Jumping the gun
ACLU should have waited on lawsuit over convention protests
Rocky Mountain News
Thursday, May 8, 2008
What are the city of Denver and the Secret Service thinking? Don't they know their concern for the safety and security of delegates and others at this summer's Democratic National Convention is seriously crimping the style of any number of protesters?
Plans have to be made, after all. The anger of everyone from Re-create 68 to the American Indian Movement to Troops Out Now, not to mention CodePink and Americans for Safe Access (to marijuana, that is), must be accommodated. It's guaranteed by the Constitution, for goodness' sake, that protesters be informed months before the event where they'll be allowed to go.
That's essentially the argument presented this week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, on behalf of these and other groups and individuals, when it sued the city and the Secret Service. But we have to wonder whether such a drastic step isn't a trifle premature.
Because the convention - running Aug. 25-28 at the Pepsi Center - has been designated a National Security Special Event, the Secret Service is in the driver's seat when it comes to security for the event. Until that agency firms up its plan for security boundaries, Denver officials say their hands are tied. The city can't, they say, properly process parade permits already awarded to protest groups and can't provide information about where and when other demonstrations will be allowed.
To the ACLU, this is intolerable. The organization worries that Denver 2008 will turn into another Boston 2004, at which convention protesters were relegated to an area "enclosed by concrete barricades, multiple layers of fencing, mesh, and netting, topped with overhead razor wire and located under an old rail line," as the press release accompanying the filing of the lawsuit describes the scene.
The ACLU wants those it represents to have ample time to prepare their demonstrations and to challenge anything that appears to infringe their First Amendment free-speech rights.
Up to a point, we're sympathetic. But here we are nearly 31/2 months from the event. If the ACLU is right that the Secret Service might not settle on its plans until July - and we can scarcely imagine the logistical nightmare a security operation of this magnitude must present - that still leaves demonstrators nearly two months to arrange their activities or protest whatever strictures will be placed on them.
The trouble comes if an early-July decision is substantially delayed. Then the situation really would approach the intolerable. So, we understand the anxiety of the ACLU and those for whom it's fighting. Until July, though, we think the ACLU should shelve its lawsuit and exercise something other than its free-speech rights - a little patience.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 8, 2008
5:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
The ACLU does two things:
1. It grinds its political axe, and
2. It grinds its political axe to generate press coverage to raise donations.
The ACLU's constant support for largely frifilous cases that make the news is clear proof that their main agenda is self preservation.
Perhaps the Rocky should exercise editorial judgment by not covering every loopy thing this group does. They are not deserving of the gravitas afforded them.
May 8, 2008
7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
hey this is discrimination against operation chaos. now where is the group mentioned. oh what will all the progressive liberal Rush haters do now? I guess once again the truth comes out and Rush has nothing to do with these wacko far left liberal protestors.
May 8, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
BURN DENVER BURN Thanks to the Democrates the colorado skies will glow. Denver has long supported these groups its about time it bit them in the b..t. ACLU should be banned from America. Its time to rethink where our state capital is. I say put it were it use to be Old colorado city and give the government a old warehouse to work out of. Let them see how the rest of Colorado lives.
May 8, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
Bigfoot are you sharing your knowledge of the "plans" for the "assault" with the authorities? I still think there's an agency somewhere that remunerates you wingnuts on a blathering points basis. Extra coin for discussion board postings and letters to the editor that contain the most wingnut buzzwords and blathering points per line.You and earl could probably live off such income.Do you suppose your hero lush limpballs was so opposed to the ACLU when they came defended him during the drug violation investigation he fell into for his doctor shopping for oxy prescriptions? Likewise rush lite sean hannity defended in a freedom of speech case, and then there's republican representative Larry( wide stance) Craig.The one thing I'm grateful to the wingnut lexicon for is that one can know that as soon as the buzzwords, and blathering points start appearing you can pretty much quit paying attention to what the wingnut is saying as, at that point all thoughtful consideration of the issue has diminished to near zero.
