> But just because some picketers can't get within earshot of the President of The United States for "security reasons"

I don't really think it is for security reasons, he just doesn't want the bad photo op of him and protestors in the same shot. Kinda the same reason he banned cameras from the ceremonies of dead soldiers in flag draped caskets being removed from the planes home because the pictures of all the dead soldiers might make Americans rethink this war. Besides, the protestors are not a real security threat I would think, if someone wanted to do harm to the president, I doubt very highly they would be carrying an anti-Bush banner and making themselves be noticed by shouting slogans. They are going to blend in with the crowd until they can get to a point where they can hurt him. I don't see any way this can be characterized as a security issue.

> 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"

Tell that to all the war protestors that were called traitors repeatedly because they dared express an opinion different than that of the president. Yes, I agree that some liberals are doing exactly what you say they do, but they are hardly the only side trying to suppress free speech because they are merely unhappy with it. That certainly does not make it right no matter who does it, free speech is for everyone, no matter how abhorrent their views [insert Voltaire quote]. As much as [censored] annoys me for instance, I would not personally choose to shut him up.

I certainly have to agree that what Al Franken did was very wrong, and almost certainly assault and battery to boot. I am very dissappointed in him, I had thought better of him than that.