Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Don't put limits on free speech

Re: Freedom of speech at BayWalk.

The League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg Area, in accordance with league principles, believes in and supports the liberties established in the Constitutions of the United States and Florida. These include the rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

The language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as follows: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Florida Constitution Section 5 says "Right to Assemble - The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances."

We are concerned about perceived attempts to restrict freedom of speech at St. Petersburg's BayWalk. We believe in the importance of establishing dialogue between opposing parties with the goal of reaching agreement. We strongly urge that the opposing parties devise a way to ensure public safety without sacrificing freedom of speech.

"Any time we deny any citizen the full exercise of his constitutional rights, we are weakening our own claim to them." - Dwight David Eisenhower, 1963.

City Council takes a stand

Re: Don't rush BayWalk decisions, editorial, Aug. 25.

It is disappointing that the St. Petersburg Times finds no need for haste in dealing with civil liberties issues at BayWalk. Your editorial suggests that there are no problems at BayWalk so why should City Council rush to change things. In fact, the St. Petersburg City Council is responding to recent unwarranted city action, which has provoked serious problems at BayWalk.

Our city police have begun an obvious campaign to drive the peace demonstrators away from BayWalk. The intended chilling effect on freedom of expression is evident.

It is incredible that the St. Petersburg Times has accepted and gives "great weight" to police Chief Harmon's fearmongering. Time has proven that the peace demonstrators are NOT any threat to public safety. It is insulting for Chief Harmon to speak of the "potential for large, unruly crowds and physical confrontations" if Second Avenue is closed.

I am proud that City Council has taken a stand for free political expression in our city. I applaud their resolution, which is a search for reasonable solutions. While I do not feel that any safety measures are necessary, I acknowledge that closing Second Avenue effectively removes all alleged safety issues. If the avenue is closed on weekends I envision a "freedom square," where people can come and express themselves and where dialogue takes place. I would love to see a place of street music and provocative street drama; a meeting place for the people. This is not a thing to fear, but to embrace.

Saturday night annoyance

Re: BayWalk protesters.

I am a father of four children, ages 23 to 14. My average work week is about 50 to 55 hours. The one thing all my kids enjoy is a movie at BayWalk. After many Saturday nights just walking to the movie has become a gantlet of loud overbearing protesters. The peaceful people are ruining a hard-earned time I have to be with my family. Our oldest son, on leave from the Air Force, was called a baby killer by these peaceful people. I am paying an average of $75 per visit and don't need to be harassed. We as a family won't go back; it is not worth it. To glorify these bitter, unhappy people in your paper only keeps more people away from BayWalk.

Barricades cause the problems

Re: Don't rush BayWalk decisions.

The solution to the "BayWalk problem" is simple: Remove the barricades. There is a two-year history of peaceful demonstration at this location without problems. Incidents and arrests began only when the police erected barricades. The barricades cause the problems.

The BayWalk situation fits a familiar pattern: Invent/create a problem, link it to public safety and then convince the public that they must give up certain rights for increased safety. Coincidentally, a principal right given up is the right to dissent and seek accountability from our leaders.

As one BayWalk banner reads: It's not about safety, it's about our message: STOP THE WAR.

And regarding your statement that "the police have shown restraint," the editorial writer certainly has not been present at BayWalk in the past few weeks. The arrest of a 13-year-old boy for obstructing the sidewalk is ludicrous when the police and BayWalk security place barriers across the public sidewalk on Saturday nights so that it is impossible to traverse the block from the east end to the west end of the north sidewalk without being forced onto BayWalk property or into the street.

There's selective enforcement

Re: Don't rush BayWalk decisions.

As a resident since 1955 and a Times reader almost that long, I was disappointed but not surprised at your editorial regarding the BayWalk issues. I agree that the St. Petersburg City Council should not act hastily, but I strongly disagree with some of the points made.

For instance, you correctly noted that there had been no injuries since the barricades have been in place. There were also no injuries for the 21/2 years of protests before the institution of the barricades.

In discussing police restraint, another omission was that of selective enforcement of selective city ordinances. It matters very much just who is making noise of any intensity. My tapping on a cooler in time to a chant resulted in a serious conversation with a St. Petersburg police officer. Yells and curses from patrons at Wet Willie's and from a BMW driver, which were much louder than my time-keeping, were not noted at all by our officers of the peace.

