ninti, That's an interesting link. Thanks for posting it. I've heard plenty of stories (and read) where Bush WAS heckled during a speach and he chuckles making the comment "isn't free-speach great?" Clinton made the same remark when he was heckled.

But just because some picketers can't get within earshot of the President of The United States for "security reasons" doesn't mean that someone with anti-Bush (funny how it's never "pro-this" or "pro-that" it's just "anti-Bush") viewpoints isn't getting to express their opinion. I mean, do you see any other views on the nightly news? Those are the people getting "man on the street" interviews left and reight. And they still get to picket the white house, etc.

If a "mob" or large group of people showed up at that Dean speach, I think they'd most likey deserver to have their freedom of speach temporarily removed because they would be disrupting the peace and truely denying Dean his. But one guy? As if any of those people were listening to him anyway.

EDIT: Forgot this bit... The original intent of my post was to point out how the concept of "freedom of speech" is starting to apply only to "freedom of politically correct speech" and how it's losing its meaning in the public (ie, MTV blocking thong shots is "self censorship" of their channel, not "denying freedome of speech" for Snoop Dogg).

And pointing out one "wrong" to justify another isn't a strong arguement. But, again, I feel that the security of the Commander in Cheif out weighs the freedom of some people to comprismise that, especially when they can still get their message out. If it were just one person (as in the Dean case) that wasn't allowed in because of his/her views, yes that would be wrong. But that still wouldnt make Al Franken anything but a celebrity dip-shit.