May 8, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
davis_x_machina posted in part " I still think there's an agency somewhere that remunerates you wingnuts on a blathering points basis. " I am most curious if you are angered by the borrowing of a page from the democratic party playbook, or if you arent getting your fair share for each "wingnut" and "buzzword" you post? As to the argument you make for ignoring posts as soon as buzzwords and blathering post go, that cuts both ways.
May 8, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Strange the ACLU never mentions peoples' 2ND AMENDMENT rights.
May 8, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
To repeat a Democratic poster boy Denver roosters have come home to roost. Denver and Boulder and the Democrates that have controlled those cities have long supported these so called protesters so as far as I am concerned Every building in Denver Can Burn. You have supported these terrorist and traitors when they were protesting americans, killing Americans and distroying their homes elsewere so now its Denvers turn I hope you love the monsters you support as they are burning your homes. They will not come here in the springs because we shoot Animals.
May 8, 2008
8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
I know plenty of lawyers who have planned to stand by for pro bono work targetting the processing and release of DNC protesters.
ACLU needs to be prepared to process these victims and get them back to protesting as soon as possible.
In fact ACLU should have in place a 15 minute field procedure to process those marching in support of democracy.
May 8, 2008
11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Boy, nothing like foaming at the mouth over protesters to make one proud to be an American.
I'm involved with a group that met with a city official last January. As an "Oh, by the way" type of question, one of our panel members asked about what kind of zone the city would create for people wanting to exercise their right to free speech. That official said the city had been trying to get the Secret Service to move since October (that's October 2007) and hadn't heard a word. The city was hoping the Sercret Service would answer by March. It's now May. Denver was chosen January 2007. The city hasn't moved. It hasn't changed the location of the Pepsi Center. It hasn't re-arranged the streets. Every major piece of infrastructure the city plans on using is where it was in January 2007. What is taking the Secret Service so damn long?
Maybe some like the idea of steel cages, razor wire, etc. for protesters, but people have the right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances. Put in modern language, people have the right to demonstrate peacefully.
Given the Bush Administration's record on tolerance of free speech, I have to wonder whether the Secret Service is deliberately stalling.
Except for JSeifert, I don't think any one here wants to see riots. However, if the Secret Service (I'm sorely tempted to call them by their initials) keeps dragging its heels, there may be confusion and disorderliness simply because Denver officials didn't have enough time to work out logisitics.
May 9, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
RickyLee, the second amendment isn't in favor with the PC mind police, so the last organisation to defend it will be the A.C.L.U., fear the government that fears your gun.
May 11, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
To prevent the assembling of structure for protests, it is only sensible to wait until the last minute to give out such information. It is also good sense to confine the protesters to a single area. They will still have their right to demonstrate and declare their opinions. They will not have the right to commit criminal actions or destroy property. I'm certain they will try to go outside of any confined area. I'm also certain they will receive permits with exact locations and times and the caveat that any violation of those limits will render the permit null and void. They won't have the ability to confront the delegates nor the right to demand (hijack) the spotlight. If people want to see them or know about them they can issue press releases, demonstrate peacefully and gather peacefully. Whey they go out of control and attack a Starbucks or any other business or building, the police will have the right to arrest them.
I recall that Operation Rescue used illegal tactics to block access to abortion clinics and the people who are screaming about discrimination and police brutality were quite quiet about police preparing for such events. No lawyers lined up to handle a quick release process. And they, like any protesters breaking the law, had to spend some time in jail because arraignments had to wait for court time. I'd suggest that the city pass an ordinance requiring that civil disobedience charges can only be arraigned in a single courtroom. Might also have high bail requirements that can only be appealed in that same courtroom or in one other. Would make many think twice. Would also make many happy to be able to put their court papers in a frame and their arrest on their resume. Give the old hippies a chance to relive their glory days without the damage to the city.
Thanks to 9/11, there will be a lot more security and a lot more criminal charges along with a lot of high bail amounts or no bail allowed. Oh dear. We'll need to ship them to Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Grand Junction. Just think of the increase in tourism and the increase in revenue to the city from their fines. Of course we could dispense with a lot of this and merely have them plead, stand trial and get a huge fine in a day. Wonder which course Denver will choose?