Close Topic Options

The Law Of Roadside Camping - Page 2

They are free to express their opinions responsibly, and within the bounds of law. They are not free to obstruct traffic, camp on public throughways, etc.

Roads and their shoulders are dangerous enough, without people camping right up against them. All it would take is one person, in a moment of inattention, or a single impaired driver, to swerve at the wrong time, and several of these people could have been severely injured, or even killed. And the country, state, and President Bush would have been blamed.

Yes, if they had been supporting President Bush, under the new local ordinances, they would have been removed.

Camping Roadside Law The

If they are obstructing traffic I'm surprised they weren't removed sooner. Obviously there must have been a media throng attached to this camp, so perhaps it would be quite distracting for drivers.

As long as there right to peacful protest isn't being removed because of political pressure then I don't have a problem with the camp being removed on safety grounds.

I don't think President Bush could be blamed for a car accident near his house? It's not his job to remove these people anyway so how could he be blamed?

The Law Of Roadside Camping History & Civil Business Politics

Heck, he was blamed for the hurricanes that came through! If it happens on his watch, and has ANYTHING to do with him, someone will blame him!

Actually, it WAS obstructing traffic when Cindy Sheehan was there. And, yes, it was mostly the media circus, but then that was the whole purpose of Cindy Sheehan's vigil, as well as those who were recently arrested.

So, the local authorities passed the ordinances in order to preempt further disruptions, then acted upon those ordinances.

Of course, the way the media presents it, it is all about the politics, as you have shown with your questions.

However, to be completely fair, there could very well be elements of political support from the local authorities towards President Bush. But, since they ARE local, that really should be their prerogative anyway, as long as they do these things within the law, which it certainly appears they have done.

Page 2 Camping Roadside Law The

If the locals designed new laws to remove this protest because of political pressure or bias towards Bush then that is not right. If this is the case, their right to express an opinion has been censored. I was under the impression these were existing laws.

But if they were removed purely on safety fears because their camp was a distraction for motorists, then that is fine.

Regardless of the official reason, I don't think we should confuse these two potential motives.

I think it is a bit unfair to suggest Cindy Sheehan, who has only recently lost her son because of Bush's war, would create a vigil just for the media. She has every right to mourn her loss in whatever way she sees fit provided she is not causing harm to others. Of course any protest seeks to gain the attention of the media, just like any politician would when they have something to announce.

Can people really blame Bush for the hurricane or a car accident in front of his home? I've never heard of such nonsense, how can ridiculous accusations get any publicity?

Camping Roadside Law The

I think it's a good decision that was made. Not only could it cause vehicular safety problems, but it could cause safety issue for President Bush. What would happen if a riot happened to break out near his home? He deserves the exact same privacy and safety as any regular United States citizen. A lot of demonstrations have started peacefully, but ended up not so peaceful. I think it's a good decision, whether the local officials have a favor towards the president or not, to solve a problem before it becomes a problem. Even if the local officials have a bias towards Bush, that doesn't mean that it would have had an effect on the law they instituted. No president should have the privacy of his/her home intruded upon for security purposes. It doesn't have to be a traffic problem, but any sort of violent outbreak could be detrimental.

Whether a person is a Bush fan or not, I think it can be agreed upon that this country can't afford to have something happen to our president. We can't deal with transition at the moment.

There are other ways of getting your point across besides setting up camp outside of the home of the person whose attention you are trying to get. Obviously the only thing that has been accomplished by the camps outside the president's ranch is a media zoo.

The Law Of Roadside Camping

As for Cindy Sheehan, she most certainly DID do all of it just in order to get the media interest. A couple thousand other parents have lost children in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you don't see any of THEM being courted by the media, do you? She has used, and abused, the relationship with her son. He was proud to serve in the US military, and was pleased to serve in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan has used his death to further her own political agenda.

