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

CNN ^ | CNN

[FreeTheHostages]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union asked the federal courts Tuesday to prevent the U.S. Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters far away from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close.

The civil liberties group filed the lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of four advocacy organizations that claimed that the Secret Service forced them into protest zones or other areas where they could not be seen by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or be noticed by the media covering their visits.

[FreeTheHostages]

they were ripping down public flags

[Your Nightmare]

I would guess that throwing eggs at the presidential motorcade and ripping down flags would be illegal. People doing those things could not be considered peaceful protestor. The vast majority of protestor on both sides are peaceful and have a right to protest.

[Your Nightmare]

And reading a bit, Squeaky Fromme was in a crowd of well-wishers when she pulled a gun on Ford.

[freeeee]

They were also throwing eggs at the motorcade during the Inauguration.

"They"??? Free speech is not a group right.

I'll bet any amount of money someone named Milligan has been convicted of a crime. Now you have no rights. Guilt by association and prior restraint at work.

[freeeee]

Freedom has a habit of making halfwit lemmings angry.

I see you're no exception.

[meyer]

You make some very good points throughout the thread. But, do remember that the plaintiff is the ACLU, that same bastion of justice that suddenly determined that a voting system that had been fine for decades was no longer good enough when their candidate was about to lose. Twice. Also note that this is the same ACLU that beleives that the second amendment regards only the militia which they beleive to be the national guard.

I wouldn't take their accusations at face value.

[freeeee]

Thank you. I don't care much for the ACLU either. While I like some of the work they've done in free speech cases and search and seizure, their 2nd Amendment stance is atrocious, and gone are the days when they would stick up for people they dislike.

That said, I don't really care if they agree with me on this or not. I side with liberty and the Constitution regardless of who stands with or against me.

And I'm not just taking their word on the issue. I'm open to news from other sources. But believe me, designated 'free speech zones' are no big secret.

[meyer]

And I'm not just taking their word on the issue. I'm open to news from other sources. But believe me, designated 'free speech zones' are no big secret.

I would say that if the "free speech zones" are assigned without regard to the political message (in other words, randomly) and don't destroy the right of protestors to make their case, then they are OK. If they are given out with a great degree of favoritism, then that activity should stop.

I tend to agree with you for the most part, but I don't trust the ACLU - they are very partisan.

[BushisTheMan]

I'll repeat my standard post...we should sue the ACLU for everything we can think of to keep them busy fighting lawsuits to protect themselves so they don't have time to pursue lawsuits such as this one. Perhaps we should sue to say that A in ACLU should not stand for American since they are only representing Democrats.

[findingtruth]

"The pattern we found was at presidential and vice presidential appearances, protesters were restricted to areas where they were out of sight, out of earshot and often out of mind,"

Very appropriate! The President should have a "no free speech" bubble zone around him anytime he makes an appearance. The bubble zone needs to big enough to make sure no dissenting voices are heard. Our Commander-in-Chief deserves to be above criticism.

[FreeTheHostages]

shame, I do not endorse such language

the office is entitled to respect, even if we disagree with the Former First Lady

tsk, tsk

[FreeTheHostages]

nope, not a bubble against speech

a bubble against people who espouse and advocate violence in tht context

very appropriate

[Donna Lee Nardo]

Tough f___ to you. I don't care what you think or write or disagree with. Tsk tsk! I have my opinion, and you can have yours, otherwise, don't waste your time, buddy. I am not a drone that believes any particluar office bestows wondrous characteristics on a person; it works the other way around.

[FreeTheHostages]

I also think your last post was wrong in clearly referencing a profanity. May I refer you to the rules of the forum, which discourage the use of profanity.

I'd also add that it's unpersuasive: people just tend not to listen to posts that behave that way.

[sweetliberty]

I have a better idea. How about if some Americans sue the ACLU for aiding and abetting terrorists and other groups whose leanings are a threat to national security and to the Constitution? Force them to take their whining someplace else!

[mtbopfuyn]

Should the ACLU be reminded Hinkley is due out. Oh, never mind, they don't care.