I happen to know something about Clinton's alleged institution of "free speech zones" because I was there when the incident that triggered them happened.

It was following the WTO conference in 1999 in Seattle. There was an orderly protest march composed some 40,000 people from various unions and other organizations. They had all the proper parade licenses and other permits that the law requires. No problem. It was all very orderly, and the world was beginning to note that not everyone liked a lot of the ideas being discussed at the World Trade Organization. So far, so good.

But then—a group of self-appointed "anarchists" who said they were from Eugene, Oregon, and several other gooney-birds, some in small groups and some individually, a few of whom may have been motivated by opposition to the WTO, but most appeared just to be out for mayhem, ran amok downtown, smashing plate glass windows and setting fires. This was well covered by the news services and became known around the world as the "Battle of Seattle."

That's about 200 rioters out of 40,000 peaceful demonstrators.

To forestall further riots of this nature at future WTO meetings (I think the next conference was somewhere in eastern Canada, in which case, "free speech zones" can hardly be laid at Clinton's door—I'm sure someone here can either confirm or correct the location), demonstrators were kept some distance away from the meeting places in order to keep the conference from being disrupted as they had been in Seattle. The "anarchists" from Oregon had announced that they were going to be there too, so the zones at the second WTO conference were not an attempt to stifle peaceful protest, but to prevent rioting.

I do not recall that it was Clinton who actually instituted "free speech zones." Perhaps the nameless GUEST who alleges that he did can provide links to verifiable documentation. I think that's fair enough to ask.

The First Amendment says, "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." If the assembly is not peaceable, but a riot, then the authorities are within their constitutional rights to take steps to break up the riot or prevent it from occurring under similar circumstances.

One wonders about the real motivation of those who intentionally turned a peaceful demonstration into a riot. Perhaps their intention was to goad the government into attempting to prevent all demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise.

But even if Clinton was the one who instituted the "free speech zone" practice, this does not excuse the Bush administration from its widespread efforts to continue its use, especially in the case of peaceable assembly, in order to keep the president insulated from all indications that not everyone agrees with him. Or for the press to neglect to cover protests and demonstrations, even if they are several blocks—or miles—from where Bush is.

No, you can't blame this on Clinton without verifying it and qualifying it a great deal.

Don Firth