It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Santorum Employee, State Trooper Named in ACLU Suit

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   
The American Civil Liberties Union is representing a case charging a Delaware State trooper and a worker associated with Senator Rick Santorum Tuesday. The suit alleges at an August 2005 publicity event featuring the Pennsylvania politician promoting his new book, It Takes A Family, authorities arrested two women and threatened three more with incarceration because they planned to vocally oppose Mr. Santorum. The ACLU felt that their clients' First Amendment Rights were infringed upon.
 



news.yah oo.com
DOVER, Del. - A group of young women claim they were ordered to leave a book signing featuring Sen. Rick Santorum because of their political views.

The federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the women's free speech rights were violated at the event last August. It says two of the women were arrested for trespassing and three others were threatened with arrest.

The suit names a Delaware state trooper and one of the Pennsylvania lawmaker's representatives.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is amazing and alarming that even the simple mention of opinion in America elicits arrest and coersion. This act unfortunately shows how dissent is trying to be silenced and calls into question exactly what basic liberties we as a nation have left. Although it is proper that the ACLU filed suit, the outcome could either support or nullify the fact whether the Bill of Rights is considered faithfully by the government.

The arrest of the two women and the threat of apprehension towards three more should put a chill down the spine of every American who still cherishes their civil liberties and values their freedom to oppose governmental policy if need be. If citizens are not outraged, then the battle is already won to silence the populace--no matter what side of the political spectrum is endorsed.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Kerry, In Speech, Accuses White House of Suppressing Dissent
Rice Faces Dissent During Boston College Graduation






[edit on 1-6-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Santorum is a dumb goon, hopefully these two morons who 'shut up' the opposition to him will have their careers destroyed and be thrown in jail.

Santorum is such a dumb goon, that he can't even have someone publically speak out against him, pathetic. This nitwit getting elected is an embarassment.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Last time I checked being asked to leave private property has nothing to do with free speech. The article stated that their "right to share their views with an elected official were violated". How? This book signing took place in Wilmington, Delaware. Santorum is a Senator from Pennsylvania. They want to share their views let them call his office and setup an appointment or go to one of the numerous public forums Santorum is at. Are these girls even from Pennsylvania? This is just another harassment tactic being used against Santorum.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

This is just another harassment tactic being used against Santorum

Yeah, because peopel are really going to sympathize with that nutter.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
What gives these women the right to free speech on private property? They should have been arrested thrown in jail and perhaps the key should have gotten lost for a few months.


Reality check people!!!!!

You cannot say whatever you want on someone elses property they can have you arrested if you offend them.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Screw that, santorum's a coward who had to have a couple of women herded away from him.


apc

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Possibly. I know nothing about the man.

I do know there is nowhere near enough information provided by this article to make a judgement.

If this took place on private property, ROAR would be in full affect (Right Of Admittance Refusal). Wanna talk bad about the guest? Maybe that shirt is inappropriate? Please wait outside.

If there was genuine concern for an incident, the trooper was not wrong for removing them. If they refused to leave, the trooper was not wrong to arrest them.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Possibly. I know nothing about the man.

I do know there is nowhere near enough information provided by this article to make a judgement.

If this took place on private property, ROAR would be in full affect (Right Of Admittance Refusal). Wanna talk bad about the guest? Maybe that shirt is inappropriate? Please wait outside.

If there was genuine concern for an incident, the trooper was not wrong for removing them. If they refused to leave, the trooper was not wrong to arrest them.


Question, since this was private property (owned by Barnes and Noble), wouldn't it have taken the request of management to kick the people off the property? Sorry, but at this point I am taking the side of the women. This wouldn't have happened if Anne Rice was signing a book and someone was talking about telling her that Lestat stinks! It's a Barnes and Noble for crying out loud, it's a bookstore. A bookstore that tries to embrace all viewpoints (sure, it's money based, but they do it.)

