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.

[kegler4]

"Except no one from Free Republic ever filed a lawsuit about it."

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.

[freeeee]

In theory, you should be able to cross a picket line without being hassled. In reality, it's just not true. In theory, you should be able to hold a rap concert and only have the same security as a symphony concert.

The highest office of the United States is now held to the same standards as the criminal behavior of union thugs and rap fans???

And you think that's ok?

[freeeee]

Thanks for some important points.

It gives me hope that at least a few people around here aren't from the "freedom for me but not for thee" crowd.

[AppyPappy]

Not the President, the protesters. Anarchists do not = freepers.

[freeeee]

Anarchists do not = freepers.

You're special? Some animals are more equal than others?

Every American shares the same set of rights (until convicted of a crime). And when theirs go, so go your own.

[mrsmith]

"give you all a great big "I told you so.". "

You'd look pretty silly saying "I told you so" to people like me who find merit in the suit.

[AppyPappy]

You have the right to yell "FIRE" but not in a crowded theatre. In theory, we are all the same. In reality, we are not. Some groups are more dangerous than others. That's why rap concerts have more security than symphony concerts. The Secret Service will look at the group and determine where they should be. You are still allowed to protest. You are not guaranteed front and center.

[CDHart]

They didn't feel like suing to allow anti-Clinton demonstrators to get closer, did they?

Carolyn

[freeeee]

My apologies.

[BlackbirdSST]

And on that day, if I'm not banned, I'll be here to bump this thread to the top and give you all a great big "I told you so.".

Stick to your gun's, you're spot on. I look forward to the repost. Freedom sure does get in the way of some here. Blackbird.

[DoctorMichael]

Shame on the ACLU.

[freeeee]

The Secret Service will look at the group and determine where they should be.

I have a strong feeling it will be Karl Rove, and not the SS who will be deciding where protesters will be.

This policy was begun under Clinton. It was purely political then, its purely political now. It's one of those things that was going to change "just as soon as the adults were in charge".

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I won't be fooled again.

[AppyPappy]

Not true. I protested Clinton and I got great spots. But we were a well-known peaceful group.

[freeeee]

I'll be sure to ping you. Thanks for your support.

[freeeee]

My thanks for protesting and I'm glad you're rights were respected. You might not think so, but I'm sticking up for your rights right now. Government works by precedent, and that doesn't change when an office changes hands.

Clinton had a well known track record for this type of behavior. It may take some digging, but I'll try to find some documentation to post here.

[Your Nightmare]

I think you're missing the point. They aren't looking at each group and determining if they're more dangerous than others. They are not allowing ANY group or individual to protest at presidential appearances. If you took a sign to a Bush appearance that said "Bush was wrong to sign the farm bill. Down with big government!" they would put you with all the other protester - out of sight and out of mind. If you had a sign that said "Bush Rocks!", you would be allow into the appearance. The content of your message is the only determining factor as to whether you message is heard.

Rights that don't apply to everyone aren't rights at all, they're privileges.

And it ain't called the Bill of Privileges.

[freeeee]

The content of your message is the only determining factor as to whether you message is heard.

This is the crux of the issue. This is a textbook First Amendment case.

[weegee]

The ACLU will argue that shooting the (Republican) president is a constitutionally protected act of free speech. They really do mean America harm.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

And I know this fickle crowd of hypocrites will be just as adament about their right to freely assemble, just as soon as a Dem is in office and not one moment before.

As one who has been on the lines with the DC Chapter, I couldn't disagree more with your statement. The Secret Service is responsible for the safety and security of the President. We have been relocated by the Secret Service even though we had a permit whether the occasion's guest of honor was X42 or 43. While we may have grumbled, we have always cooperated. There was never any discussion of suing the Secret Service because our right of assembly was being trampled upon, which is wasn't.

[Your Nightmare]

I believe the legal term is "content neutral". Restrictions to speech must be "content neutral".

I believe there have been a few recent cases on this. One is: Thomas v. Chicago Park District (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/00-1249/2000-1249.mer.ami.html) with the opinion author by Scalia. There may be others. I will post if I find them.