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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-186 next last
To: FreeTheHostages
LOL, I was going to ping you to this. But, since you posted it; I will assume you saw it ;)
61
posted on
09/24/2003 10:51:39 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: FreeTheHostages
Ya know....I can't help but wonder now...what would be involved in getting the ACLU labeled a hate group?
62
posted on
09/24/2003 10:54:32 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: mrsmith
reasonable restrictions on speech will be placed in the public interest. What's reasonable? Well, from what I can see, whatever is convenient for those in power. What's the public interest? Why, whatever the government says it is. You see, it all depends on what the maaning of 'is' is.
They'll torture and manipulate those words until they get just what they want which of course is to take any dissenter and send him to a parking lot surrounded in chain link fence and a battalloin of riot police a mile away from anywhere meaningful.
Among the ideals of the very founding of this nation is that government will never suppress dissent or unpopular ideas. Now those in power spit on the sacrifices of those who gave it all for our freedom. For what? So they won't have a bad photo op of protesters as some high and mighty official rides by.
Such behavior is disgusting and contemptible. Such raw, soaring arrogance is what I expect from the King the founders rid us of.
63
posted on
09/24/2003 10:56:25 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: AppyPappy
Precisely what danger does a protester holding a sign pose, that a supporter holding a sign does not?
64
posted on
09/24/2003 10:58:16 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: mrsmith
Where was the ACLU when their leftist buddies benefited from the restrictions? FReepers comlained then, ACLU was silent.
ACLU complains now, FReepers are silent.
Two sides of the same coin.
65
posted on
09/24/2003 10:59:36 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freeeee
The willingness to bodily attack the President. See anarchists and union thugs.
66
posted on
09/24/2003 11:00:13 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: FreeTheHostages
Who funds the ACLU?
To: freeeee
I've been here long enough to remember FReepers howling at the same exact treatment.Except no one from Free Republic ever filed a lawsuit about it. Sure, maybe we were unhappy about it and said so, but we played the cards we were dealt.
If these groups are truly interested in their "causes", they can do what the DC Chapter Freepers and various others did every Saturday morning for two years. Stand outside the White House and protest. They just want media face time, pure and simple.
To: CaptRon
"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?"
Well, no, not really. If I meant to do the president harm and I wasn't a known agitator, all I'd have to do to at least get close is make up a sign supporting the president.
69
posted on
09/24/2003 11:03:32 AM PDT
by
kegler4
To: AppyPappy
The willingness Could you show me a link describing a 'willingness detector'?
No? I guess in the absence of that signs of dissent will have to do. How convenient.
Prior restraint of free speech and assembly justified by guilt by association alone is a First Amendment violation.
70
posted on
09/24/2003 11:04:10 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: FreeTheHostages
Who the h_ll gives the ACL so much money? And, why can't the hundreds of conservative, reasonable, civile rights law firms all combine to become a reasonable force?
71
posted on
09/24/2003 11:04:11 AM PDT
by
69ConvertibleFirebird
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
To: freeeee
In theory, you are correct. In reality, you don't have a clue.
72
posted on
09/24/2003 11:06:27 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: Shethink13
Except no one from Free Republic ever filed a lawsuit about it. Isn't the very cause of FR political activism? If no lawsuit was filed for First Amendment violations against activities cruicial to FR's mission statement, then we all weren't doing our job.
73
posted on
09/24/2003 11:08:57 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freeeee
"What's reasonable? " Protecting the president, public order.
This is a good issue for the courts because they will be very deferential to such an important public interest as protecting the President, but they will have a broader view than the Secret Service.
The tricky issue is not safety but order- and under the First amendment the courts will allow only minimal restrictions on that count ( which these Clinton-era restrictions overstep IMHO).
It's a great example of the First Amendment in action in the real world, just the kind of issue it was made for.
74
posted on
09/24/2003 11:10:30 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: AppyPappy
In reality, you don't have a clue. In reality if someone has something serious in mind, they won't go dressed as a protester. /painfully obvious
75
posted on
09/24/2003 11:11:44 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: freeeee
I agree with most everything you have written on this thread.
To: 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.
77
posted on
09/24/2003 11:14:04 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: freeeee
I must say I pretty much agree with you on this.
People here are talking about protecting the president, but I'm fairly certain (no links of proof) that it's not necessarily the Secret Service setting up these zones and keeping protestors far away. Secret Service has let protestors get closer to presidents in the past.
Instead, it's the president's advisers and PR people who don't want him to see it and don't want those bothersome protestors in the evening news shot. Not good to let the voters see that sutff, you know.
I'm not saying protestors should be allowed to walk up and shake his hand, but in most cases they're carefully kept blocks away and completely out of sight. I dare say that when Freepers go protest Hillary or at an abortion clinic, they want to at least be within sight to have a little more effect. Remember that abortion protestors HAVE sued to stay close to a clinic and in sight, and some of those protestors have shown they can get violent. Doesn't prove they WILL get violent.
78
posted on
09/24/2003 11:15:14 AM PDT
by
kegler4
To: mrsmith
This is a good issue for the courts because they will be very deferential to such an important public interest as protecting the President, but they will have a broader view than the Secret Service. I agree, although I have little faith in the courts upholding the Constitution. They have an abysmal track record to date.
You have a good point about the SS. They are beholden to the President. When he says jump, they say how high. Those with decent memories will remember what Hillary had them to do protesters. But even if they don't remember now, she'll be sure to give them a refresher course if she gets the chance.
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.".
79
posted on
09/24/2003 11:17:28 AM PDT
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: Toespi
I remember distinctly that Clinton had a two mile barrier fence put up around the White House, gee didn't hear the ACLU complaining then. Did they only let supporters inside the barrier? Or was everyone keep behind the barrier?
The ACLU is making a complaint that people are being located in different locations near the President based on the content of their message. That is the issue. Any safety concerns that are applied to all persons, for or against the President would not be questioned. It is the idea that the Content of the Message somehow constitutes a threat warranting the different treatment by the SS.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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