McCain has security detail remove 61 year old librarian holding a sign from public property

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

See, you are still doing it!

You made a statement, I responded. I never excused what Obama did, I simply stated a fact. It doesn't change my disagreement with their removal from the event.

I don't think you have much a point here.

[thewise1]

I would be interested to know what the laws on trespass and public property are like there.

In Washington, it would be tossed out very quickly, but I'm not sure what compensation she would be entitled to.

Unfortunately one of the main problems with our system is that in order to enforce your rights, you need money. Sure we have public defenders but they are just going to tell you to make a deal or whatever... That lady - given the information we have here at least - has done nothing wrong and should not only ensure that the charges are dropped, but pursue damages for her experience. That will require an attorney and it won't be cheap. The damages may be non existent too. Worst of all, even if they drop the charges, they accomplished their mission - get rid of the dissent when they needed to.

While I'm definitely not one of those people who will sue over anything, I do believe that a violation of my rights should come at an extreme price.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, you guys do it. Hell, in our Obama is weeding out Mulsims thread you democrats blamed it all on republicans! Talk about shifting blame!!!

Supporting in yourself what you dislike in your opposition.

Sounds like a good plan.

Just because others may be hypocrits (not calling anyone here that I haven't read said thread) doesn't mean that you have to be one as well.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dylith

Supporting in yourself what you dislike in your opposition.

Sounds like a good plan.

Just because others may be hypocrits (not calling anyone here that I haven't read said thread) doesn't mean that you have to be one as well.

For republicans, it actually does mean they have to be one as well. They gave up the whole better than their opposition thing a long time ago, and settled on 'we're not our opposition, even though we do the same stuff. We do it less though, so vote for us'

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Dylith

Supporting in yourself what you dislike in your opposition.

Sounds like a good plan.

Just because others may be hypocrits (not calling anyone here that I haven't read said thread) doesn't mean that you have to be one as well.

I think it was wrong to do what was done (if the story is accurate). But the people posting act like this only happens with republicans.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think it was wrong to do what was done (if the story is accurate). But the people posting act like this only happens with republicans.

Considering I posted a personal story about a Democrat doing the same thing in the original post, I don't think you have a leg to stand on since your point is about me.

[kombayn]

What about the 1st amendment right to Freedom of Petition? McCain is a jack-ass.

[kinggovernor]

if you fell for this video, I feel bad for you

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if you fell for this video, I feel bad for you

"fell for" ............. your details are overwhelming.

[motivez]

The Denver Performing Arts Complex is four-square-block site owned and operated by the City and County of Denver and subsidized largely by Denver area taxpayers through a mill levy.

Ms. Kreck was not inside the hall where McCain was holding his Town Hall event when security approached her. She was standing quietly in the public plaza between the Bonfils Theatre Complex and the parking garage.

MSNBC piece on it:

YouTube Video

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if you fell for this video, I feel bad for you

it would have been more helpful if you posted this

http://origin.denverpost.com/technology/ci_9812206

A 60-year-old librarian received a trespassing ticket Monday after a liberal group's protest outside John McCain's town-hall meeting.

Clutching a sign that read "McCain = Bush," Carol Kreck was removed from the atrium of the Denver Performing Arts Complex by four Denver police officers.

Kreck — a former Denver Post reporter who works part time as a librarian for an education think tank — said she was removed as she quizzed a police officer about whether he could deny her free-speech rights "on city property" by taking away her sign, while McCain supporters wore buttons inside.

Jenny Schiavone, a spokeswoman for the performing arts center, said the venue is city-owned rental property but is not legally defined as public property.

The liberal group ProgressNowAction had called the center before the event and asked about being inside the atrium, she said. The group was told it would have to rent space or use previously designated protest areas along the street, Schiavone said.

Detective John White, a spokesman for the Denver Police Department, said officers acted as they would have for any complaint on private property.

"Our officers received a signed complaint from a security guard at a private event and acted accordingly," he said.

Tom Kise, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that he did not know about Kreck's ouster but that the town-hall-style meeting was open to supporters and opponents.

"All the campaign asked for is a respectful dialogue," Kise said.

"What's disrespectful about pointing out that attendees voted for Bush and would be voting for McCain?" Kreck said of her sign.

So it's not exactly the kind of "public property" they're implying, they protested in a place they KNEW they weren't supposed to, and she was removed for THAT (protesting in a place she wasn't supposed to), NOT for carrying the sign, and she's lying when she implies she was removed because of her sign.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

MSNBC piece on it:

Olbermann is a disgrace to everyone on MSNBC.

[motivez]

If the city is paying for it with tax dollars, I think it's public property. I doubt their claim that it's not legally defined as public property would hold up in court.

We had a thread awhile ago about someone wanting to protest or hand out things in a mall food court, which is obviously a privately owned building where the public is allowed to go. The people were prevented from handing out their signs, sued, and won.

I think the differences in this case actually favor this lady more, because it's paid with tax dollars and was billed as an event open to all the public.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

it would have been more helpful if you posted this
...
So it's not exactly the kind of "public property" they're implying, they protested in a place they KNEW they weren't supposed to, and she was removed for THAT (protesting in a place she wasn't supposed to), NOT for carrying the sign, and she's lying when she implies she was removed because of her sign.

I didn't even read that, I saw the other protesters in the background and knew she/they were lying. Which is how "Progress Action Group" or the like present information, they lie and exaggerate.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

We had a thread awhile ago about someone wanting to protest or hand out things in a mall food court, which is obviously a privately owned building where the public is allowed to go. The people were prevented from handing out their signs, sued, and won.

while I disagree with the decision, the supreme court decided states can determine if malls are the equivalent of "Main Street" so the owners were limited in what they could prevent.

I think the differences in this case actually favor this lady more, because it's paid with tax dollars and was billed as an event open to all the public.

The courtroom in my town is paid for by tax dollars and is open to the public but there are rules about being allowed to stand in the courtroom and protest.

They knew they were supposed to rent a space and (from the article) it appears they would have been allowed to rent space if they chose to. They chose not to but protested anyway and someone conveniently had a camera ready when the police talked to the "librarian." Gee, I wonder why?

Again, she was not removed for the words ON the sign as she was trying to make us believe. She was removed for protesting where she did.

[motivez]

She wasn't inside a building disrupting anything as someone standing inside a courtroom would be. She was outside the event protesting, a perfectly legal and acceptable use of free speech.

She was cited for tresspassing, which I stated in the original post I think, but she was only removed because of what was on her sign. There were other, pro-McCain people with signs who were not removed.. so what you're saying is only partially correct. The part you're correct about is meaningless, though.

Since the building is paid for by tax dollars, McCain's campaign is being funded by the public, and this event was billed as open to the public, I don't think it's legal for them to remove someone from protesting outside the building

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

She wasn't inside a building disrupting anything as someone standing inside a courtroom would be. She was outside the event protesting, a perfectly legal and acceptable use of free speech.

I bet I can stand in the corner of the courtroom and not disrupt them.

She was cited for tresspassing, which I stated in the original post I think, but she was only removed because of what was on her sign.

Wrong. She was part of a protest that knew they needed to either rent space or not be in the place she was.

Since the building is paid for by tax dollars, McCain's campaign is being funded by the public, and this event was billed as open to the public, I don't think it's legal for them to remove someone from protesting outside the building

Outside the building but inside the plaza. When she starts giving her "why would any republican be offended by mccain = bush" statement she was outside the plaza on the city sidewalk.

Wait, let me change my courtroom protest based on this.

Inside my county court building there are 4 courtrooms (don't ask how I know ). They're all connected by a hallway. Since you're saying being *IN* a courtroom would be disruptive then you should agree that there's nothing wrong with me protesting in the hallway outside the courtrooms even though it's inside the court building, correct?

[motivez]

As long as you aren't blocking the entrance, exits, or otherwise interfering with normal operations I wouldn't have any problem with it. It's a public space, you helped pay for it, why shouldn't you be allowed to hold up a sign?

There's a valid argument to be made about whether or not being inside an actual courtroom would disrupt the procedures if you were holding up a sign, especially in a jury trial.

As far as her knowing he had to rent space, etc.. I would reject that conclusion as a violation of my first amendment rights and attend anyway. The lady she talked to isn't an expert on the law or constitutional matters, why should I let her tell me I can't hold up a sign at a public event on what I deemed public property?