[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Tsk Tsk yourself Cerek. You seem to put words in my mouth that I dont recall saying and once again try to paint me like a partisan hypocrite. Since it is a fact that the free speech zones began in the Clinton era if I did not know this before I do know it now. But I challenge you to go actually find my posts on this topic and present them here and at least give me a chance to adjust old positions I had based on knowledge I may have gained between now and then before pointing the hypocrite finger and tsk tsking.

Very well. The original thread is here --> Secret Service sued for segregrating Bush protestors

This is the opening post in the thread:

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Hehehe, If the ACLU wins this case, President Bush may have to face a "fair and balanced" array of citizen's opinions. The Secret Service has helped keep Bush administration critics far from the center stage -- and television cameras -- at rallies and events where President Bush and high-ranking federal officials appeared, according to a federal lawsuit filed yesterday. In more than a dozen public events nationwide in the past two years, the Secret Service has instructed local police to herd anti-Bush protesters into far-removed "protest zones," four advocacy groups claim in the suit. They charge that the Secret Service has kept protesters at bay before, but that the practice has increased markedly since Bush took office. The groups, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, say this tactic discriminates against protesters critical of the government and violates their free-speech rights. They are asking a judge in federal court in Philadelphia to stop the practice. "Allowing a guy with a sign that says 'I Love Bush' to stand up close, while forcing the guy with a sign that says 'Bush, Go Home' to stand around the corner, is obviously unconstitutional and is becoming a pattern and practice of the Secret Service," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU's Washington office. "The Bush administration has exceeded all past administrations in controlling camera angles and the public impression of the presidency." Secret Service spokesman John Gill said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. "However, we have a longstanding policy of recognizing the constitutionally protected right of the public to demonstrate and voice their views to their elected officials," he said. The four groups suing are all protest-rally veterans: the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which lobbies for affordable housing; the National Organization for Women (NOW), an advocacy group for women's rights; United for Peace and Justice, an antiwar group; and USAction, which describes its mission as promoting social and economic justice. They filed the suit in Philadelphia to build upon a four-year-old lawsuit there in which a federal judge issued a restraining order this summer against the Secret Service for keeping anti-government protesters at bay. The suit highlights incidents in states from Arizona to Virginia that are similar to ACORN's July court fight in Philadelphia, where police barred protesters from a public sidewalk next to a Treasury building. Bush was touring the facility to highlight checks being printed for a new child tax credit, and ACORN demonstrated against what it said was the credit's small size. But Bush supporters were allowed on the sidewalk. The judge in Philadelphia that day issued a restraining order requiring the Secret Service to allow government critics to demonstrate peacefully as close as supporters.

I do apologize for accusing of claiming that Bush and his Administration were the ones responsible for the increased enforcement of this policy. That accusation was made within the article itself. You did voice your agreement with others who criticised the practice, which made it seem you agreed with the sentiments expressed in the article itself. Given your oft-repeated opinion of President Bush in general, that was not a very large leap in logic. However, you didn't actually state yourself that Bush was responsible for the practice, so I again offer my humble apologies for wrongly accusing you of that.