Why the crackdown?

Re: Don't rush BayWalk decisions.

For 21/2 years we have been peacefully protesting at BayWalk. NO barricades, NO arrests, NO citations.

It was the city that decided to put up the barricades. It was the city that started arresting children for petty reasons, and it was the city that started handing out $75 citations for people who honk in support. The deluge of harassment placed upon us by the St. Petersburg Police Department has been very obvious to everyone involved including the general public.

So what happened? What has changed? Why all the harassment? Why won't anyone tell us why this is taking place?

The First Amendment gives every American the right to free speech. We understand that not everyone will agree with what we have to say, but it is our right as Americans to voice our concerns.

Your Aug. 25 editorial states that there is no emergency even though we are being forced to enter a busy street or risk charges of trespassing if we step foot on BayWalk property just to enter the area that we have peacefully occupied for more than two years.

I feel the St. Pete Police Department has responded very unprofessionally. With the crack of the Sembler whip, they jump. When will the city and Police Department of St. Petersburg belong to the citizens again, instead of the corporations?

Abundant police presence

Re: BayWalk.

After reading about the barricades and protesters at BayWalk for the past weeks, I decided to stroll down there last Saturday night and see what all the hoopla was about.

I was surprised by the level of law enforcement resources being wasted on this issue. I counted 13 officers in a half-block stretch. I commented on this to my friend. A nearby officer overheard me and said there were actually 17 officers assigned to site.

I don't know how many officers were on patrol Saturday night, but I am guessing a sizable percentage were on Second Avenue between First and Second Streets N, making it the safest block in the city, if not the entire state!

The cleansing power of protest

The Aug. 21 Perspective section had several items that I found uplifting and hopeful, but the one that really struck me was Robyn Blumner's Activists deserve praise, not harassment.

As a peace activist with experience at the Saturday night BayWalk protests, I can attest to the flak fired our way. It's fired from corporate enclaves and civic government. We're blasted by people who say the way to support our troops is to support the war and the religious right, who try to convince us that Jesus supports the war.

But we're going to keep coming because the experience is so rich. On Aug. 20, I talked with a fellow protester who is a retired army doctor. He decried the recent cuts in Veterans Administration funding. More pointedly, he spoke of how thousands of Vietnam vets died young because they had no outlet for the pain they carried inside from what they had seen and done. He went on to explain how coming to antiwar protests was an act of cleansing for many vets, leading to the healing of deep emotional hurts.

So, let the mayor and the City Council priss about as much as they like. But let's not let them stifle the free expression of our constitutional rights.

Protesters intimidate, too

Re: Activists deserve praise, not harassment, Aug. 21.

In regard to Robyn Blumner's column, I would find it comical if it wasn't so sad. So "our area's most active and engaged citizens" include a 13-year-old who finds it okay to throw profanities at an officer of the law?

I've been down to BayWalk on many occasions, and have seen on more than one occasion, a protester yelling at passers-by who didn't support his view or had no comment. One protester, a man in his 20s, was screaming at a family who merely didn't answer his question if they supported the "illegal war"! I'm sure that if I got a few banners and screamed in their faces how great it is that we are liberating Iraq, they would scream foul. You can't possibly be so blind to think that only the police are "creating an intimidating environment." The protesters are, too.

The Sembler factor

Re: Activists deserve praise, not harassment.

Robyn Blumner writes a nice opinion regarding the protesters at BayWalk, the heavy-handedness of the St. Petersburg police, and the politics of the so-called pedestrian obstruction.

One thing that Blumner forgets to remind us is that Mel Sembler is thick as thieves with President Bush. A big bucks contributor to Bush's campaigns and a recipient of cherry appointments (ambassador to Italy, etc.), Mel Sembler certainly doesn't want antiwar and anti-Bush protesters near his property. It would look bad to his buddies in Washington.

I hope that the city of St. Petersburg doesn't put Mel's politics before citizen rights. Leave the protesters alone, leave the street open and for goodness sake, don't give the sidewalk to Sembler!

Pests for peace

Re: Activists deserve praise, not harassment, Aug. 21.

