Skip to comments.
ACLU Sues to Force Secret Service to Permit Anti-Bush Protestors to Get Closer to the President
CNN ^
| CNN
Posted on 09/24/2003 7:39:57 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-186 next last
To: Milligan
they were ripping down public flags
To: FreeTheHostages
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.
Comment #143 Removed by Moderator
To: Your Nightmare
And reading a bit, Squeaky Fromme was in a crowd of well-wishers when she pulled a gun on Ford.
To: Milligan
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.
145
posted on
09/24/2003 3:21:43 PM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freepy smurf
Freedom has a habit of making halfwit lemmings angry.
I see you're no exception.
146
posted on
09/24/2003 3:24:33 PM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freeeee
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.
147
posted on
09/24/2003 3:39:42 PM PDT
by
meyer
Comment #148 Removed by Moderator
To: meyer
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.
149
posted on
09/24/2003 3:45:48 PM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freeeee
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.
150
posted on
09/24/2003 4:00:51 PM PDT
by
meyer
To: doberville
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.
Comment #152 Removed by Moderator
To: FreeTheHostages
"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.
To: Donna Lee Nardo
shame, I do not endorse such language
the office is entitled to respect, even if we disagree with the Former First Lady
tsk, tsk
To: findingtruth
nope, not a bubble against speech
a bubble against people who espouse and advocate violence in tht context
very appropriate
To: FreeTheHostages
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.
Comment #157 Removed by Moderator
To: Donna Lee Nardo
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.
To: FreeTheHostages
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!
159
posted on
09/24/2003 5:50:44 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: FreeTheHostages
Should the ACLU be reminded Hinkley is due out. Oh, never mind, they don't care.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-186 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson