Judge: Denver can restrict protests at convention (MUST READ)

[ThoughtCriminal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/...er_protests_dc
DENVER (Reuters) - Protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver can be restricted to fenced-in areas, federal judge ruled on Wednesday, saying that security needs outweighed curbs on their rights.

A dozen groups who intend to protest at the August convention sued the U.S. Secret Service and the city of Denver over plans to confine their activities to a parade route and fenced-in zone, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Friends Service Committee and others argued that the rules would keep them too far away from delegates to get their message across during the convention, which is scheduled for Aug 25-28 at the city's downtown Pepsi Center.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement on their freedom of expression but said those interests had to be balanced with security concerns.

"The restrictions inhibit the plaintiffs' ability to engage in some forms of expressive conduct, (but) ... the plaintiffs have a wide variety of alternative means of expression that will allow them to effectively communicate their messages," Krieger wrote in her 71-page ruling.





WTF IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY? My blood is boiling! The judge even "agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement" of their rights!

[LastManOut]

Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip

[adymond]

Originally Posted by LastManOut

Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip,Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip

Dunno what that means, but I think you are agreeing that this is BOGUS. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! The funny thing though is that this is going to be kept quiet or hailed as a good idea by the Libs because it is to protect his holiness Lord Obama. I wonder if the ACLU will get involved. I suspect not. They know where their bread is buttered.

As an aside I think it is rediculious what the Anarchists are trying to do with demanding $50,000,000 to not disrupt the convention. Come on that is NOT legitimate protest. The Anarchists damage property, harrass the public, and just all around cause trouble. Protests can cause problems, but anytime property ends up burning that just crosses the line.

[billamj]

Um, guys, they've been doing this at conventions since right after 1967. Something about them having almost torn Chicago to shreds made the judiciary decide that this could be a good idea. Not that I agree with it but it is REALLY OLD news.

[Lysander]

Without reading the actual judgment or Order, this looks close enough to a "time, place, and manner" restriction that courts have upheld before. If there's something new in the judgment, I'd certainly like to see it before getting too involved in the matter.

[pex]

They're making free-speech zones, but luckily they have not so far made violent-revolution zones, restricting where one may attempt to abolish and remake their government.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Originally Posted by billamj

Um, guys, they've been doing this at conventions since right after 1967. Something about them having almost torn Chicago to shreds made the judiciary decide that this could be a good idea. Not that I agree with it but it is REALLY OLD news.

I know this is not a new process. However, this is the first time I have seen a statement from a judge stating they recognize that they are infringing on a right, but it is warranted because of safety concerns. How can a judge admit to infringing on a constitutionally protected right and get away with it? Whats the point of having a constitution?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

I know this is not a new process. However, this is the first time I have seen a statement from a judge stating they recognize that they are infringing on a right, but it is warranted because of safety concerns. How can a judge admit to infringing on a constitutionally protected right and get away with it? Whats the point of having a constitution?

they do that all the time. supreme court opinions routinely talk about "weighing constitutional rights against compelling state interests" or the like.

i agree with you that it is BS, but it is nothing new. as an example in a case that is talked about here a lot, see terry v. ohio (where the 4th amendment was weighed against the compelling state interest of officer safety)...and that was from 1968 (and the concept goes back way further than that...read some of the new deal era cases if you really want to be disillusioned.)

heck even under "strict scrutiny", where the court actually just assumes right from the get-go that the action/law is unconstitutional, they only analyze whether or not there is a "compelling interest" that outweighs the infringment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/strict-scrutiny

again, this is, imho, complete BS...if something is unconstitutional, then the government should not be allowed to do it--period. but, that ain't the way it works, unfortunately.

i do agree with you, though...this makes the constitution basically irrelevant. we almost might as well not have one.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

I know this is not a new process. However, this is the first time I have seen a statement from a judge stating they recognize that they are infringing on a right, but it is warranted because of safety concerns. How can a judge admit to infringing on a constitutionally protected right and get away with it? Whats the point of having a constitution?

It is the same concept, in their minds, as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. The welfare of the many outweighs the rights of the few because of a safety issue. That is the opinion of the courts.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Originally Posted by billamj

It is the same concept, in their minds, as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. The welfare of the many outweighs the rights of the few because of a safety issue. That is the opinion of the courts.

I understand that. But, can you remember when a udge has actually admitted they were "infringing", not "limiting", on a right? (Keyword: "infringing")