ADF: Detroit Police Harass Pro-Life Supporters, Shut Down Free Speech Outside Superbowl
Posted on November 21, 2006
Yoo hoo??? ACLU???? Where are you???
Looks like the pro-lifers will be defended by the ADF instead.
Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys filed suit today against Detroit police for violating the free speech rights of six pro-life supporters, all of whom were harassed and later prevented from expressing their views outside the Superbowl in February 2006.
“Detroit police need to be reminded that free speech is the right of all Americans, not just a select few,” said ADF-allied attorney Ted Hoppe. “They clearly acted in violation of the Constitution when they chose to single out and squelch pro-life speech.”
After learning of the group’s plans to demonstrate Feb. 5, police first instructed them to move to the other side of the street. They were later told by a second officer that they would be restricted to a traffic island. Signs critical of abortion were confiscated after the group refused officers’ demands to turn them around.
Police also towed away a car bearing pictures of aborted children and impounded it for two days. Officers refused to provide their names and badge numbers when the protestors requested them. Officers did not approach other people with signs carrying various other messages.
One would think that an organization that prides itself as the protector of freech would have been quick to the scene of political protestors, especially with accusations of police intimidation. If it would have been a nutcase cult protesting gay hate at a soldier’s funeral the ACLU would have found it speech worthy of protection.
Protesting abortion is another matter though. The abortion movement is the ACLU’s most lucrative project and its number one priority. Besides, it wouldn’t make much sense for the ACLU to protect speech they have actively fought to silence themselves.
Once again, the ACLU has a golden opportunity to prove me and other critics wrong about their double standards of free speech when it comes to abortion. If history proves true, they will let it pass and all we will hear from them is silence.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Abortion, News
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “ADF: Detroit Police Harass Pro-Life Supporters, Shut Down Free Speech Outside Superbowl”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
- If the ACLU supports a person’s 1st amendment rights, they will provide for that person’s defense.
- The ACLU isn’t providing for this group’s defense
- Therefore, the ACLU doesn’t support their 1st amendment rights.
Is that your argument?
The ACLU only supports the civil rights that they think we should have, and only supports the first amendment rights of people whose opinions they think should be heard.
Draven has it. In this case Jeff, anti-abortionist, not only does the ACLU ALWAYS remain silent when their rights are being violated…if you follow the links provided you will see how they have actually fought against their 1st amendment rights.
Are you referring solely to Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle or are there other examples?
There are other examples. The ACLU’s stance on abortion protestors have caused much internal conflict within the organization. Check out Save The ACLU and google Natt Hentoff. Read some of his criticisms on this one. He was on the board of directors for a while.
- Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle
- Restricting the public dissent by boardmembers
- Destroying audio tapes of board meetings after the minutes have been recorded
Is there anything else?
In the cases I have seen the ACLU is generally backing an extreme liberal political agenda. They generally disagree with our Founding Fathers. I would not be surprised if they do not admit to backing the living constitution theory.
The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis. Does that mean that the ACLU supports neo-Nazism?
Maybe the ACLU figured that providing legal assistance in this case was unnecessary because another group stepped forward to provide it.
Did they ask the ACLU to represent them and the ACLU refused?
Now, that would be a story!
Are you sure the “ACLU ALWAYS remain[s] silent when [abortion protesters'] rights are violated?”
I wouldn’t be able to find the ACLU filing an amicus brief in a case to ban abortion protesters from protesting within a buffer zone around an abortion clinic, for example, right?
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22399lgl19991112.html
gentrfam,
Thank you for the link. It appears to be a great example of the ACLU attempting to balance two very important liberties.
I would like to pose three questions to this community:
1. Were you previously aware of this case?
2. Does it affect your opinion of the ACLU
3. If both answers are “no”, why not?
The ACLU’s definition of the right to reproductive choice is flawed since a right is something human beings posses by nature and not something the government grants. Nature and Nature’s God gives a human being possesses the ability to consent to sex which is the sum of the right to reproductive choice. Human beings also have the right to liberty to use tools to prevent conception, or for any other purpose as long as they do not harm themselves, or any other living creature unless he/she has a noble cause for inflicting that harm. That is what the U.S. Declaration states and if you oppose it then you are a tyrant.
Roe v. Wade goes further and states that the government has the power to protect even potential human life.