Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Judge okays DNC security restrictions on protesters

The Post:

A federal judge has ruled that the city and county of Denver and the U.S. Secret Service do not have to alter their security plans for the Pepsi Center portion of the Democratic National Convention.
Not even a little bit.

"...the Defendants have shown that the restrictions are content-neutral, that they are narrowly tailored to serve important governmental interests, and that there are adequate alternative channels by which the Plaintiffs can communicate their messages," U.S. District Judge Marcia S. Krieger wrote in her 71-page opinion.

"Thus, the Plaintiffs have not shown that their First Amendment rights will be infringed, nor that they are entitled to any injunctive relief. Judgment will enter in favor of the Defendants as to claims with regard to the Pepsi Center."
Simple common sense.

The demonstrators wanted to the public demonstration area moved closer to the delegates coming in and out of the Pepsi Center and they wanted parade routes to end closer to the
venue. . . .

Lawyers for the advocacy groups have said they plan to appeal the ruling if it is not in their favor and that they may file a similar lawsuit regarding restrictions surrounding Invesco Field at Mile High on the last night of the DNC.
Of course.

Update: Can't wait for R6!8's reaction. They've already said they won't allow themselves to be confined in the Freedom Cage, so it would seem that a line has been drawn.

Update II: Over at the evil (no kidding) Try-Works blog, ex-CU ethnic studies instructor and hardcore R68er Benjie Whitmer squeals, "Constitutional rights ain’t contingent on what some shitheel judge says. That goes for the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and every amendment thereafter. We have rights which ain’t bound by any pig, judge or otherwise."

So once again, here's Benjie's "thinking":

1. The Constitution means whatever we say it means.

2. Therefore, we can do whatever we like whenever we like.

2. If anybody tries to stop us from exercising our constitutional rights as we construe them, we are justified in using violence to resist.

3. Any injuries or property damage that occur as a result are the fault of those trying to stop us from exercising those rights.

Seamless, ain't it? Still unresolved: whether Benjie himself is committed to violent resistance, or will just urge others on, as is his--and his bestest bud Ward Churchill's--wont.

No comments: