Alternate Reality
 

Pool Anyone?
 

Thanks Shadow, interesting article.

Anyone want to start a pool to guess how long it takes for this thread to go into political?

It already has. I win the pool!

Much Negative coverage
 

This story has been in newspapers in Florida for over a week. I read some from Polk county and Tallahassee. Reporters from other places were here for the event and they did not write favorably of what they saw.

It was disgraceful. I was embarrased that something like that would happen in The Villages.

It is standard operating procedure here in TV as all serve at the behest of his ....................

or even in Florida.

I have not seen anywhere that what you are implying has been reported. Could you help me understand?

Keep it non-political and the post will stay where it is. There is no reason to make it political.

Artical by TV hater!

C

This story was also on Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - I got a call from my brother in Arizona who saw it. Proud to live in TV? Not so much. When the freedom to dissent at a political event is denied (and this was a political event), we are all the losers.
I guess I better get permission from the developer before I walk through town square since it is his "private" property.

Rubicon and Nitakk,
Many things in TV, like it or not, are controlled by the developer. However, in this case, the linked editorial does not allege that the developer was responsible for having the anti-governor attendees moved.

News items and first-person accounts have stated that the governor's staff and Lake Sumter deputies ordered the unwanted guests moved. Lt. Bobby Caruthers was quoted as saying it was unclear to the deputies involved who gave the orders; but no one involved has implicated the developer as being responsible. In this case, some evidence points to the governor's staff, but not to the developer.

It would not surprise me if person(s) who were ordered to move file a civil suit. Don't know whether they would prevail. However, it is embarrassing that this happened in TV because I fear that others will also rush to judgement against TV when in this instance, there is no evidence that TV played a role in moving any of the attendees.

Besides being embarrasing for The Villages, the incident really made the Sheriff's office look like a bunch of dopes. Sounds like some guy in a suit, probably a PR man for the Guv, ordered the protesters thrown out, and the deputies just followed along like a couple of nitwits.

Oh, come on now - People were not "thrown out". Some were asked to move across the street about 100 feet away. That is standard procedure for political ceremonies. There was no goon squad with clubs and water cannons and German Shepherd dogs like the civil rights marchers faced in the 1960's. All the security and deputies were very polite to everyone. No arrests were made.

Unless you were there, you only get a second-hand story and we all know how those go. You can read about it in different newspapers and get completely different accounts.

I'm not sure what the embarrassment is about. As others have noted, it is standard operating procedure to segregate protesters. It happens on both sides of the political fence. Here is a Youtube showing protesters at an Obama event - notice the barricades keeping the protesters away from the rest of the population who are allowed to go freely? What is different about the Scott rally that protesters think that they should be allowed to go where ever they wanted to?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mczeoc5XBGw[/ame]

P, what you've stated makes the most sense so far from all I've read on this thread.

In the aftermath of the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords on 1/8/11 is it any surprise that security for the Governor on 5/26/11 would be super cautious? If Giffords security had the forethought to take similar measures as people are complaining about on this thread, perhaps several people in their graves today would be alive and enjoying life and Congresswoman Giffords would not have gone through the suffering she has.

Some of this discussion seems like thinly veiled political commentary to me, and based on past history, the biased media coverage is undoubtedly posturing since the next presidential elections are now underway! Fear is a powerful motivator and I suspect that both here and on the national scene, things are going to get much much worse before the elections are over next year!

George W.
 

I recall in 2004 when George W. Bush visited Lake Sumter Landing protesters were assigned an area along Morse Blvd to protest.
http://archive.dailycommercial.com/a...name=%0A++++++

http://archive.dailycommercial.com/a...name=%0A++++++

Excellent articles. Thank you! :thumbup:

It is not standard operating procedure to "segregate" protestors. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to keep a sidewalk, street, or walkway clear so people uninvolved in the protest have room to pass by. In the case of the President of the United States, there are understandably security issues as well.

From Wikipedia: First specifically guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, freedom of assembly has since been recognized throughout the world as a fundamental human right. It was included in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, Article 20 of which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." Numerous other human rights conventions throughout the world have also included freedom of assembly.

Freedom of assembly, however, is not absolute. Most constitutional or legal provisions regarding this right specify that only peaceful assemblies are protected. Permits are sometimes required for assemblies in public places, and noise and traffic issues also limit the exercise of this right. Police are often authorized by law to disperse any crowd which threatens public safety. However, bureaucracies can abuse this power to prevent or disrupt assemblies that express unpopular political views or unorthodox religious ideas.

In this case, you had a small group of 60+ year olds wearing "Vote Democratic" tee shirts, and a few of them had some signs. They were not blocking traffic or disrupting the public in any way, nor did they consitute a security risk. This was clearly a violation of First Amendment rights and an abuse of power. Many of us in The Villages find that embarrasing, particularly when it was recorded by the media and printed in a variety of media outlets.

This is not about "politics" or whether you like Scott or not, it is about our basic right of assembly and free speech, something that is part of the fabric of our nation's history. To have The Villages look like some medieval police state is embarrasing.

More kool-aid mom
 

"More Kool-Aid Mom" probably outsiders protesting -- real Villagers would never do things like that. "In this case, you had a small group of 60+ year olds wearing "Vote Democratic" tee shirts" --- Definitely outsiders

What's an
 

artical?

Wow Skyguy! And I thought you were just another pretty face.

Well said!

I heard somewhere once that the Constitution guarantees everyone the Freedom of Speech; but make no guarantee of your right to be heard.

The event was held at Sumter Landing town square - a very public plaza, which as the Orlando Sentinel stated, is owned by the CDD which acts as the govermnent for the community.

