ACLU Sues to Force Secret Service to Permit Anti-Bush Protestors to Get Closer to the President

CNN ^ | CNN

[clamboat]

It's the job of the USSS to protect the President. I could be wrong, but wouldn't there be a greater threat posed by anti- Bush protesters than by supporters of the President?

So all an assassin needs to do si hold a Pro-Bush sign and they can get as close as they want?

I'm all for this lawsuit - it is long overdue. Protesters have exactly the same right to be heard as the fawning masses.

[freeeee]

hate-filled speech

Mmmm. "Hate speech". The invention of leftist professors used to silence dissent. I guess its such a useful tool, the right decided to put it in its toolbox.

The colonists hated King George. So he would have been just in silencing them?

And frankly there is no more accurate word for what FReepers hold for the Clintons than hatred. I guess we forfeit our rights too.

Anyone here hate the ACLU? Yes? Guess what - you're now a second class citizen - no free speech for you.

Don't like that much do you? Well then don't play their games.

[CaptRon]

Didn't say that, and didn't have to. It would seem to be self-evident to any thinking agent, as would be my original statement. BTW, I said nothing one way or the other on the merits of the lawsuit.

[freeeee]

I don't remember the Constitution guaranteeing you access to the President.

I think you're above playing word games. Of course you have no right to access. He doesn't have to meet with anyone - that's access. Now free assembly, free speech and redress of grievences are protected.

When el Presidente (and I'm going to call him that until he stops acting like he runs a banana republic) goes out in public, he most certainly is going to have to deal with free assembly. That's the whole reason its protected in the first place, so you can protest the government. Well, he is the government.

If he doesn't like it, he can run for office in Singapore.

[Timesink]

Where was this group when the Clinton*istas were thugging demonstrators a few years ago?

The ACLU has a long, sleazy, sordid history of ignoring alleged civil liberties violations when its conservatives who are the victims, and then immediately "discovering" the issues when liberals are the victims. Even their latest humiliating smackdown (from the Ninth Circus, of all people) was based on such selective outrage. The ACLU didn't give a damn about punch-card ballot machines in California in the 2002 elections, even though that was a full two years after the Florida fiasco. Only in 2003, when their beloved Democratic Party looked like it was about to lose the governorship in California, did it suddenly become an issue of the utmost national importance.

They are scum.

[freeeee]

When I saw Clinton when he was in Philly, I was close enough to hear him tell the secret service to get rid of the protestors in the back. In 5 minutes, they were GONE. Not only did he keep them at a distance, but he kept them out of the area.

But its different when precious W does the same. Isn't that special.

[Darksheare]

Ahh, the Assassination Clowns Love Uselessness.
I wonder if I can sue to let protestors get closer to Clinton?

[Shethink13]

Maybe not FR but abortion protestors, most of whom I would say are conservative, did file suit when they saw that restrictions about where they could protest would lessen their effectiveness. Seems to me they eventually won, too. And some abortion protestors have certainly shown they can get violent, although the vast majority don't.

I will respond even though you are veering off the subject of protesting the Commander-in-Chief and the protection of the Secret Service.

The problem with the FACE act was that it applied only to abortion protestors, and not to any other form of protest.

We have already established that the Secret Service has done the same thing to Clinton protestors when he was President, so there is no unequal or one-sided application here.

[FreeTheHostages]

well put

[Almondjoy]

This is frivolous how? If it was Clinton in office would you think it so "frivolous"? Please.. if and that's a big if.. this is true then I agree with the ACLU.. why should only supporters be scene and not heard?

[freeeee]

why should only supporters be scene and not heard?

Because hypocrisy is fun!
Because the shoe is on the other foot.
Because people we don't like have no rights.
Because free speech doesn't mean free speech. It means popular speech, didn't you get the memo?
Because that freedom thing is so messy and inconvenient.
All the other countries get to squelch dissent - why can't we too? Mommmmy!
Because we didn't vote for W to change Clinton's policies, we just want W to wield them!

Now stop asking such difficult questions and go punch a protester ya pinko.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The Secret Service can claim this to be for security reasons.If the court rules in favor of the anti Bush protestors,just simply disobey the court,besides,who's going to enforce it?

[floriduh voter]

Yeah, that's gonna happen while WE ARE AT WAR WITH THEM AND WITH TERRORISM.

[Almondjoy]

I see I'm jumping into the thread a little bit late freeee. I can tell you are having fun with the hypocrisy.. I'll let you keep the ball your doing damn well with it! lol.

[Warren]

No one has a 'Right' to be close to the president.
Wonder if Hinckley is behind this one.
Wasn't he demonstrating his 'right' to
get close to Reagan?

[AnimalLover]

Where was this group when the Clinton*istas were thugging demonstrators a few years ago?

And - where is this group now that Terri Schiavo needs them so desperately! Maybe I'm just getting old but I thought the ACLU was founded to help people.

[Milligan]

They were also throwing eggs at the motorcade during the Inauguration. Who wants to get egged? Oh, I forgot. Egg thrower's have rights too. It freedom of expression.

[Your Nightmare]

No one has a 'Right' to be close to the president. Wonder if Hinckley is behind this one.

I believe Hinkley was among a group a supporters when he shot Reagan. This isn't about security.