Talk:Free speech zone

message: https://www.google.com/search?q=China+Free+Speech+Zones
BillyTFried (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of China or the 2008 Olympics? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Muzzle award 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jim Hightower article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arrested Development 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical usage should be listed first 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
replies: text: There are lot of other pictures of the DNC's Boston Free Speech zone that quite easily confirm the validity of the ones here:   . Raul654 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: V for Validity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok. Is there currently an article on exclusion zones? Thanks, Andjam 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have converted the redirect into a real article. Raul654 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Andjam 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar restrictions 

message: There seems to be something like a FSZ set up by local authorities in Copenhagen, which maybe deserves to be explained here.  The police there had this idea of setting up a venue for the protesters, but then raided the venue at night.  Cool trick, huh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.141.130 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted zones for protesters in Copenhagen 

message: The openening Sentence in this article should do more to highlight the controversy of having such free speech zones. The first paragraph merely describes how it was justified legally. Others don't believe this to hold up. I think inclusion that "abridged" actually means to place limits on, and the defining of the location, time and duration of free speech is obviously applying limits to it.
(different poster from above unsigned comment) I'm pretty new to wikipedia and don't know all of the rules, but the opening section of this article needs editing, in my opinion. The text of the first amendment is as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
The opening section of this article states:
“"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”
What it does here is conveniently leave bits out, ostensibly in order to be concise, but effectively alters the grammar and meaning of the amendment. The altered meaning seems to suggest that the existence of "free speech" zones or legislation pertaining to them is within the realm of government's jurisdiction.
Here's a simple way of showing the meaning of this amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting:
1) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
2) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
3) the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
These are three distinct concepts about which no laws shall be made by the federal government, according to the constitution. The amendment states that congress has no lawful right to have created laws regarding limiting free speech in any way, and no lawful right to create laws regarding people's right to peaceably assemble, petition, protest, etc.. 
The use of the word "abridge" has been taken out of context. It has been made to appear as if it is lawful and fine for the time, place, and manner of speech and protest to be under the control of the federal government, but that the word abridge only protects the content of the speech. It is misleading, and deceptive for two reasons. The first is that if you are not allowed to abridge something, it means:
“Function: transitive verb 
1 a archaic : deprive b  : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
2 : to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge
You pretty much can't modify it at all. If you limit the time, place, and/or manner of speech, that is modification. It is abridging speech, which is unlawful. The second reason is that 'abridge' is only used by the amendment in reference to freedom of speech and of the press - the right to protest is completely protected from any federal laws whatsoever.
I'm not trying to debate the validity of free speech zones. I know that the talk page is not a forum for discussing that kind of thing. What I am saying, though, is that the article is currently in such a form that it obfuscates the lawful basis for the existence of free-speech zones, and this needs to be fixed.
I propose it be changed to include the full text of the amendment, and that the court decisions referenced be cited at the end of the sentence.
I would be more than happy to make the edits myself without having had to rant, but somebody has locked/protected the article on wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, so that I cannot edit it. What is the process involved in being able to edit locked articles on this allegedly freely editable encyclopedia? If it requires me to make x number of edits or to have been a member for x amount of months, I'm not sure just how free that is. I'm not going to go randomly edit articles i know nothing about, just so i can rack up enough brownie points to edit a protected article. Is that the only way??Mumberthrax (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Abridged 

message: Free Speech Zone article locked?  Way to go Wikipedia!  
Never mind the lies on Wikipedia about 9/11 and Global Warming either!
What's the use in reading Wikipedia anymore?  It's been overrun by mainstream propaganda. 67.214.228.98 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Speech Zone article locked?  Way to go Wikipedia! 

message: 18 USC 1752 now updated, waiting for WP:RS to announce signed. Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was presented on March 1 to Obama. 
Since Thomas.Loc.gov refers us to this copy of the Federal Code which looks updated, it gives the impression it quietly has been signed into law. The Cornell Law version was timing out when went to it. 
In short it would increase the number of "secure areas" where protests are not allowed and ramp up the fines and prison sentences for breaking the law, even if there was no way you would know a Secret Service "protected" person was in the building or grounds. The bottom line: carry a weapon (nail scissor?) or commit bodily harm (bump into/throw a pie?) and get not more than 10 years and in "any other case" (accidentally protesting some minor official without secret service protection who just happens to be in vicinity of one with it) "not more than one year, or both, in any other case."
If there is no effective date explicitly stated, I assume it goes into affect immediately. So something to add. Or does there need to be an article called 18 USC 1752?? CarolMooreDC 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 18 USC 1752 updated

