First Amendment Rights too much for Bush Administration?

[Batz]

"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," said Witold J. Walczak, legal director for the ACLU's Greater Pittsburgh chapter.

By banana

No, I am not. As I have said before, I believe that a person protesting during a presidential speech should do so quietly and peacefully through use of a sign.

Well it seems you arent in favor of unrestricted free speech. The ACLU disagrees with you.

But from reading it it isnt about "free speech" because these protesters werent denied a right to speak. They demanded to be "heard" to be "seen" and "kept on the mind".

And more importantly

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.

If this pisses you off the where were you when the Mendoza's were actually arrested?

You cant really believe your own arguement. I assume you realize how silly this is and are just hanging on to it to save face.

No one has a constitutional right to be "heard". You can scream all ya want but no one has to sit by and listen to you.

[Zippatuh]

Originally posted by banana
Nice deflection attempt, Zippatuh. Care to address the issue at hand in this thread?

There is no issue in the thread so there is nothing to argue…

Freedom of speech does not mean free access to the president or an “open door” policy to whomever decides they have a bone to pick with the executive.

By this argument, any time someone protests in DC outside the white house but isn’t allowed access to the oval office has the right to sue the secret service.  Come on.

So protesters were kept away from the president while on a road trip?  Were they allowed to protest, yes.  Do they have the right to be first in line for demonstration, I’m not sure that’s covered under the constitution.

If you have problems with the man write your congressman or woman.  Hell, send a letter directly to the white house.  Hey, hold a rally and invite some news coverage.  Suing the secret service over “placement” of a group of people who could be considered hostile is somehow going around freedom of speech?

They’re reaching and you’re reaching and not finding.  I’m getting the vision of a five year old throwing a tantrum on the cookie isle because mom picked up ginger snaps instead of Oreos.  Maybe the ACLU should start hanging out in supermarkets to insure anyone who wants a specific cookie gets it.  After all that’s you’re definition of freedom of speech, correct.

Whhhaaaaa!

You do make an excellent argument for “looser pays” in law suits though.

[Sandman]

At first glance, I thought "no big deal."

But, this is worth noting:

The ACLU complaint lists several incidents where protesters were forced to assemble blocks away from where the president or vice president was speaking, while supporters of the administration's policy could hold their signs up in front of the building.

I seem to recall similar tactics used during a college commencement address last year.


In the end, does the ACLU have a case? Probably. Is anything going to change? Don't count on it. I suspect that past presidents have employed the same policy. It's difficult to get your message out with hecklers spoiling the flow.

[Sixpence]

I like the unpatriot act, you know, the one where they can search your house when you are not home? Nice.

[Erlkonig]

Ah, progress.  100 years ago, governments opened fire on protestors they didn't like.  Now, we simply herd them into holding pens.  Hooray, freedom.