Meh, I don't think it's a big deal--

I'd be OK with Bush doing something like that...I'd PREFER them speak to everyone, but if I'm reading correctly, it was just students, it's not like he turned away press or personnel...

That being said, he's having a BAD second term, to put it mildly.

This is for him what 2005 was for Bush.

The other side didn't like Bush, but he was cordial and tolerated them.

You don't think it's a big deal that the President of your country is violating what is widely believed to be the most important right in the country?

Meh, I don't think it's a big deal--
Obi....seriously. I find it very difficult to comprehend what you seem to believe is rant worthy and what is not. Is it because it's Obama? Does that make it "meh"?

Oh for F sake Krellin.

The Czech said it.

They can do their dumb ass activist crap out on the sidewalk with all the other crazies.

I should drink less

Yep, Obama is pretty bad for taking on so many of the neocon attitudes of the previous administration. I really didn't expect Krellin to be attacking him from the left, but there you go - it seems that sometimes miracles do happen.

This is really scandalous. And yes, it is a violation of free speech -- they were turned away for their tee shirts, among other things, which means they were denied entrance to a civic event because of the political speech they were engaged in. Outrageous.

I stand by my point.

And I'd stand by it for Bush, too--

This is his giving a speech, he can decide who he wants to talk to and who he wants to keep out...he doesn't HAVE to entertain the other side if he doesn't want.

We're so quick to talk about "rights"...

He has every right to say "I want to talk to these people and not those people."

He has every right to that--give me one good reason why he has to let hecklers in?
Why would any President WANT to let hecklers in?
They chose to come in attire which was anti-Obama...
The man or his people didn't want them there...

It's his speech, he doesn't have to talk to them. Case closed.

Same with Bush--you really think he'd want a bunch of Greenpeace nutters in there?

If I'm giving a performance, and I want to give it for everyone but krellin, I'm fully within my rights to tell krellin I'm not performing for him.

I should give him his money back...I think those kids should get a refund...

And this is a PR problem for Obama--but yeah, why should he have to talk to kids he doesn't want to talk to?

It's not like he's a king dissolving Parliament and refusing to hear from the other politicians...

He or his people didn't want kids who DECIDED to come there dressed in anti-Obama regalia to come in, probably because they represented a risk of heckling...

So give the kids a refund and be done with it. Freedom of Speech?

These kids are now able to get all the speech they want online!
They can sell their stories and speak all they want!
They simply can't spit in the face of the President of the United States himself!

That's such a violation, especially given all the OTHER freedom issues we have right now?

PLEASE. Grow up.

Actually, a public figure speaking on policy has every *obligation* to let anyone who isn't a true security threat in to see the speech.

And let us look at one more aspect of thi. He was speaking on their campus. A campus their tuition fees fund. Therefore, they were paying for his speech without say yet didn't get to even attend it. It would be like someone coming to your house to give a speech then kicking you out and saying you couldn't attend.

Nope, President B.O. blew it.

They are his political opposition. In Obama's world, they are the enemy. It's the way he's operated since, well, forever.

This isn't something unique to Obama. Many politicians ban people they perceive as opponents from their speeches. I remember a few people getting butthurt about not being able to attend a McCain speech because they were registered Democrats (even though they chose to support McCain in the election).

And it's not against anyone's First Amendment rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did Congress make a law preventing them from coming? No. Then it's not a First Amendment issue.

^Thank you, SD...+1s abound...

His "political opposition" is Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, John Boehner and Co...

Some college schmucks are just that--just college schmucks.

He doesn't have to give them any more attention than my Republican Congressman would have to give ME if I came to a pro-life rally of his with a T-Shirt reading "Pro-Choice or Anti-Woman."

That's my view, sure...but he doesn't have to give a damn about it--it's his speech and he can tell me to beat if he wants to...he just can kiss my vote goodbye...and as it was a vote he was never gonna have anyway, well, what's he lost?

Obama doesn't have to run again, so he can play meaner with the press and people if he so chooses--and they can do the same in return. No need to pull punches in a 2nd term.

By the way I doubt President Obama himself personally dismissed them or was working the door.. this was probably a decision by college security.

Nah, it was totally Obama itself...

That makes things nice and simple and we can all engage in a mindless FOX-news-boo fest.

It was totally definitely absolutely Obama himself.

Also--he punched them in the stomach, stole their lunch money and shit in their cars.

Personally.

I'm going with kestas on this one

I'm guessing it was secret service, not college security. Something tells me the secret service don't leave Presidential security up to the college police.

@semck, but I do think we can agree that it's more likely that this concerns a security and not a political matter, even if the security issue has been very poorly defined. I doubt Obama or his high-ranking political stuff would be this stupid, right?

