No political gatherings should be held on school property because the imposition of restrictions greater than those permitted by the Constitution would be anthithetical to the whole purpose of the gathering. 

They could even prevent you from chewing gum and passing notes at the meeting if they wanted to, right?  ;)

And I disagree that the officer was doing his best to do his job.  I fail to see how a comment along the lines of this ain't America no more would come out of the mouth of anyone trying to do their best to enforce the law.

"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde

It's a sight to see when lefties try to defend the indefensible.

Here you have a cop caught in a clear violation of his prescribed duties, saying 'it ain't america no more'.

Had this been done at a conservative rally, you wouldn't be talking about how 'things are different on school grounds'.  You'd be right alongside us, saying what an outrage it was.

Step back and take a good hard look at yourself, boy-oh.  You're defending tyranny and fascism just because it's being orchestrated by a black liberal.

When it comes to school grounds, districts can't be too careful.

Town halls have happened on school property for years. Never an issue until now.

Therefore, to some people it's offensive.

Some people find anything offensive. Some people would be offended by a sign that said abortion was murder. Some people would think it's racist to criticize Obama on anything. Some people think white protestors are inherently racist and should not be allowed within earshot of a meeting.

For that matter, I'd like to know if there were other posters or signs permitted to be displayed and what sort of messages they had written on them.

The guy in the video specifically says that signs with "text" are permitted and signs with "photos" are not. Sounds like an arbitrary judgement call to me.

Would those who want to make a big deal out of this be less offended had the officer been white?

Translation: NBers are racist.

Besides, there's no way one can make an honest judgment based on the video provided.

Other blogs are filling up with eyewitness accounts from people who were there, and the resounding message is that everything was stacked in favor of the left.

And isn't it rather ironic that some of the same people who say that one should obey the orders of a police officer if one doesn't wish to get arrested (Prof. Gates comes to mind), now are suggesting that the reporter didn't have to obey the police officer?

An officer responds to a suspected robbery call and asks the man to show some ID...

VS

Security at a politcal meeting makes random judgement calls about what kind of signs are allowed.

Yeah, those are totally the same.

did you seriously just say that?

___________________________________________
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller" Barack Obama (Dr. In Chief)

As has already been pointed out in this thread - the vast majority of school districts are only allowed to moderate speech of students on school grounds while school is in session.  It was clearly after hours and this guy was clearly not a student.  It is an extreme stretch of logic and law to somehow think that this man's first ammendment rights can be so brazenly trampled out because of some nebulous "order" that is quite obviously being sujectively enforced.  Clear instructions indeed.

The poster is racist?  Again, yet another stretch.  The poster is considered racist by those who simply just don't like it.  It's plainly obvious it's a joker reference and not blackface.  The vast majority of people who recognize the make-up job as The Joker shouldn't have to stifle their expression due to the ignorance of a very few (which seems to include you).  It's the same twisted reasoning that those in the media use to denigrate someone who disagrees with them.  You speak of "conservies...easily shocked", yet are willing to jump right on the racism canard with extreme ease.

Your hypothetical question of the officer being white is utterly irrelevant.  The other man siding with the officer (school official of some sort? hard to say) was white.  The indignation displayed by both the protestor and really anyone else who is righteously offended by this sad situation is equally directed toward both men.

How can any rational person say that there is no way anyone can make an honest judgment of the video presented?  The video speaks for itself.

Then you compare a political protest to a 911 break-in call.  Apples and oranges.

Usually your posts are much better than this mess of garbled reasoning. 

Once the School gymnasium or auditorium has be commandeered by a Congressman for the expressed purpose of conducting a political discourse meeting with his or her constituents, the premises can no longer be considered a school for the duration of this meeting.  It is, during a town hall meeting, a public forum at which all reasonable political expression and discourse must be permitted.

The fat, ignorant security guard needs to be sent with all due despatch to Uganda, Rwanda, The Central African Empire or some other similar place where services of his kind are desparately needed.

   I seriously suspect this is a security officer not a police officer that id very possibly overstepping his bounds.

  1. He can't cite what law or ordinance is being violated by the display of the sign.

  2. He has a badge and an I.D badge. Do police officers carry and display both?

  3. He say the guy can be charged with trespassing for displaying the sign after being told not to display the sign. Trespassing is being on land without the consent of the owner. He could be charged with trespassing if he was told to leave and refused to do so. The security officer may have it in his right to request someone leave school grounds. But in this case, he surely did not state it in a proper way.