message: "After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant..."
This is incorrect. He was never convicted of trespassing. Under South Carolina law, trespassing on public land is not illegal, and the charges were quickly dropped. He was prosecuted and found guilty under section 1752 of title 18, United States Code.
I would be grateful if someone would amend this post-haste. I would do it myself, but I can't remember my password.
75.170.35.131 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to include my sources: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&ao=all and http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2004/09/thou_dost_protest_too_much.html 75.170.35.131 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Aha! finally remembered my password, but my account isn't confirmed so I still can't edit it. :( Monkeyfoetus (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error in the article, but I can't change it because it's locked. 

message: :Free speech zones [...] are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech [...]
The ideological framing of the opening sentence is appaling! These zones are not "set aside to exercise the right of free speech", American citizens are restricted to these zones in their right to exercise the First Amendment. --89.0.229.184 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly correct.  Wikipedia has a lot of framing bias like this. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think the best way to present things isn't perfectly clear, I agree with the direction you're taking, but I think it was a bit too heavy-handed, so I edited the article to make things a bit clearer while preserving the strong indication of restriction. Did I go too far over the top with the "forcing", or was that justified? I think that it's probably best to immediately convey that the areas are used for restriction, but not directly, which is a crucial distinction that your wording kind of mangled (your comment here would have worked better than your edit, even just the to would have worked better). Thank you for changing it, excellent use of WP:BOLD editing! Garzfoth (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the opening sentence, it seems to have been turned around to be biased in the other direction; the use of "restrict" and "force" would be the view of those who dislike or oppose the use of such areas.  I agree that the prior wording used (cited above by the IP user) was also biased; is there some way to be more neutral or accommodate both sides? 331dot (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideological framing of the opening sentence 

message: Since the article is locked, I can't fix these minor problems:
Broken/Red links -  James Strom Thurmond Jr.; ACORN v. Secret Service;  ACORN v. Philadelphia;  ACLU of Pennsylvania; Stefan Presser;  Rank v. Jenkins; presidential advance manual
Reference errors - reference 4 and 37  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.213 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits Needed 

message: This looks like propaganda, though perhaps there are no images available for Republican free speech zones. The use of these images appears to violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Shouldn't they be deleted unless another image is added? Rwood128 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Free speech zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060727032821/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F07%2F26%2F145248 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F07%2F26%2F145248
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091102091840/http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/sao/info/permits/index.html to http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/sao/info/permits/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820210415/http://www.nlg.org/resources/DissentBookWeb.pdf to http://www.nlg.org/resources/DissentBookWeb.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515093009/http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3564822/detail.html to http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3564822/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119122053/http://www.warresisters.org/nva0106-4.htm to http://www.warresisters.org/nva0106-4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103030642/http://refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=747 to http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=747
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211183830/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/neel-2002-10-31.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/neel-2002-10-31.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216032016/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-thurmond-20040113.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-thurmond-20040113.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120709182409/homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d87.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d87.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224015243/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/acorn-docket-edpa-03cv4312.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/acorn-docket-edpa-03cv4312.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220052328/http://action.aclu.org/conference/podcasts.html to http://action.aclu.org/conference/podcasts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228050057/http://www.thefire.org/Fire_speech_codes_report_2007.pdf to http://www.thefire.org/Fire_speech_codes_report_2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102154033/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/14/free.speech.zones.ap/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/14/free.speech.zones.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041206220516/http://www.skywriting.com/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/ to http://www.skywriting.com/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908212333/http://www.scpronet.com/nprtranscript.html to http://www.scpronet.com/nprtranscript.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218045512/http://www.orlandoweekly.com/util/printready.asp?id=1953 to http://www.orlandoweekly.com/util/printready.asp?id=1953
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free speech zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011101803/http://www.aclu.org/multimedia/2006conference/oct16_jeff_rank.mp3 to https://www.aclu.org/multimedia/2006conference/oct16_jeff_rank.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The anti-spam (more like anti-editing bot) seems to believe i'm some kind of vandal. I am not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joujyuze (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ClueBot does make mistakes, though not very often, and I am sorry you were hit by this. You can report the false positive [here]. As for your question, yes, there has to be an ellipsis as the text is presented as a quote and there are omitted words. Sjö (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot edit