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

CNN ^ | CNN

[visualops]

I would say that the Secret Service can put people anywhere it deems ensures the safety of the President, and that includes keeping protestors on the next block. I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.

[freeeee]

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

Thanks for the candidness.

This is about politics. It's about a photo-op of supporters only.

Freedom is messy and inconvenient. It means that people with unpopular opinions will be seen and heard. There is no shortage of countries where only supporters are allowed to be seen. This wasn't one of them until recently. Now we share one more trait with banana republics.

[freeeee]

I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.

I've been here long enough to remember FReepers howling at the same exact treatment.

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.

[freeeee]

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

Thanks. No, that's not me.

As far as security threats, if SS isn't screening everyone who gets near W for weapons, they're not doing their job. And someone with something serious in mind isn't going to dress as a protester, they're going to dress as a supporter in order to get close.

As far as the 'violent nature' of leftist protesters, be assured that they think the very same of the right, and they'll use your very own criteria to deny you free assembly and speech in the future.

[FreeTheHostages]

I would say that the Secret Service can put people anywhere it deems ensures the safety of the President, and that includes keeping protestors on the next block. I have no problem if the shoe were on the other foot and it was FReepers protesting a Dem president.

Then we are in complete agreement.

[just mimi]

Wow. That's pretty slick. What they are complaining about isn't what they are saying they are complaining about. As soon as someone (me) makes that observation, I am labeled as being for the opposite of all that is freedom! I was making an observation based on limited information (reading the article) and I added in my own biases against people that profess to be against the president but want to be closer to him.) In short, I was just griping. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your post is based on your own limited information and includes biases against people that give you an opening. So, we'll call it even. ;)

[FreeTheHostages]

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.

Our favorite DC Chant it: "Why call it ANSWER? It's the Worker's World Party."

[FreeTheHostages]

"same exact treatment"

1. Not the same

2. We're not violent -- Secret Service can't ask people to back up with out a legitimate threat, and these people on the left post a threat.

3. "We're conservatives. No tear gas necessary."

Law and order: it's what we believe in.

[Baseballguy]

Start with unions and end with democrats.

[lorrainer]

There is no shortage of countries where only supporters are allowed to be seen. This wasn't one of them until recently. Now we share one more trait with banana republics.

With all due respect, protestors were the ONLY ones I've seen in the mass media this year--not supporters..

[freeeee]

these people on the left post a threat.

'These people'. How convenient. In any large group there will be a violent type - so we'll take the actions of a few individuals, claim guilt by association against anyone that shares some of the same views, and presto, we can exercise prior restraint against free speech and free assembly, anytime and anywhere it's convenient.

Sure they have blac bloc. And they'll cite Tim McVeigh. Bank on it. As a matter of fact, the left holds that FReepers especially are among the most violent elements of the right. Sure its not true, but when they take office again, it won't matter. You'll have set (yet another of) Clintons policies in cement, and forfeited any credibility on the issue.

And so a loop whole in the First Amendment large enough to drive a truck (or a motorcade) through is created. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't matter if the tree fell at all. The same theory is held by these ENEMIES OF FREE SPEECH as they restrict protesters (but not supporters mind you) to free speech zones where no one will see or hear them.

Law and order: it's what we believe in.

Bologna. Here's a law that is ingnored when convenient by 'conservatives':

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

[FreeTheHostages]

Um, that's a little overblown. The Secret Service is asking people for whom there *is evidence* that they behave violently -- I'm sorry but there just IS -- to step back a bit. That's not a huge whole in the First Amendment. It's not even a pinprick. It's entirely consistent with the First Amendment.

I think we disagree on the facts. I think these Worker's World Party *are* violent -- espouse it and practice it. I expect that in the Secret Service's defense in court, they'll note what happened last time this was litigated and a court let the leftists near the Inauguration parade. I think you're much too generous to suggest it's just a few bad apples. That's not what it is.

I'm not afraid that they'll say we do it too: there's no evidence that we do. And in most courts, you need evidence.

[brownie]

I'm pretty sure the Secret Service policy on this point has been the same for a long time. Interesting how the ACLU never thought to sue over this while Clinton was president.

[AppyPappy]

This is SO 9/10

[freeeee]

I'll let you have the last word on the matter. And I promise to remember in a couple of years to ping you to the threads where FReepers are howling about the same treatment.

Then I'll repost the article at the top of this thread. This one isn't going down the memory hole.

[freeeee]

This is SO 9/10

Neither unalienable rights nor the First Amendment have expiration dates.

[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. This is an absolute conspiracy that we are seeing right now by the radicals of this country to destroy Bush's Presidency.

[freeeee]

I remember distinctly that Clinton had a two mile barrier fence put up around the White House

I see. If Clinton did it, it's ok.

gee didn't hear the ACLU complaining then.

FReepers comlained then, ACLU was silent.
ACLU complains now, FReepers are silent.

Two sides of the same coin.

[mrsmith]

"Freedom is messy and inconvenient. It means that people with unpopular opinions will be seen and heard. "
And that reasonable restrictions on speech will be placed in the public interest.

I too think this is a good issue to be examined by the courts.

Where was the ACLU when their leftist buddies benefited from the restrictions? Yep, out collecting donations from them.

[AppyPappy]

You still have the right to protest. You don't have the right endanger the CIC when you do it.