| By Alan Franklin - Jul 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm EDT |
First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign:
Fund to Defend Librarian Carol Kreck Announced
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Contact: Michael Huttner
303-931-4547 cell
DENVER - ProgressNowAction announced today the creation of a fund to defend Carol Kreck, the 60-year-old librarian who was cited for trespassing yesterday while standing in line to attend Senator John McCain's "town hall meeting" in Denver. The McCain event was billed as open to the public.
"We believe McCain's campaign violated Carol's First Amendment Rights," stated Peter Hedeen, Kreck's attorney.
Upon orders of McCain's Secret Service detail, Ms. Kreck was escorted from the public plaza of the Denver Performing Arts Complex. She was ticketed for trespassing and issued a court summons.
When Ms. Kreck asked why this was happening, she was told she had to get rid of the sign she was holding.
"He said if I came back into the plaza I'd be arrested and taken to jail," Kreck said.
Her sign said simply: McCain = Bush. "Now why is that offensive?," asked Kreck. "Why would Republicans who voted for Bush find that offensive?"
People in line had pro-McCain signs and buttons but no one other than Kreck was cited.
The Denver Performing Arts Complex is four-square-block site owned and operated by the City and County of Denver and subsidized largely by Denver area taxpayers through a mill levy.
Ms. Kreck was not inside the hall where McCain was holding his Town Hall event when security approached her. She was standing quietly in the public plaza between the Bonfils Theatre Complex and the parking garage.
ProgressNowAction is taking donations for Kreck's defense. Donations can be given by clicking the following link:
http://progressnowaction.org/FundtoDefendCarolKreck
###
Comments are closed for this post.
Are you really such a droid that you don't get how terribly un-American this is?
It doesn´t matter where she was holding the sign. There were other people who held pro McCain signs and they were not asked to leave to the side walk. If I may ask you, how is McCain=Bush offensive?
Its still people like you who praise Bush and why would you then turn and support such act of Cowardice. You Republicans have turn the World to be an uncomfortable place to be in and if you are not checked, you may one day become the BAATH Party of Saddam Hussein whom you spent so much in fortune and life to remove in Iraq.
Its just a shame die hard supporters of the Republican party like you Joey are the people who would live to one day, accuse your own children to have destroyed the once beacon of hope, of the free world. You talk about Justice and Freedom in the world and the Republican Party has become the worst Anti-Freedom Party of the world.
You arrest Journalists who interview your so called enemies and call them Terrorist, you can no longer stand for decent, anybody who says anything about the Government and the Republican Party which you do not like, you call them names.
My dear Joey, its just a shame.
Its just a shame.
Its a shame for somebody who wants to still kill more Iraqis and American soldiers, to be such a dictator and Republicans like you call people who make signs "Wimps"?.
Shame on you.
"The McCain event was billed as open to the public."
"The Denver Performing Arts Complex is ... owned and operated by the City and County of Denver ..."
That sounds like the definition of public.
"Several state supreme courts have concluded that the free speech protections of their own state constitutions protect the right of citizens to engage in expressive activities in the public areas of shopping centers. Most notable, perhaps, is the California Supreme Court's Pruneyard decision. The Court found constitutional protection for high school students who were soliciting signatures at a 65-store mall opposing a U. N. resolution on "Zionism." The shopping center owner took the case to the U. S. Supreme Court in 1980, arguing that the California Supreme Court's decision amounted either to a violation of his First Amendment rights or a taking of his private property. The U. S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected both arguments." Link