Posted on 06/01/2006 4:14:43 AM PDT by Hacksaw
By Associated Press Writer
DOVER, Del. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a group of young women who claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were ordered to leave a book signing event featuring Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, claims that two of the women were arrested for trespassing last year and three others threatened with arrest because of their political views.
According to the lawsuit, in August the women went to a Barnes & Noble store at Concord Mall in Wilmington to challenge Santorum at an event advertised as a book signing and discussion of his book, "It Takes a Family."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
I suspect we'll see more and more of these type of lawsuits as the left tries to paint the right as hostile to civil liberties....clearly part of the DNC talking points.
Exactly, and the women have no right to disrupt an event on private property. Besides the ACLU is being quite hypocritical, as it supports bans on abortion protests anywhere near an abortion clinic. The ACLU thinks only leftwing/perverted speech is procted speech.
Boo-fricking-hoo, liberal skanks.
That's a no brainer. If your are protesting on private property and if the owner or agent of the property doesn't want you there, you are trespassing. These are the kind of people are apt to sue if one gets poked in the eye with a picket sign handle. Their a liability.
I'm no lawyer, but if they were in a book store they were on private property. The owner has dominion over that property and over who is allowed onto it.
Of course, another lawyer might argue that if the business is open to the public, it's not private in that sense. I'm sure this had been established in court. Did I talk myself out of my first statement?
Yes, but unfortunately, we have a lot of judges who have no brains.
"We came to the book signing so that we could talk to the senator in a respectful way, and discuss our disagreement with him"
"Hey, mom! Which shirt should I wear when we go to talk to Senator Santorum "in a respectful way"?
"Why don't you wear the the one that says 'radical feminist'?"
I believe the point of the lawsuit is that Delaware State Police Sgt. Mark DiJiacomo acted unilaterally and that no representatives from Barnes & Noble were there.
From the article: "no agent or representative of Barnes & Noble or the mall asked that the women be removed from the premises, but DiJiacomo nonetheless threatened to arrest them for trespassing if they did not leave."
Perhaps you missed that part.
Santorum is paying for the sin of supporting Anti-Christian Arlen Specter.
Malls are private property who normally rent/lease space to retailers within the mall.
If either B&N or Concord Mall had provisions preventing dissent at their scheduled events, then protestors have got to get over it.
They regularly usher loitering teens right out of malls across America.
Does it make a difference that they teens were escorted out by a uniformed State Trooper?
"The women were ordered to leave by a uniformed state trooper providing security at the event after a member of Santorum's promotional team overheard them talking before the Republican lawmaker arrived
"The plaintiffs allege that their treatment by DiJiacomo, acting under state law, violated their rights to free speech and assembly, freedom from unreasonable seizure, and the right to petition government officials for a redress of grievances.
"According to the lawsuit, no agent or representative of Barnes & Noble or the mall asked that the women be removed from the premises, but DiJiacomo nonetheless threatened to arrest them for trespassing if they did not leave.
"After being confronted by DiJiacomo, Shaffer and the juvenile girl left, but when Galperin and Rocek, who was wearing a gay pride pin, asked why they were being ejected, they were arrested, according to the complaint.
"The plaintiffs contend that when Heidi Shaffer arrived to pick up her daughter, she was told by a Barnes & Noble employee that the women were welcome to return to the store, but that DiJiacomo threatened to arrest her for contributing to the delinquency of minors.
"The lawsuit also alleges that DiJiacomo ordered Rocek and Galperin to call their parents and tell them they had been arrested and needed $1,000 for bail, but that after speaking on the phone with Galperin's father, an attorney, DiJiacomo released the young women with a warning that they were "banned for life" from the bookstore and the mall.
"This is a case where a Delaware State Police trooper took it upon himself to remove these young women from a public place based on their political views, or his perception of their political views," Graff said."
It all depends on any instructions he has currently or in the past received from the Mall or Mall Owners Associations or from his headquarters who had had policy or requests from the Mall or Mall Owners Associations.
If the trooper was following instructions or protocol, then I have no problem whatsoever.
Another thought: if the trooper knew of any policy or law regarding dissent in the documents of the mall or the community.
Perhaps a permit was necessary for any dissent in a place such as a mall.
A. Everything.
If he was on duty and acting under orders from the State of Delaware, what exactly were those orders? If he was ordered to protect the Senator while travelling in that state, then the worst he can be accused of is overreacting and poor judgement.
These women admitted they went to this book signing to "challenge" the Senator -- I'd be curious to find out what the Senator's aide heard them say.
I would hate to see a couple of radical fems get the upper hand in this case.
Actually that was my first thought also, given the references to trespassing. And if he was told by Barnes & Noble when they hired him that they "didn't want any trouble", well, case closed.
But apparently he was in a State Police uniform and acting on behalf of the State of Delaware. At least, that's my interpretation. I could be wrong.
If he was acting on behalf of the state, then he's going to need more probable cause to kick them out other than differing political views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.