ACLU Files Suit Against Secret Service

[tk149]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: tk149
First, safety is an issue. Whether you believe it or not, people get violent at big political events. I guess it's some kind of mob mentality. Segregation by long distance is one of the easiest ways to keep the peace.

You guess? So you're willing to stifle our constitutional right to assemble and our freedom of speech on the off chance that something may get violent? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Unless they ACTUALLY ARE getting violent, people have rights to assemble and express themselves.

First amendment buddy: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I'm not "guessing" that violence occurs at rallies. I'm guessing about the "Mob Mentality" thing. Try reading that again.
You do not have an absolute right to Freedom of Speech. Safety concerns trump that right, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot maliciously yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Again, you don't seem to believe that violence occurs at rallies, and I guess I'm not going to change your mind.

Second, what's preventing the protestors from calling the media to their rallies? You argue like there is no alternative to letting protestors in to these events.

That's not the point. They should be able to assemble where they wish. Usually that's outside the building where these meetings are taking place. Again, you insinuate that someone's demanding that they be admitted to the actual event. Wrong.
Okay, so we have some common point of agreement here. It's simply that I draw the line further than you do. You think that assembling immediately outside a building is okay. That argument certainly has merit. But depending on how incendiary the issue is, I still maintain that safety is directly proportional to distance. Note that you have contradicted your first statement by acknowledging that the right of the people to peacably assemble is NOT absolute.

Third, regarding your anti-Bush stance, I refer you to CPA's post. Your bias is clear. I note that you completely failed to reply to tnitsuj's statement regarding the attempt to block protestors during Clinton's administration.

Who cares about Clinton? He's not in office still, is he? Your tactic of deflecting attention away from Bush is very transparent. I care about what's going on right now. I'm perfectly aware that other presidents may have used similar tactics and that does not make it right. Is that all you got? That I don't like Bush? Wow. So insightful.

Bush is not the first president to use these "tactics," which is the opposite of what you imply with your first post. If that was not your intent, then I'm sorry I misunderstood, but I still think that's the way your first post is slanted. If you wanted to argue that banning protestors is just plain wrong, then why bother flaming/blaming Bush? You clearly have an agenda, and you undermine your purported argument by pushing that agenda.

BTW, do you always insult people you debate with? You must win a lot of debates.

 

[308nato]

Where was the american crackpot liberal unit in 1996 when willy had the Mendozas arrested in Chicago and then ordered the IRS to audit them.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Gee.. I see both sides of this one... but, the elephant in me has this memory... Kent State, The Chicago Convention in '68... The words out of Nixon's mouth (on tape) about the White House protests.. and how to handle them... Kennedy in '63, Kennedy in '68 and "A government of the people and by the people" "... to peacefully assemble", The twin towers, the Pentagon...

There is always going to be risk in the job of President. The SS would prefer the president never leave the security of the White House or Camp David... But, the President needs to be seen being presidential and he don't need visable protests in the same camera shot as him... this distances him from the protest as if they were protesting the inhumane treatment of Gerbils.

I think it is politics under the umbrella of security and a good use of both..

If the president doesn't want to be seen around people for protesting gerbils then he should stay off public areas or close the area off to everyone.

 

[DealMonkey]

tk149 - The right to assemble is a constitutional right. You can't simply discriminate against groups who want to assemble on the possibility that they may be violent. Moreover, it's already been shown that security was not an issue as you had groups of supporters right up front and center at the entrance to the building. Within close range of the president. If someone wanted to do harm, they'd simply pose as a "supporter" now wouldn't they?

I'm blaming Bush because he's doing it. He's doing it more than any former president. Yes, I already conceded other presidents may have used various levels of the same tactic. But they're not in office now are they. What? Do you want to go back in time and sue them too? Ridiculous. But that's how your argument sounds.

It doesn't matter what my agenda may or may not be, quite simply don't agree with the tactic and I'm glad someone is finally doing something about it. Our constitutional and civil rights are under constant fire from the current administration - if we don't actively defend them, they're bound to be significantly eroded.

 

[LunarRay]

Deal,
This is true too. It seems each and every 'right' is being whittled away slowly and surely. This is just one more. It seems the whittlers are far more adept at their task. They cause one to agree the loss of this or that right is good for us. But, There is always an Agenda... Some day, I suppose, it will be cages for the opposition.. and then no elections just crowns... or large block stock ownership..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
tk149 - The right to assemble is a constitutional right. You can't simply discriminate against groups who want to assemble on the possibility that they may be violent. Moreover, it's already been shown that security was not an issue as you had groups of supporters right up front and center at the entrance to the building. Within close range of the president. If someone wanted to do harm, they'd simply pose as a "supporter" now wouldn't they?

I'm blaming Bush because he's doing it. He's doing it more than any former president. Yes, I already conceded other presidents may have used various levels of the same tactic. But they're not in office now are they. What? Do you want to go back in time and sue them too? Ridiculous. But that's how your argument sounds.

It doesn't matter what my agenda may or may not be, quite simply don't agree with the tactic and I'm glad someone is finally doing something about it. Our constitutional and civil rights are under constant fire from the current administration - if we don't actively defend them, they're bound to be significantly eroded.

Yet another "the sky is falling" example used to bash this administration. Your "proof" that he is doing this more than other's is ....? And again - the past isn't being used to absolve the current - it is only to show the motivation You still don't seem to understand that argument but please quit taking it out of context.
Next time a rally comes through town(area) I plan on testing a few things - the "problem" isn't Bush - it's politics in general.