I just left a message with Anne Rice. I want to see what she would have done if she overheard someone planning on dissing her book. This excuse of private property that some of you keep using is becoming borderline pathetic. Anything happens, anything at all, and the first thing that is squealed in defense is "but it's private property." It's time to start thinking of a new excuse, because I think this one is starting to get old. This would not have happened with average writers, in my opinion. This happened because it was a lousy person, who is accepted by many as a nutjob. Bottom line, it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't him. I'm sure people have protested at Clinton's book signing, without worrying about this. I'm sure people protested somewhere over signings of Harry Potter, since it has to do with witchcraft, a no-no in some Christian sects. I doubt people were hauled off, because it was "private property."

The pepper spray incident with the people trying to knock down the fence, I decided I could understand. This, no, not likely.


apc

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It possibly could have required management's approval. The article doesn't clarify anything about this. That's the problem. Nowhere near enough info to go either way.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It possibly could have required management's approval. The article doesn't clarify anything about this. That's the problem. Nowhere near enough info to go either way.


That's exactly why I am waiting. It makes no sense to me that they did not put a decision of management in this article. If there was no management approval, I understand why questions are being asked. This is making me ask questions too.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
It makes no sense to me that they did not put a decision of management in this article. If there was no management approval, I understand why questions are being asked. This is making me ask questions too.


There is no need to consult management the individual in charge of the store I.e. Sales clerk can make that decision. This is no different then a intoxicated person entering a bar and ordering a drink. The bartender does not phone the owner every time he has to refuse service and ask for his permission. The same goes for an airline gate attendant, they do not call their supervisor every time the refuse to let someone board a plane. It is all part of their job. You guys are getting hung up on a non issue.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by shots]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
There is no need to consult management the individual in charge of the store I.e. Sales clerk can make that decision. This is no different then a intoxicated person entering a bar and ordering a drink. The bartender does not phone the owner every time he has to refuse service and ask for his permission. The same goes for an airline gate attendant, they do not call their supervisor every time the refuse to let someone board a plane. It is all part of their job. You guys are getting hung up on a non issue.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by shots]


According to the 6 police officers I have spoke to since my post, they would consult management. You're taking one part of my reply to use against me. You answered none of the other questions. You don't just kick someone out without appropriate reason before consulting management when you're working a detail. You're on their time, you don't kick out their customers.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
According to the 6 police officers I have spoke to since my post, they would consult management. You're taking one part of my reply to use against me. You answered none of the other questions. You don't just kick someone out without appropriate reason before consulting management when you're working a detail. You're on their time, you don't kick out their customers.


And just who is management when the manger/owner is not available? It is the person in charge of the store or as I poised earlier a bartender or airline gate attendant that's who.



[edit on 6/5/2006 by shots]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It's a good point Shots, but I would think that a manager would at least be present if a Senator had an event going on there. Unless of course the manager felt it wasn't worth their time to show up for work, which I can actually sympathize with since we get enough BS from politicians during election time.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Screw that, santorum's a coward who had to have a couple of women herded away from him.


Any chance you actually read the article Nygdan? This took place before Santorum arrived.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
They were kicked out because of Santorum, if santorum wasn't there, there'd've been no issue, they wouldn't've even been there in the first place. The whole thing revolves around Santorum.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
They were kicked out because of Santorum, if santorum wasn't there, there'd've been no issue, they wouldn't've even been there in the first place. The whole thing revolves around Santorum.


Best example of circular logic I've seen in years. Santorum was invited there by Barnes and Nobel, the two women were not.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
How is it circular? They were there because of Santorum. They wanted to give him their opinions. They were kicked out. I'll agree that a private place has that option.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How is it circular? They were there because of Santorum. They wanted to give him their opinions. They were kicked out. I'll agree that a private place has that option.


Easy. The women were there because Santorum was going to be there, if Santorum wasn't going to be there then the women were not going to be there, but Santorum was going to be there. Looks circular to me.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Thats not circular logic its a simple statement of fact.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join