  4. WND has confirmed this is a school security officer. Now, WND may not be the best source, but it is not that difficult to call and confirm if someone is or is not in your employ.

  5. He just don't act like a veteran of the police force would act. Look at Mr. BEGRUNT. He know exactly what you can and cannot do on school property and has stated so in very clear terms.

  6. The man is on camera. Police officers are very aware of having camera's on them nowadays and would not be caught dead saying this ain't america. That statement alone could get him in some hot water with his boss back in the department. Did we not see 48 hours to see what angry captains will yell at you when you mess up?

  7. I have googled police officers before. Police officers get their name in the news. Arrests. Court Cases. Promotions. Citations. This guy is not listed anywhere.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

and not a mall cop? I mean, I could have a mall cop falling back on his experience as a mall cop trying to explain how local ordinances can constitutionally limit free speech. So since I have no way of discerning you from a mall cop, I'm not going to accept your authority claim.

Now if you choose to post under your real name I can check and make sure you aren't just a mall cop.

Did you see that movie BTW? Kevin James stars.

"O..L..I..G..A..R..H.. one letter is missing."- Glenn Beck

  You are coming to the defense of the known liar nwahs and balboa. What kind of lows have you sunk to?

QueenMum: Are people allowed to use the facility to show pornographic movies? Are you seriously advocating people show porn movies in schools? This is your idea of furthering an argument?

I have had enough of you.

Candance: 1

nwhiner: 0

I just think its a cute tage line. People seem to like it :)

"O..L..I..G..A..R..H.. one letter is missing."- Glenn Beck

Yes, but more importantly, NewsBusters is a private site. They can delete anything they choose. They can't delete anything they choose and have a moral or ethical dog in the fight over censorship in any broad or ideal sense. But sure, they could delete any opposing view, and still stand against government censorship for reasons other than democratic ideals,e.g., its good for business!

Most people look at censorship more broadly, as a democratic ( note the small "d") ideal. Thats how I argue for or against it. This being a private site, I don't see any other way to address it. They can drop me for no reason - its their site- forget any TOS. Thats was behind the point that if one of the operators of this board told me to leave or you're more of a distraction than a contribution, I would leave. Its their house!

The TOS establishes how I am supposed to use this site, and I think I adhere to that.

"O..L..I..G..A..R..H.. one letter is missing."- Glenn Beck

I'm willing to bet, though, that most of us are inclined to give either
this site or that cop the benefit of the doubt on speech restrictions,
each in their respective settings -- but not both of them. 

I bet you're right. Thats a good line.

"O..L..I..G..A..R..H.. one letter is missing."- Glenn Beck

Any effort to curtail political speech by a government agent would be difficult to defend.  We didn't see everything that transpired, but based on what we did see, there was no justification for the school security officer's actions.  Personally, I think I would have told him to do what he felt he had to do..............

It is not well within reason to restrict the free speech of an adult, non student, on school grounds after hours at a scheduled political rally. 

Perhaps you could cite some examples where there is such a 1st Ammendment-contrary code in a school district?

The best you could legitimately say is that it is conceivable, but "well within reason"?  Hardly.

"QM - but he wasn't hired by some lefties.....According to the best information available now he works for school security..."

And the difference would be?

"Probably the best thing to do is wait a few days and see what
additional information comes out about the incident."

Sounds reasonable to me. That's why I've been so active on this topic. A video shows up and it's suggested that someone's right to free speech was violated, and all hell breaks loose. For example, we have a myriad of comment suggesting that the officer be removed from duty, based on the assumption that he was a police officer. Now we have updated information that he was a school security officer.

But an apology and
additional training for school security people certainly seems in order.

I'd will also wait for additional information before I'd require an apology. And perhaps as a school security officer, he was not prepared to handle the duties he was responsible for at this meeting. So I agree about the training.

Edited to add:

"And it'd be reasonable to expect that if there were those kinds of
restrictions, there would have been written notice included in the
meeting announcement about what was allowed and what wasn't."

Exactly. I'll stick to my intuition about the whole incident being staged.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

See 24enak's post.