Question for all you "free speech" defenders here in this thread. What did you think about the LaRouche nutjobs that disrupted the 9 dwarves debate a while back? Should they not have a right to shout and protest? Are you going to defend their "right" to "free speech" since they got their ass hauled out of there? How close shoud protesters be allowed?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yet another "the sky is falling" example used to bash this administration. Your "proof" that he is doing this more than other's is ....? And again - the past isn't being used to absolve the current - it is only to show the motivation You still don't seem to understand that argument but please quit taking it out of context.
Next time a rally comes through town(area) I plan on testing a few things - the "problem" isn't Bush - it's politics in general.

Question for all you "free speech" defenders here in this thread. What did you think about the LaRouche nutjobs that disrupted the 9 dwarves debate a while back? Should they not have a right to shout and protest? Are you going to defend their "right" to "free speech" since they got their ass hauled out of there? How close shoud protesters be allowed?

CkG

Cad, there's no motivation on my part beyond defending people's right to assemble and protest. You keep clouding the real issue with all sorts of BS.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yet another "the sky is falling" example used to bash this administration. Your "proof" that he is doing this more than other's is ....? And again - the past isn't being used to absolve the current - it is only to show the motivation You still don't seem to understand that argument but please quit taking it out of context.
Next time a rally comes through town(area) I plan on testing a few things - the "problem" isn't Bush - it's politics in general.

Question for all you "free speech" defenders here in this thread. What did you think about the LaRouche nutjobs that disrupted the 9 dwarves debate a while back? Should they not have a right to shout and protest? Are you going to defend their "right" to "free speech" since they got their ass hauled out of there? How close shoud protesters be allowed?

CkG

Cad, there's no motivation on my part beyond defending people's right to assemble and protest. You keep clouding the real issue with all sorts of BS.

So what was/is your take on the LaRouche people's protest?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm fully supportive of the points they made at the democratic debate on Morgan State University campus. People should be able to protest. Now, they were also disrupting the debates, and were consequently arrested. Personally, I don't see why they were arrested. Couldn't they simply be escorted outside and not allowed to return? Beyond speaking their minds, these people weren't violent or threatening were they?

Additionally, I feel that it's wrong that the current two-party system excludes valid candidates. I remember the same sort of thing was happening to Nader in 2000. ALL candidates should be allowed to debate and to attend public functions to highlight their platforms.

 

[Pennstate]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CPA
Give it a break, did you ever see demonstrators in Clinton's face? No, because they were ushered off or segregated to the back. geesh, like this is new.

And is that right? No!

My support is with the ACLU

Exactly, two wrongs do not make a right. We need to fix this.

So will you and the ACLU support me when I go to the next Dem candidate rally here in DesMoines wearing my G.W.Bush shirt and carrying a bigass sign that says XXXX is a murderer? or Nazi? Or whatever? You think they'll let me anywhere close to the rally? I think not.

I'll count on your support though since now I'm going to go to the next one - just to see

CkG

Yes I will. You may get spit on, but I totally support your right to be seen and heard.

 

[Gaard]

The LaRouche supporters were inside a building. Does that make a difference?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The LaRouche supporters were inside a building. Does that make a difference?

That seems to be the question...how close is close enough to be considered "free speech".


CkG

 

[Gaard]

'Closeness' probably isn't the issue as far as the LaRouche people are concerned. I would think that there are certain rules people have to adhere to in order to enter the premises. (I'm about to take my son to the circus in a few minutes...one of the rules is I can't bring a camera inside the building )


Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
tk149 - The right to assemble is a constitutional right. You can't simply discriminate against groups who want to assemble on the possibility that they may be violent. Moreover, it's already been shown that security was not an issue as you had groups of supporters right up front and center at the entrance to the building. Within close range of the president. If someone wanted to do harm, they'd simply pose as a "supporter" now wouldn't they?

I was referring to the possibility of supporters clashing with protestors with screaming and yelling escalating into violence. I hadn't even thought about premeditated attacks. I agree that the President's security is not an issue if unscreened supporters are allowed close to the President.

I understand your argument, but if you concede that protestors do not have a right to front row seats, then we only differ as to the degree. Also, I would like to point out that (and I acknowledge that this is sheer speculation) it is possible that the reason protestors had to assemble several blocks away was because there was nowhere else to assemble (outside of the building) that wouldn't block traffic.

I'm blaming Bush because he's doing it. He's doing it more than any former president. Yes, I already conceded other presidents may have used various levels of the same tactic. But they're not in office now are they. What? Do you want to go back in time and sue them too? Ridiculous. But that's how your argument sounds.

I pointed out that Bush was not the first president to do this only because your first post makes it sound like he's the first and only one to do this, and to demonstrate that your motivation for arguing was tainted by partisanship.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
'Closeness' probably isn't the issue as far as the LaRouche people are concerned. I would think that there are certain rules people have to adhere to in order to enter the premises. (I'm about to take my son to the circus in a few minutes...one of the rules is I can't bring a camera inside the building )


Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Yes - the debate was an "invite" type thing IIRC, but what if they were "accidentally" invited?

Even if it is a public area(open to the public) does that mean people can just go around disrupting speeches because they have "free speech"? I'm all for the opportunity for people to express their views in public - but when it comes at the expense(or saftey) should it be tolerated?

CkG

 

[Gaard]

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand you have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc in a public place. How can you deny people's freedoms in a public place? On the other hand, even public places have restrictions...the parks in town here are all 'off-limits' after dusk. (It's embarrassing to have a cop rap on your car window and ask your wife if everything is alright?). And don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure you can't run around Central Park shouting obsceneties.