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.

[altura]

With so much virulent hatred against Bush being shown by so-called mainstream liberals, it is all too easy to imagine even kookier people ... yeah, I guess that's possible ... deciding it would be noble to take him out.

I say protect him at all costs.

The mainstream media sees to it that he is aware of all the protesters. They don't need to be close to him to get their message out.

[freeeee]

This is about 'free speech zones' and you know it.

If any group of protesters get violent or disorderly, arrest them. That however is NOT justification for prior restraint of protesters by designating them to a 'free speech zone' well ahead of any event.

It was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's just as wrong now.

Now to be fair the ACLU didn't care when Clinton did it, and now they seem to care. So we know the ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites, just like a bunch of FReepers.

Neither side cares about free speech. They only care if they can deny it to the other side. They're just wrestling over who wields unconstututional big government.

[joesnuffy]

that's funny...
The ACLU sues to get commies closer to the prez
and the ACLU sues to keep pro lifers further away from their abortatoriums
They sue to take the real God out of the public square
while they sue to bring false gods into the schoolroom
They use the freedom given them by the founding fathers
only to turn it against those very same founders and their descendents
to the utter destruction of our nation....
And...we allow this....

[dogbyte12]

If I was a terrorist, I would hold up a pro Bush sign. The ACLU bloodsuckers are right on this one.

They allow people cheering Bush closer access, but if you are a protest group, ya get hidden to the side. It is not about security, but photo ops basically.

The Secret Service can remove all people, or neither group. Like I said, a terrorist would hang out with the Pro President group since they get to be closer to the Prez.

There should be a determination of how close any group can be due to security, and have it apply to everybody. People's right to dissent should not be suppressed just because the message is unpopular.

[IGOTMINE]

What is the maximum effective range of a homicide bomber? C4, liberally packed with ballbearings and a detonator is all you need to make a human claymore mine with a 50 meter casualty radius. Do you doubt for an instant that there aren't those on the extreme Left that aren't as crazy as Palestinian suicide bombers?

Love the quotes on your profile page. Is that you with the pistola?

[ex-Texan]

Read my post #15. I agree with you about protestors and free speech.

When I was active in the ACLU, the organization did a great deal of good and that book burning case I mentioned was a noble and ethical undertaking. But by 1983 the organization began to change and rapidly evolve into a communist front.

The Clintons moved quickly to take over the already corrupt ACLU when Bubba was molesting interns in the Oval Office. Today it is funded by the same people who give tons of donations to Hillary.

[Labyrinthos]

don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access. Freedom of speech is the No. 1 ammendment to the constitution, right?

The government can impose reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions upon free speech, provided the restrictions are content neutral. In the absence of a specfic threat to our President, I don't think the Secret Service can treat the anti-Bush wacko protestors differently than the pro-Bush supporters. That being said, I suspect that the facts are substantially different than what the ACUL has alleged in that both Bush protestors and Bush supporters are either treated the same or are treated differently for reasons having nothing to do with the content of the speech (i.e., the size of the group and general safety concerns.)

The bigger question is where was the ACLU during the Clintoon years when he and the first witch regularly used and abused the secret service to keep protestors far away from the spotlight.

[lafroste]

***PET PEEVE ALERT***

I don't like the ACLU nor their tactics, but i feel everybody should have similar access.

AAGGGHH!!!! No!! No! You do NOT FEEL everybody should have similar access, you believe or think or desire, but not feel! You feel hungry or happy or horny or sad, you do not feel abstract concepts devoid of physical sensations.

There's too much "feelin'" going on out there!!

rant

[FreeTheHostages]

If any group of protesters get violent or disorderly, arrest them

Now there's an idea -- let them take a swipe at the President and arrest them later. I just thought that was such a *fantastic* idea that it deserved to be highlighted. Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not mandate such foolishness.

[ctlpdad]

I think you are correct, and I appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. i now feel like i need lunch and think i will leave now.

[lafroste]

Thank you, and help me stamp out the thought muddling curse of errant "feeling"s!

[dogbyte12]

If you were Mohammad Q. Jihadist, would you hold up a Pro Bush sign, or an anti Bush sign while you concealed a weapon under your jacket?

This doesn't make sense from a security stand point. It's politics. Period. Any group of people, supporters or dissidents should be at the same distance that the Secret Service considers safe. Period. My guess is that the protest group is probably infiltrated by one undercover agent at least as it is anyways.

[mhking]

"We're gonna sue so we can let folks get close enough to take a shot at him when he gets out of his limo..."

I don't think so!

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[As i mentioned, the B/C & JD! lists are going to float into and out of whack over the forseeable future, while I try to cobble a rig back together for myself. My apologies for any incovenience or misunderstandings in this time frame. New signups/removals may be flaky in this time-frame as well; please bear with me, and keep in mind you may have to FReemail me more than once for me to get it done. Thanks again!]

[FreeTheHostages]

Isn't the question not what I'd to, but what the anti-Bush protestors have done? They HAVE been violent -- espousing it and doing it. Not saying they're clever, but they have. The risk, sadly, isn't just from jihadist -- it's from virulently left and violent Americans.

[xrp]

The ACLU really has gone off the deep end.

[visualops]

They have the right to protest.
They don't have the right to media coverage.
They don't have a "right" to be paid attention to.

[FreeTheHostages]

All incontrovertibly true.

The issue is: does the President and Secret Service have a right to a zone of safety from people who espouse and practice violence?

[visualops]

The plaintiffs are the National Organization for Women;United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war group; ACORN, an advocacy organization for low and moderate-income families; and USAction,Communist Party and The World Workers Party.

[just mimi]

I guess their constitutionally protected right to be on TV is being taken away from them.