Well, redhouse, certainly it was a political matter. As to whether the political matter was implemented by purely security personnel, or there was input from the political branches, I agree we can't say. I will say that secret service should not be completely unaware of the political values of the country in which they work, but it's true you can have a stupid person come in and do anything once. If it never happens again, I'm happy to assume it was a screwup by a bad security chief. But there would obviously be no excuse for the administration if anything similar occurred a second time.

I had always thought freedom of speech was just that, freedom to speak. There is no right to be listened to, or to be listened to in a particular geographical location.

I find it a sad indictment of modern youth that some of them think that meeting a middle aged bore is more important than drinking, taking drugs and exercising their gonads :)

"I had always thought freedom of speech was just that, freedom to speak. There is no right to be listened to, or to be listened to in a particular geographical location."

Exactly.

He's a second-term president, folks!

Given that we live in the era of the Imperial Presidency and--excluding the possibility of his being impeached (which some here no doubt salivate at, but given that with 43 men and 44 "Presidents" holding the office 2 have been impeached, neither being forced to leave, and 1 essentially pressured into resigning, the stats are NOT on your side)--the fact he now doesn't have to worry about the press to a great extent, or popularity polls...

President Obama can damn well be as arrogant as he wants to be.

And I, for one, welcome that.

Not against these kids--frankly they're a waste of time and political ammunition--but after four years of cow-towing to a Speaker of the House who no more represents the consensus American will than Obama does and being stonewalled at every turn...

I'm perfectly fine with Obama being as "rude" as he wants to be.
He'll face political consequences for it, for sure...
But then, he's faced them regardless...
Really, when Republicans are going to hate him no matter what and Democrats are exasperated that he doesn't get things done or is seen as weak compared to Congress...

What does he have to lose by throwing an elbow, so to speak?

Opinion polls can place him at 44% or 4%--he's not serving another term, so who cares? All that would matter would be political cover for House and Senate Democrats, and really, if they're already associated with Obama...in for a penny, in for a pound, they're stuck with that battle fatigue one way or the other, may as well wear it proudly...

She never said it, but Obama say it to the GOP at this point--

Let them eat cake (or something else.)

Hillary's not going to likely take (more) damage from it should she run in 2016...
It just gives Marco Rubio and Chris Christie (the GOP dream ticket, I think) more ammo...
You don't win anything for being nice...
And hey, you're the President, not John Boehner's whipping boy...

Again, impeachment aside, he has nothing to worry about--

He can lock those kids out himself for all it matters.

And those kids can just suck it up--and again, I doubt those attention-seeking schmucks are all that broken up about this anyway...deciding to openly wear Tea Party and Anti-Obama shirts to his speech? Sort of like wearing a Yankees jersey to Fenway Park, or a *insert Rival English Team A's jersey here* to *insert Rival English Team B's stadium here*

They wanted attention, and they got it.

"I had always thought freedom of speech was just that, freedom to speak. There is no right to be listened to, or to be listened to in a particular geographical location."

"Exactly."

Seriously, guys? You really, really thought that the freedom of speech was only verbal speech in private, and didn't apply to things like, oh, I don't know, tee shirts with a political message on them, worn peacefully at a public meeting?

I hope that's not true, and that you're just staking out absurd positions in order to defend your President.

But if it's true -- please, please go check out a book about your many wonderful Constitutional rights. Your mind will be blown.

mendax - I'm not attacking Obama "from the left" - I'm attacking him purely for Constitutional reason.

Modern Liberalism is actually the current base of attacks on the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is something the Liberals clearly do not believe in -- just let a public figure open state they disagree with gay marriage, for example, and see how the Liberal Left responds -- No, Liberal America is no friend of freedom of speech (as Obama so clearly demonstrates), and I am hardly coming at anything from the left.

@obi,

"
And I, for one, welcome that.

Not against these kids--frankly they're a waste of time and political ammunition--but after four years of cow-towing to a Speaker of the House who no more represents the consensus American will than Obama does and being stonewalled at every turn...

"I'm perfectly fine with Obama being as "rude" as he wants to be."

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Obama uses any of his rudeness for effective political maneuvering, and not just petty sniping at constituents.

He isn't my president and it isn't my constitution.

Freedom of speech as I understand it (granted this might not be to the letter of the United States constitution but that isn't a document that governs where I live) is the ability to say what you like without fear of arrest. It doesn't mean I can go to anywhere I can conceivably gain access to and speak there. One person has no obligation to listen to another if they don't want to.

For the record, I think that the simple wearing of a t-shirt is probably not a problem. The reason given is security and the link posted is frighteningly short on any details of the event.