Secret Service sued for segregating Bush protesters

[Chewbacca]

Hehehe, If the ACLU wins this case, President Bush may have to face a "fair and balanced" array of citizen's opinions. [img]tongue.gif[/img]


Story

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.

[Azred]

As citizens, we are guaranteed the right to protest and voice our views. Unfortunately, we are not guaranteed the right to protest wherever we want to.

Were the protesters prohibited from protesting at all? No, they simply weren't placed close to the President. Inconvenient, yes. A violation of rights? No. Besides, the President doesn't have to listen to protesters if he chooses not to.

Unfortunately, the protesters and the ACLU will lose this one.

[WillowIX]

Perhaps it is not as important to win the case as it is to get the claims heard. Perhaps. I don't really know where the ACLU stands politically but I'm guessing, democrats?

[Azred]

The ACLU doesn't really have a political stance, as they represent anyone whose Constitutional rights are seeming to be restricted...even the American Nazi Party. At any point in time, the ACLU is either loved or hated but never ignored. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I can see the protestors point. What good is holding up sighns and running your mouth if you have to do it from 2 miles away.On the otherhand, who is more likely to shoot at the president, someone who supports him or someone holding a sighn calling for his removal.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I can see the protestors point. What good is holding up sighns and running your mouth if you have to do it from 2 miles away.On the otherhand, who is more likely to shoot at the president, someone who supports him or someone holding a sighn calling for his removal.

no, the guy not holding a sign at all and blending into the crowd.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I can see the protestors point. What good is holding up sighns and running your mouth if you have to do it from 2 miles away.On the otherhand, who is more likely to shoot at the president, someone who supports him or someone holding a sighn calling for his removal.

no, the guy not holding a sign at all and blending into the crowd. [/QUOTE]Or the guy who is carrying the sign supporting Bush in order to fool those secret service types!

[Timber Loftis]

Just make signs that say

Go
Home
Bush!

and cover up the "home" until the cameras are rolling.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Just make signs that say Go Home Bush! and cover up the "home" until the cameras are rolling.

lol, then get tackled by the SS and dragged off to the local military lockup as a 'material witness' [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Azred: The ACLU doesn't really have a political stance, as they represent anyone whose Constitutional rights are seeming to be restricted...even the American Nazi Party. At any point in time, the ACLU is either loved or hated but never ignored. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Dang then my cynical approach didn't work. I like Timber's idea though. Dang! That's the second time I have agreeed with Timber today. [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img] *hugs Timber*