Judge decides Denver can restrict convention protests
Posted August 7th, 2008 by RonShimshock
In another blow to civil liberties, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver can be restricted to fenced-in areas. The judge felt that security needs outweigh any infringement on personal rights.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/pl_nm...
Protest groups had sued the Secret Service and the city of Denver, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated. The ACLU and American Friends Service Committee argued the rules set by the city and the Secret Service would keep them too far away from the action.
Of course the 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.
Free Speech Zone: Zone set up for the 2004 Democratic National Convention
Why is it that the government continues to think they can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves? Of course removing our freedoms in the name of security continues to be the message from our federal officials. And what authority does this district judge have to legislate from the bench?
I want to know where it says in the first amendment that peaceable assembly is limited to specific areas. My understanding is peaceable assembly can happen anywhere at anytime. It is our right. According to Wikipedia:
"Protesters who refuse to go to free speech zones could be arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used federal law was brought up that says that “willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” is a crime."
I didn't realize it is a crime to enter or remain in a posted area where someone protected by the Secret Service will be temporarily visiting. What is the charge for such a crime? I'm all about protecting important figures from those who have crazy intentions (such as physically harming someone), but a person who just happens to be standing in the wrong area and doing nothing wrong gets charged with a crime?
As Benjamin Franklin said (and I'm sure many of you know), "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
print
Only people like Ben Franklin and the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would truly value that quote because they stood in the face of tyranny. Today, some of these sheeple walking around here would only rise up if the beer stopped flowing and they made us pay to watch all NFL games! I mean I love my football too, but sometimes the state of this country is in flux and in the wrong direction. Anyway, I leave with this quote:
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."-H.L. Mencken