Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama campaign suppresses free speech at Fredericksburg rally....

The Obama campaign denied the use of political signs and banners at yesterday's Fredericksburg rally on the campus of the University of Mary Washington ... publicly owned property. Michelle Malkin picked up on it ... and the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star is not happy about it. They wrote:
Not all countries guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials.

Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally–or a McCain rally or a Nader rally–justify taking a little off the top of Americans’ most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for “security” reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no “part of the sign could be used as a weapon”–e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick.

Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, “We encourage people to make signs at our events.”
Michelle Malkin writes:
Just more Chicago gangland tactics from Camp Obama.

Careful out there. The Goon Squads are watching.
H/T to Jim Patrick who alerted us to this story.

McCain-Palin 2008


Bill Warrick said...

Maybe the goal was just a 'sign-free' zone. Signs and banners make it difficult to see the candidate.

I suspect the same outrage would not be expressed if boom-boxes were outlawed at the rally - thus permitting attendees to hear.

I was there and there was no-one suppressing my speech, my buttons, my tshirt slogan, etc...

Anonymous said...

i was at that rally, it made a lot of sense not to have signs for security reasons. the secret service and security posted on the rooftops of buildings would not have been able to see anything suspicious going on in the crowd. i suppose you think that them not allowing us umbrellas was some bizarre form of supression too? haha make your arguments about concrete points instead of making a mountian out of a molehill. we were happy to yell our praise instead of writing it on posterboard and we were just as content to stand in the rain. funny that the people who have a problem witht he security at the rally were the ones who didn't attend.

Anonymous said...

oh and my comment needs to be approoved by you much for first ammendment rights haha. you are pathetic!

Anonymous said...

Good one, Lynn.

You guys are really grasping at straws here.

Tough times for the GOP COMING!

I dare you to defend Sarah Palin. I want you so badly to tell us that she is qualified. Tell us why even the national review is calling for her resignation.
Do it!