According to the press release for the event, “all Floridians” were invited to observe the signing. The Daily Sun indicated that the event was “open to the public“.

Are Democrats and independents not considered to be ‘Floridians’ or members of ’the public’?
Can residents of The Villages be denyed access to their own town square?
In a ‘sunshine law’ state, isn’t the signing of the Florida budget a public event?

Nitehawk - the majority of the so-called "protesters" were members of the local Villages Democratic club who had on their Vote Democratic tee shirts...

The demonstrators at the Obama rally were also in a public space - but yet cordoned off by barricades (were the Sumter Square protesters put behind barricades?) Do security concerns only extend to the President? Ask congresswoman Giffords and George Wallace about that. Are security personnel allowed to do racial/gender/age profiling when they follow security procedures? If you want to be embarrassed about something, be embarrassed for the media that fails to point out that segregating protesters happens in many venues - not just TV.

Please google
 

Much has been written and nobody is saying this was for security or these were protesters. Gov. Scott is denying his office had anything to do with it. The chair of the Republican party is not answering phone calls. People are demanding answers and fingers are pointing. Not one article I have seen is defending this. It seems there was a miscommunication somewhere. Please read and get your info and don't read into this event. US Presidents are on a different security level and should not be compared to a this. Gov. Scott is even saying he didn't know this went on and he apologized to the people removed. Again, this is not my opinion but from reading. This seems to be something about advertising the public is invited and then removing people.

Here's another article
 

And there's more out there.



http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...igning/1172245

The politicians are all going to blame the man "of apparent authority wearing an earpiece and suit" for this fiasco, except for those who will blame Lauren Ritchie (the messenger). This situation is a disgrace, and any American with a conscience should be asking for answers.

So what you are essentially saying is that members of the Villages Democratic club wearing Democratic tee shirts are a dangerous security risk and should be segregated from the general public that was allowed to be there without any security restrictions at all. Y'all know darn well that these people were not a security risk. These were mainly retirees, members of our own community that wanted to voice their opinion about the budget cuts that Scott was signing. This was not about security - and please don't insult our intelligence by implying it was. This was about public relations, pure and simple. Scott wanted a friendly format in which to try to polish his image and ideas since his approval rating in Florida is so pathetically low, and people who disagreed with him just didn't fit in. If the shoe was on the other foot, if there was a Democrat campaigning in The Villages, and Republicans were led away from the scene, I bet all of you would having a fit. The bottom line is, this has made the national news, and it certainly doesn't put The Villages in a very good light - that embarrases me.

The voice of reason!..thank you Collie.

Amen...

By all accounts that I have seen, it was Sumter County deputies who moved the members of the opposing political party, upon being told to do so by someone who looked official. According to the link Whalen provided, that someone has been identified as Russ Abrams, an employee of the governor, not The Villages.

I agree that the incident is embarrassing, but The Villages itself shouldn't be getting a black eye for it.

Pturner, I agree with you 100%. The Villages was not at fault here. Unfortunately, I don't think it really comes across that way in the media and I hate to see The Villages cast in a bad light in the media. In this case, TV did nothing wrong, we just got caught up in the Governor's PR campaign.

I just read this quote (from Lauren Ritchie's blog): “The Governor accepts responsibility for decisions by his staff. Governor Scott requested and received assurances from the employee, the employee’s supervisor, and his entire staff, that this confusion and the results it created will not happen again.” Funny, there was no mention of an apology from the governor to the citizens who were denied their basic rights of assembly and speech due to the actions of a staffer on his behalf.

Thank You ----- That sums it up perfectly

Once again, I just have to say, if you were not there to see what went on firsthand and just rely on the secondhand postings and/or the column of Lauren Ritchie - you did not get the truth.

This was blown out of proportion completely by a hater (Ritchie) of The Villages and the developer.

Here are links to some videos which portray and/or comment on the event. The first one is quite humorous:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1qmPjzQ2Us&feature=related[/ame] Governor Removes "Liberal Looking" seniors from Town square

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7-8fKQHcBA[/ame] Rick Scott Budget Signing

NJblue has it right. While the police have an obligation to protect First Amendment Rights, concurrently, they also have an obligation to ensure public safety and orderly assemblies. SOP generally calls for a meeting with the protesting groups at the first evidence of such a gathering. It is SOP to define the ground rules in order to facilitate legitimate peaceful protest. It is not inconsistent with operating procedure to establish assembly areas for the protesters that will not impede the ingress and egress of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or create confrontation opportunities that would threaten the protesters or those who do not share their views. Freedom of speech and assembly does not mean protesters have carte blanche and can march onto the speakers platform or the gazebo with their signs during an address while seeking cover under the First Amendment. Ground rules need to be established and the courts consistently uphold police decision making in these circumstances. Further, in some cases minor details such as no signs on any type of stanchion may be defined as a ground rule for obvious reasons.

The copious reporting focusing on the protesters gives direct evidence that their rights were not trampled, crushed or suppressed. In fact, they arguably got more coverage than the Governor's message. "Abuse of power"? I think not. "First Amendment violation" ? Only through the prism of those with predisposed bias.

I am surprised at some of the narrow minded, agenda driven criticism of law enforcement and the handling of security at this event. Then again..........it is absolutely your right to express it..........as it is mine to take exception to it.

I agree that if there were security risks or impedement of public traffic in some way, that it is the perogative of law enforcement to take reasonable steps. In this case, the Village members of the club offered to put down their signs, and sit in one place and were refused. Of course it was okay for Scott's people to be walking around with signs in support of his agenda. In addition, security did not make the decision to oust the village residents (from their own square). Scott's PR people made the decision, and law enforcement followed along.