Posted on 03/22/2010 1:14:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
This story on the First Lady taking the kids to a Broadway show in New York has an interesting element: a warning by the Secret Service that anyone taking their picture would have their cameras confiscated. Perhaps the Secret Service General Counsel could point us to where in the Constitution and federal law the Secret Service has the authority to ban photographs by the public and the confiscation of cellphones and pictures to enforce the ban.
Michelle Obama – with Sasha, 8, and Malia, 11, and about a dozen other people in tow – attended the matinee performance of “Memphis” Sunday. After the block was cordoned off, the large group entered the theater. Secret Service members did not like all of the pictures being taken that issued the warning. If the First Family wishes to avoid pictures, they may want to watch the play on video rather than confiscating cellphones and cameras of citizens. I find it outrageous that the Secret Service would consider it within its authority to confiscate phones to avoid annoyance to the First Family. The Secret Service at times seems to view itself as a Praetorian Guard rather than a public law enforcement agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...
First amendment. And what is a fone?
Secret Service confiscates cell phones of tourists near Obama WTKK radio | 8/24/09
Posted on Mon Aug 24 16:10:09 2009 by pabianice
My guess is they do not want to caught out socializing with Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright.
This is a conspiracy to deny civil rights under color of law, and it is a felony.
Michelle was having a bad hair day. A bad Wookie hair day
Michelle doesn’t want anyone taking pictures of her butt.
I think there one more instance, in addition to the one at the burger joint you mentioned. I think the SS confiscated cell phones at a restaurant (a nice restaurant) either in DC, or during Barry's date-night to NYC a while back.
It seems to be a pattern of behavior.
She takes a horrible photograph and she’s using the power of the executive branch to stop more unflattering photos from appearing in public. That’s the bottom line to this. It’s not about her kids.
Who the hell wants a picture of the fat as* ugly woman anyway.... or the rug rats.
For the cover of National Geographic........
They are just trying to make up for all the times they got jacked for their phones, firearms, wallets, radios, dataz, dox etc. ;)
Have you rethought that since?
Please; they are still public servants. . .an aspect of WH employment that they NEVER consider, of course. Worse for Obama Edict; they are in a public place! Braodway is not a frickin private party!
The Media of course, will take it; suck it up and behave like the useful idiots they are.
Wish there was a photog brave enough to have his camera taken so as to make an 'incident'. These folks are sooo deserving!
Did they get a pic of entourage and traffic jam they caused? How did they enter. . .front door or side? Oh well, perhaps there is more to the story; just do not care to read it.
Besides, I really don't care to see ANY pictures of her highhorseyness. :)
Can I have my bodyguards confiscate your cellphone or any other device?
If you were the president's wife in a theater with her kids and my security thought it was a threat,- yes.
Not my camera they’re not. That’s the virtue of really long zoom lenses! Effing fascists.
well you do raise a good point....
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.