Bush’s free speech?
Here’s some irony for you. Bush was heckled by a couple of senators in Australia during a speech. As they were removed from the chamber, Bush says:
I love free speech
Um. They were removed because of what they said, and you call it free speech? Maybe this is why our country’s citizen rights are going down the toilet!
I’m going to bed. It’s almost 3:00am, and thanks to that article I think my head will now explode.
October 30th, 2003 at 11:29 am
It was not George Bush who had them removed.
Hecklers were removed … a speech was going on … so … are you saying George Bush doesn’t have the right to speak and should be heckled and stopped so he can’t continue?
October 30th, 2003 at 12:05 pm
The hecklers were removed for disruption. Bush’s mistake was to associate their removal with free speech instead of disruption. Bush’s safest response was to say nothing, and let security handle it.
But by associating their removal with ‘free speech,’ Bush gives basically two options for interpretation. 1) He was talking about his own freedom of speech, and referring to the heckler’s removal as a result of their violation of his free speech; or 2) He was referring to the heckler’s statements as their own right to free speech.
Although of course I wasn’t there, the report really made it sound more like option 2, although I have problems with both. Option 2 is, of course, blatantly hippocritical. You can’t complement free speech, and then remove people for it afterwards. Option 1 is not hippocritical, but it is arrogant. It’s like saying “My freedom of speech is more important than theirs, have them removed.” Legally yes, you can’t operate your own freedom if it revokes a freedom of others. But I still consider it bad form to throw it in their face like that.
I’m not dissagreeing with the outcome, only with Bush’s remarks.