We have nothing to fear but fear itself- and we are terrified

Convention protesters demand more visible space: Boston plans more officers, cameras, closures next week

We are very alarmed that our First Amendment rights have been undermined to the degree that the city of Boston now thinks the rights of free expression, the right to rally and protest means you get out into an area like this. The issue is what is the balance between security and our Constitutional rights to assemble? We think the city of Boston has gone way overboard in the name of security.

- Leslie Cagan, co-founder of United for Peace and Justice

I suppose on the one hand Boston should be applauded for taking security seriously. Clearly, the city wants the Democratic Convention to come off without a hitch. That being said, can (or should) a free society exist in lockdown mode? Is it freedom when protestors are in effect caged off in a "secure" (read: remote and off the beaten path) location?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Protesters at the Democratic National Convention say their designated area outside the FleetCenter infringes on their safety and free speech rights.

At a news conference Saturday, protesters also complained that the fenced-in area is out of sight to most delegates and passers-by en route to the arena....

The area, with a small stage, is surrounded on three sides by a wire fence with razor wire on top. A dozen U.S. Army troops joined Boston police inspecting the space Saturday.

Conservatives and others with an ax to grind are going to rip the Democrats a new one for this situation, but this in not the purview of the Democratic Party. Sure, they have an interest in having a safe and secure convention, but it is the city of Boston that seems to be taking security beyond the realm of the ridiculous and into the sublime. Remember, Boston is the same city where two of the four 9.11 flights originated. Do you think that has been forgotten in the city?

Since when is the threat of terrorism thought to be centered in domestic protest? In the final analysis, the city of Boston's security measures will do little but make city officials feel good about themselves for "fighting the war on terror", when what they are really doing is conducting a war against free speech and free expression. Ultimately, this is really a war against the First Amendment. Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? Freedom of assembly? What, and let the terrorists win?

So this is what 9.11 has brought us to? Are we really so afraid of terrorism that we are now willing to subjugate our First Amendment rights in the name of "preventing terrorism"? Suppressing our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not going to defeat terrorism; it may, however, defeat the constitution. In the end, we may not have to worry about the terrorists winning. It's quite likely that we may end up defeating ourselves.