When activists care enough to engage the system in a meaningful way, then they should be praised. Any marketing or communications student knows that gadflies with placards at BayWalk are not effectively engaging or communicating to a receptive audience and are therefore simply annoying. Besides indulging their moronic fantasies of fame, these pests for peace are disturbing those out for a little relaxation, obstructing businesses and, in the case of the foul-mouthed 13-year-old brat, proving the old axiom that it is better to keep your mouth closed and to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

The manifest basis for the existence of society and hence laws at keeping the peace, is to provide, as equal as possible, an environment for everyone to engage in their own pursuits. But there must be balance. The BayWalk pests need to find a better way to harness their activism, and the patrons and businesses should be able to rid themselves of the notoriety-seeking, pedestrian-impeding and business-draining gadflies.

A suicidal madness

After the first 500 American soldiers died in Iraq, we were told that we had to "finish the job or those deaths will have been in vain."

After 1,000 American soldiers died, we were told we had to "stay the course or those deaths will have been in vain."

Now, nearly 1,900 American soldiers have died, and we are told we "cannot cut and run or those deaths will have been in vain."

Next year, no doubt, after 3,000 American soldiers have died, we will be told that yet more lives must be invested so that those already dead will not have died in vain.

To sum up, the more who die require yet more to die so that those already dead will not have died in vain.

This is not logic, nor is it patriotism. This is suicidal madness.

Sending a message of surrender

It deeply sickens me that so many Americans have bought into the liberal position on the Iraq war. Somehow it is not surprising that members of the "throw away" generation have fallen for this. After all, cutting and running is always preferable to seeing something through. Especially something unpleasant. Our society has weakened over the last 25 years due to this proclivity.

Those who advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq send a message of surrender to terrorists around the world. These monsters know that deep divisions plague American society. They suspect that deep down, Americans are weak and lack the will to see something of this nature though. They believe that they can wait us out. Those Americans that advocate immediate withdrawal validate these suspicions.

Make no mistake. We are being tested here. The question remains as to whether we measure up to the task. To advocate immediate withdrawal equates to failure in this task. Our troops deserve success. Only we can take that away from them.

Sheehan's question

Re: Crawford peace vigil.

It is with some confusion that I read of our president, George W. Bush, saying that Cindy Sheehan has the right to her opinion, but that her wishes will weaken America. All that Cindy Sheehan has ever asked is that this administration, most specifically, the president, tell her "what noble cause" her son died for.

Cindy never expected her opinion to be front-page news. Cindy only wanted an answer to a question: "What noble cause?" Is there anyone out there who will listen to what Cindy asked?

A son defending his country

The question I would ask Cindy Sheehan is: "Why did her son enlist in the military knowing the possibility of being sent anywhere in the world to defend his country?"

Regardless of her feelings about the war, it was her son defending his country, not this mother who has shamelessly mocked and ridiculed our nation.

A priest remembered

Re: Devoted priest dies at age 57, Aug. 21.

Having had the privilege of serving as an assistant pastor at St. Catherine of Siena Parish from 1994 to 1997, I, too, was shocked by the death of the the Rev. Michael J. Finnegan on Aug. 19 at such an early age. But I was not surprised, for as the article stated, he had been a heavy cigarette smoker for most of his life.

The article left me with mixed feelings. From my personal experience as his fellow parish priest for three years, I would like to put a positive reference to the legacy of this decent, caring but painfully shy priest. Let me share these reflections with you. He was not best served in the article being described as a "workaholic." I prefer to see him described as a priest who fulfilled his role in the church in doing what he was ordained to do! He truly cared about his people and they came before his own needs. On several occasions I observed him "ministering" to people that others in the same profession would not take the time for.

The schedule of his priestly responsibilities, masses and confessions, gave people the opportunity to find their spiritual needs met at several times throughout the week. He did leave the grounds of the parish as he was not a hermit. He would go home to his beloved Ireland, and he met me on several occasions for coffee and conversation. I will miss his spiritual insights that he readily shared with me, but most of all I will miss his gentleness and ability to see the good in others. Let's do the same for him!

May the God he so deeply believed in welcome him to the paradise he preached about throughout his priestly ministry.

[Last modified August 27, 2005, 01:14:20]