I agree with Air America?

Readers of this blog have already figured out that I am not a fan of Air America. In fact, I usually only bring them up when I have a negative response to something a host said. Well, brace yourselves: I actually agree with something I heard yesterday.

Yesterday, on Unfiltered, a show I hadn't heard before, they were complaining about the situation of the protestors of the RNC convention in New York City that is happening next week. As I have previously mentioned, the protestors were to be relegated to the West Side Highway.

Unhappy with this (and reasonably so, I feel), they have brought a lawsuit against the city, demanding to be allowed to protest in Central Park.

So why isn't the city allowing them to protest in Central Park?

Because they are concerned about damage to the lawn.

The lawn?

People attempting to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly are being denied those rights because of a LAWN?!?

I found that ridiculous, as did the hosts of Unfiltered.

They were even more offended because they believe that if it were a corporate event or a cultural event (e.g. the recent Dave Matthews concert), they would have been allowed to use the park. But because it is people attempting to use their right to speak freely and peacefully assemble--because it is a political event--they are not allowed.

The hosts of Unfiltered found that unfair.

I agree with them.

I strongly believe that the only reasons why protestors should be prohibited from protesting wherever the hell they want is if they are causing harm to others. Protesting where they would pose a security risk is one such way, tying up streets is another (both in the sense of interfering with emergency vehicles from getting where they need to go and in the sense of preventing innocent bystanders from being able to carry on the activities they need to accomplish).

You cannot protest in a way or a place that is going to make life dangerous for others. 'Peaceably' is an important part of 'peaceably assemble'. It's like the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose" or, in this case, 'Your right to scream your beliefs ends before you shatter my eardrums'.

But Central Park doesn't seem to be a problem. It doesn't seem to be dangerous or cause danger to others. Even the city's lawyer, when making his case to the judge earlier today, didn't attempt to claim that protestors were a security risk (actually, he claimed that it was too late to make arrangements, as if it wasn't the city's fault that they delayed the permit application for months). And heck, the protestors even agreed to post a bond to fix any damage to the precious lawn. So the protestors should be allowed to protest.

However...

I find it interesting that the people making the fuss, complaining about the unfair limits on constitutionally protected speech are the same who were in favor of campaign finance reform, a.k.a. limits on political speech. These are the same people who favor limits on hard money, soft money and any other type of money in politics (unless it comes from George Soros or goes to MoveOn.org). These are people who want to shut down the Swift Boat Vets but who have no qualms with Michael Moore or making a commercial that compares Bush to Hitler.

Funny...

I agree with them in this instance: I just find it slightly ironic that they don't agree with me...