliable NPOV source. Andjam 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources give the full history of the topic, or that they be neutral. As far as reliablility, yes, The Nation is a reliable source. Raul654 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested Development

Maybe a quick mention of the reference to the free speech zone made in Fox's Arrested Development? I would add it to the article, but I don't want to reduce credibility, or add pop culture references to a serious topic. I do however think that Arrested Development takes the topic on in a satirical manner that makes it noteworthy.--155.212.206.162 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube

Youtube is not a reliable source, according to this, unless the author itself a trusted expert. Andjam 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the ACLU itself reliable either? They seem to be pretty biased, by definition. (Source 4, possible others.) --72.94.158.86 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Canada

Free Speech Zones have now appeared in Canada; I have tentatively added a mention of this just before the Criticism section, since the same criticisms apply. I think it's a good idea to change the History section to "U.S. History" now that this damnable Orwellian practice seems to be spreading. I'm actually quite surprised this article is very short, considering the impact of the subject matter. -MarkBaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.164.4 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Canada mention into a "In other countries" section at the bottom. As far as the article length, I'm pretty much the only person person who has contributed significantly to it. Raul654 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul654, indeed the move makes good sense. And thanks for the significant contribution here. I suspect it won't be long until we (Canada) have the full fenced-in version here, especially with the Olympics coming in 2010.NormanBrown 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical usage should be listed first

Free speech zones are a topic with much broader depth than their usage by the Bush administration. Even today they're still used at universities even when the President is nowhere nere. Accordingly, the history and origins of their usage should come first in the article, especially in the lead. As it's written, the article reads like the non-Bush uses are merely an afterthought. Scott Ritchie 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The second paragraph of the intro opens with "Free speech zones are created by the Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration." Immediately to the right of this sentence is a picture of a zone with a caption stating that it was from the 2004 Democratic Convention. So is the caption wrong or the sentence? KnightLago 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(As the person who wrote it) That sentence should be tweaked. That's clearly their most prominent use (which is what this article used to say; people complained). In the broadest sense, they are created by people holding some kind of gathering in order (nominally) to protect the people gathering from possible hostilities with protesters; in reality, they are used to put protesters out of sight and out of mind. Raul654 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V for Validity

The validity of this page is highly questionable due to those images without documented sources, and I would like to see them either documented properly or removed. There are plenty of links for the ACLU fighting against this, why are they not on this page? I would like these stories included, they are a testimony to these events, specifically from the ACLU and other more credible organizations.

There is quality audio on http://www.scpronet.com/, someone please add this as well, I am partisan against this issue and feel that my bias will inhibit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are lot of other pictures of the DNC's Boston Free Speech zone that quite easily confirm the validity of the ones here: [1] [2] [3]. Raul654 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar restrictions

Before the article gets nominated for featured article status again, would it be possible to include information on legislation against "protesting" close to abortion clinics (eg Mass. Senate OK's expanded limits on abortion protesters (and the ACLU's position on it) and possibly on legislation (or attempts at legislation) against the picketing of funerals?

One benefit to writing about legislation is that people are more likely to speak openly as to why they are or aren't in favor of restrictions.

I'm against "free speech zones" for presidential visits, but I think that in order for them to stop, we have to understand in general why people support restrictions on protesting, and indicate that "free speech zones" are not a new phenomenon.

Thanks, Andjam 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What you have described are not free speech zones - they are exclusion zones. A free speech zone is an area that protesters are required to go to; an exclusion zone is an area that protectors cannot protest in. The existence in an area of a free speech zone turns everywhere outside the free speech zone into an exclusion zone - that's why they are objectionable. Raul654 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Is there currently an article on exclusion zones? Thanks, Andjam 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In the sense you have described (involving protesters), no, we have no such article. Exclusion zone (correctly) redirects to Zone of alienation, which is the Chernobyl exclusion zone (the 30 kilometer radioactive area around Chernobyl where nobody is supposed to live or go). Raul654 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have converted the redirect into a real article. Raul654 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Andjam 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)