Her whole purpose in camping on the side of the road near the President's ranch was to get free publicity. And the media gave it all to her, all the time, for weeks. During that time, I understand that there were absolutely NO opposing views offered, despite the fact that there are many, many parents of deceased and injured military members who despise Cindy Sheehan, her politics, and especially her methods.

BTW, camping is NOT normally allowed on the sides of public roads. Apparently, there was no specific laws that were available to remove her from that point. AFTER she left, the ordinance was passed. Then these other people decided to flout the local ordinance. So, they got arrested, which is, of course, exactly what they were trying to do. More free publicity for their unpopular political position.

So, what do the parents who support the action in Iraq have to do to get the free publicity? Of course, none of them are likely to make public nuisances of themselves in order to get that publicity, nor are they going to break common-sense ordinances.

The Law Roadside Camping - Page 2

Nighthawk, what would be the point of her protesting if she couldn't get media attention? She has lost her son because of this war, she has every right to protest and mourn that loss in whatever way she sees fit. Why do people take such offence to someone protesting against war?

She did not use and abuse her relationship with her son. How on earth would you know what relationship she had with him anyway? Did you know Cindy Sheehan or her son personally? If I were to lose my child in a pointless war I too would be very upset. I don't think you or I have the right to judge her for what she is doing. It is her right to peacefully protest in a democracy.

If parents that support the war want to voice their support, why don't they? Why try to discredit Cindy for expressing her opinion. Everyone is free to have an opinion. I am amazed that in a country with as much media as the US, these pro-war parents can't get any attention.

I was under the impression support for the war was waning in the US so I'm a little surprised you suggest Cindy's position is unpopular. Anyway it doesn't matter whether her position is popular or not.

As I've said earlier, if her camp has been moved due to safety concerns then there is no problem with that. But if her camp was removed for political reasons then that is censorship by the government.

BabyBlues, nobody should have their privacy intruded upon whether they are president or the local garbage man. I don't think this camp was invading anyone's privacy, it was on public land. And if you are going stop peaceful protests because of the chance they could become violent, then you may as well outlaw all protests and change your country's name to China. You guys should feel privileged you're allowed to voice opposition to your government so freely. Most of the world does not have this right.

Was there any sign that this protest was going to be violent? And does Bush use his ranch that often? I would have thought he would spend the majority of his time at the White House if he was doing his job properly.

The Law Roadside Camping Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

There are a whole bunch of questions and points to address here. Please forgive me if I miss some of them.

Cindy Sheehan is welcome to express her opinion. She chose to camp beside the road near the President's ranch, and got lots of media attention. Fine. I will express my opinion and say that I think she is incredibly foolish and stupid, for her dangerous way of getting the media attention, for her message itself.

Again, the ordinance was passed AFTER she left. She wasn't driven away, nor was she silenced or censored. When she wanted to return, she found somewhere else to camp. And, the media dutifully followed her. Those who were arrested went in knowing and expecting to be arrested. That was their way of expressing their opinions. So, they weren't silenced or censored either. They got exactly what they wanted when their words and actions were splashed across every news report in the US and in many other places around the world.

I don't mean to imply that Ms. Sheehan abused her private relationship with her son. However, she, and most other people, realize that her son held the exact opposite point of view to hers regarding the war on terror. This is what she is abusing, for public consumption. She is NOT showing respect for her son, for what he did, nor for his sacrifice. In fact, she, and those who follow her, are showing great disrespect for the men and women who are currently serving in the military.

If she wants to express her views that the President is wrong, that is fine. She is welcome to it. I just despise her for her opinion and for her methods.

No, there wasn't any sign that the protest was going to get violent. However, any sort of chaotic activity very near where the President is staying and/or travelling, can provide cover for those who mean the President and his family harm.

I really think it was a mixture. If it was primarily a political concern, then the safety issues become excellent reasoning and justification for the local authorities. If it was primarily a safety concern, then political issues may be excellent side benefits.