Comments on UPDATE: Bellevue Community College students barred from Dem's event

How is it "somewhat ironic" that the ACLU has "decided to fight for the Republicans"?

The ACLU is not affiliated with a political party, and stating that they would ironically "decide" to fight for a Republican is implying that the ACLU is a wing of the Democratic party.

The ACLU is simply doing what the ACLU always does -- fighting for the civil liberties of all Americans.

There's nothing ironic about the ACLU fighting for the rights of Republicans. I mean, the ACLU has even fought for the free speech rights of the KKK in the past, and Republicans are arguably less hateful than them.

Poor college Republicans. They took a night off from their busy schedule of burning crosses on the lawns of uppity Negroes, Mexicans and homos to attend a private Cantwell event where she may have swayed their vote. Uh-huh.

Not to mention the fact that college Republicans are by far the nastiest of the lot. Has anyone noticed that this is just a pathetic publicity stunt?

No one makes a fuss when Republicans make people sign “Loyalty Pledges” to attend their events or when they have people arrested for wearing anti-war t-shirts. Double standards once again for the Dems. Oh, please.

From the facts related by a commenter in the first Slog post on this topic, it seems like these students are out of luck. Which doesn't mean that they won't try to make hay out of it, a week before the election, but the Stranger and other shouldn't play into their hands.

While under the RCW section cited, students have free speech rights in "college facilities that are generally open and available to the public," if the community college rents a public facility for a private function, the sponsor of the function - here, the Democratic Party - has a freedom of association right to control its message at that function. The space is no longer public, but private.

Whether certain college professors told their students to attend the rally has no bearing on the First Amendment association rights of the event sponsor. That is an issue to take up within the college.

From the facts related by a commenter in the first Slog post on this topic, it seems like these students are out of luck. Which doesn't mean that they won't try to make hay out of it, a week before the election, but the Stranger and other shouldn't play into their hands.

While under the RCW section cited, students have free speech rights in "college facilities that are generally open and available to the public," if the community college rents a public facility for a private function, the sponsor of the function - here, the Democratic Party - has a freedom of association right to control its message at that function. The space is no longer public, but private.

Whether certain college professors told their students to attend the rally has no bearing on the First Amendment association rights of the event sponsor. That is an issue to take up within the college.

It's not ironic that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of Young Repugs. It's ironic that the Young Repugs ran crying to the ACLU—remember when a certain President Bush slammed his Democratic opponent for being "a card-carrying member of the ACLU"? The Rs bash the ACLU and everything it stands for—you know, the BIll of Rights and shit like that—at every opportunity. So, yeah, it's ironic. It's a credit to the ACLU, a ding on the Rs, and a bitter irony for those of us who support the org.

I give the ACLU $15 every month, and I'm happy to see them taking this on.

Don't get me wrong - I despise the GOP, but they had a right to be there, just as Cindy Sheehan had a right to be at the State of the Union speech. It's not until they start acting up that you throw them out

This was a dumb, dumb, dumb move on the part of the Cantwell campaign. It's going to play right into the hands of the Grand Old Paranoia party. They will wring their hands and cry crocodile tears and decry how "liberals" (even though Cantwell isn't) are so "intolerant". I daresay we will hear some rumblings about how BCC is infiltrated by liberals as well.

We're sure to see that very claim laid here in this slog within the next few hours.

The best thing the Cantwell people could do right now is appologize - and mean it.

I too am unsurprised the ACLU is suing - that's what they do.

That said, why don't they let Dem students show up at taxpayer-expensive campaign events for Bush, Cheney and their lackeys?

Folks, all it seems so far is that the ACLU wrote a letter. Seems to me that BCC's attorneys (aka the state AG's office, led ironically by former College Republican Rob McKenna) will write a letter back saying, in not so many words, "this was a private event - piss off," and that will be the end of it. ACLU or not, attorneys don't volunteer to take cases that are losers.

Well, Dan, then you need to use your powers as EDITOR and have Ms Mirk rewrite the 3rd paragraph of her post. She places the ironic act onto the ACLU, not on the Republicans. It's the word "decided" that is loaded.

Well put at the end, Ms. Mirk, with all the focus on bashing these kids and the ACLU. Indeed, bad move by the Cantwell campaign. Just leave them alone and boot them only if they're actively being disruptive.

It's a private event. They have the right to bar anyone they wish from attending, just as I have the right to refuse admittance to my living room to fundy fruitbats waving their Jack Chick tracts.

Tempest in a teapot. It's not the same thing as being barred from a public rally. It was clearly stated to be a Democratic rally.

That being said, it's being spun for all it's worth, and I think, had I been on the campaign staff, I'd have let them in until a disruption started, then had them escorted out. I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I still maintain the campaign staff had every right to decide who could and could not attend.

