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.