Yeah, Geni, unless that way they got footage that they could use in a YouTube attack ad video.

Which might have been the plan all along ...

The ACLU is clearly within their charter to take this case. I just wish they'd get more credit for it. In spite of them helping Republican figures like Rush Limbaugh, I still routinely hear right-wing commentators say they're anti-Republican, anti-religious, and should be charged with sedition and locked up on Abu Ghraib.

SO lets see, having a few idiots in McGavick shirts at your rally vs. a whole bunch of FUCKING EXPECTED bad press. Bad move, bad move.

Wasn't there an issue at BCC a few years ago when Bush campaigned there and, like everywhere else they went, they wouldn't let anyone in but the party faithful?

First off ACLU will not take this case it's against a Liberal.Second of course they were not admitted,the only free speech a Liberal likes is their own.

Cantwell is actually being consistent with the overall logic of her support for the Patriot Act.

All the ACLU ever does is fight for Republicans. Rush Limbaugh. Ollie North.

The people defending the Cantwell campaign for doing this: using the same exclusionary tactics of the GOP at rallies makes Cantwell look no better than the very rightwingers you claim to despise.

When my folks marrried it was a sacred bond, sanctified by God. Prior to that time, the had just been brother and sister.

GOD BLESS THE USA AND GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

First of all, Hellpig, if you bothered to read the article, then you'd note that the ACLU has already taken on the case. So, first point wrong, second point is mindless rhetoric.

Re: It's a private event. They have the right to bar anyone they wish from attending, just as I have the right to refuse admittance to my living room to fundy fruitbats waving their Jack Chick tracts.

The point is not whether or not Cantwell's campaign handlers had that right (that's for the ACLU to argue and the courts to decide...and, yes, the ACLU has already been arguing the same case about the Bush campaign's tactics), but whether or not it was the ethical, political, or media savvy thing to do. And the answer to that is no, no, and no. Politicians of all stripes should allow people into their events. If the opponents act out, then they can be tossed out and/or debated. Bill Clinton had no problems facing his opponents and even Al Gore did so once or twice. They were/are better politicians for it. Ronald Reagan, much as I disliked his presidency, also faced opponents and was appreciated for the way he handled things by his constituents.

Not to feed the trolls, please B.D.

Its no longer shocking to me that many Republicans don't seem to believe in the bill of rights, the true foundation of our freedoms. After all, when even our current supreme court stepped on our administration's policies of rendition, star chamber trials, and torture, Congress just yawned and tried to give this power back to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. And when was the last time Bush or Cheney appeared at an actual public event? Anyone tried to get in to one of their events recently? You can't. The ACLU is repping a woman who during the 2004 campaign, was dragged off a mainstreet in her home town in Oregon, when all she wanted was to watch a tax payer funded motorcade with the President pass by, because she was not a ticketed Republican attendee. The ACLU is also repping two people in prosecutions currently pending against citizens who had the audacity to approach Cheney and question our Iraq policy in airports. they were arrested. Seriously. Under current standards, the administration says that is now a criminal offense.

So, bless the ACLU, even repping Repubs. Perhaps only by incidents like this, will repubs regain an appreciation for our bill of rights. As a long time ACLU member, let me add they came to the successful defense of the John Birch Society and Hamilton farms in their quest to keep their political billboard in Centralia.

Was it Voltaire who said, "I may disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

-Tom

"The point is not whether or not Cantwell's campaign handlers had that right ... but whether or not it was the ethical, political, or media savvy thing to do. And the answer to that is no, no, and no."

Agreed. I was not disputing that, just disputing those who were claiming that the students had an inherent "free speech" right to attend the event.

It does smell kind of staged, but Cantwell's staffers made a sizable tactical error in judgement.

If people want to see for themselves the ACLU's position and analysis of this incident, they can find the ACLU letter to BCC at www.aclu-wa.org, in the Freedom of Expression issue section.

Perhaps Cantwell should have treated them like Allen treated Mike Stark (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113596&ran=150261)

snark

Seriously: Has Yates spoken out against what happend to Stark?

Perhaps Cantwell should have treated them like Allen treated Mike Stark (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113596&ran=150261)

snark

Seriously: Has Yates spoken out against what happend to Stark?

Perhaps Cantwell should have treated them like Allen treated Mike Stark (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113596&ran=150261)

snark

Seriously: Has Yates spoken out against what happend to Stark?

What a joke these hacks like Yates are!

Try getting near the President or VP during one of their events. Anyone not a part faithful is sent off to the protest zones miles away.

You get arrested and removed from the event for asking the wrong question.

The party these hacks support created these conditions and made them ok to use to divide our citizens from our right to redress our government and now they whine at the fruit of their labors.

Come on. Typical right wing losers blaming everyone else for the their own failures and mistakes.