Couple arrested for not covering up anti-Bush t-shirts get $80k settlement »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 year ago321 Comments Report this Story
On July 4th, 2004, Nicole and Jeffrey Rank (pictured) were arrested for refusing to remove their anti-Bush T-shirts at a rally at Charleston, West Virginia, where Bush gave a speech. In September of that year the ACLU filed a lawsuit on their behalf. Today the ACLU announced they have settled for $80,000.
Read Full Story at boston.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 321
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
OK.. now fine every imbecile that voted for these criminals and pay down the national debt. ;-}
Reply-
0%
jordan111 year ago
now fine every imbecile that voted for these criminals and pay down the national debt. ;-}>>>>
DANG, do I ever agree with that!!
Reply -
-
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
Ahh yes more of blame the victim. Seems it isnt the fault of the crooks in the WHite House, it has to be the Dems since they only left us the choice of a decorated war veteran or thieves. Considering Kerry ACTUALLY served and no one on the REPUG side was brave enough to, it had to a be a slam dunk for the thieves. De Nile isnt just a river in Egypt.
Reply
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year ago
The ACLU what a wonderful bunch. My girl friend and I went through worse with the local cops violating our rights. The ACLU sent us a letter, months later telling us that it was our problem, not the general publics. Like PETA, if it won't make national news, don't come calling!!
Reply -
0%
tsteele931 year ago
Radio Free Europa wrote: "OK.. now fine every imbecile that voted for these criminals and pay down the national debt. ;-}"
Yeah, well I voted for Bush and I'm not at all happy with him. But until the Dems offer something better than John "I slept my way to riches" and "I love Jane Fonda" Kerry or Al "My son can get a Pruis to go 100mph when he's cranked up on drugs - several times" and "you should stop global warming, but I'm still gonna live in a 10,000 sq foot house" Gore as alternatives then the whole system is broke and everyone is to blame.
Bush has been a horrible president. But personally, I'm not sure Kerry would have been any better - for me. And I got news for you, I'd vote for Bush again over Hillary or Obama.
So until the Dems can come up with a moderate candidate, I'm not voting for them.
Reply-
0%
jaspersneed12 months ago
"And I got news for you, I'd vote for Bush again over Hillary or Obama. So until the Dems can come up with a moderate candidate, I'm not voting for them."
What a breathtaking display of logic. You'd vote for Bush -- "again" -- over Hillary or Obama, even though Bush isn't running, yet unless the dems come up with someone more "moderate" you won't vote for a democrat at all.... yet underlying all of this is your belief John Kerry, who, as it happens, also isn't running, would not have been ANY BETTER than the "horrible president" Bush, even though Kerry is the poster boy for moderate dems. So.... who exactly are you going to vote for? Do you have a clue yet? That's a rhetorical question.
Reply
-
-
0%
gamahuche1 year ago
A strike for democracy. You have to respect these people for following through all the way.
Reply -
0%
CaptainLucid1 year ago
Great news. I hope next a lawyer gets a bunch of patriots together and files a class action against the facists and seeks triple damages under the RICO statute. I would really like to see some criminal statutes to address deliberate civil rights violations like arresting people to keep them off the news or denying the lawful right to vote. The fascists do what they do because there are no consequences. After the press leaves they say "well I'll be damned there is a right to peacably assemble". But by that time the damage is done and irreversable.
Reply-
0%
Obaku1 year ago
I have long been saying that there needs to be criminal penalties for vilations of individual's rights under the Constitution.
For instance, the practice is that if a violation of the Constitution is found in the collection of evidence, that all that evidence, and any that follows from it ("the fruits of the poisonous tree") are ruled inadmissible. This is wrong - the truth or falsity of the evidence is not affected by how it was collected. HOWEVER, if that violation of Constitutional rights were subject to criminal penalties, the police that collected that evidence, and the prosecutors who submitted it to the court could be tried, fined, and imprisoned. I'll just bet that would make them be very careful about Constitutional requirements.
Reply-
0%
obiefrommuskogee1 year ago
Yes, well said, and I would that would also apply to warrantless wiretaps for "international" calls, because you can't identify an international call without first sorting through ALL CALLS (domestic and international). And this would prevent anyone finding evidence in this way from presenting it.
Reply
-
0%
el-jefe1 year ago
Why do you think the administration settled this lawsuit out of court?
Because as part of the settlement, they could issue a statement admitting no wrongdoing, that's why.
Reply
-
-
0%
TimALoftis1 year ago
"This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "As a result of the Ranks' courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protesters from public events for exercising their right to dissent."
Reply -
-
-
0%
GWHayduke1 year ago
If Eric Blair came back (to life) he would recognize the Orwellian society that this administration is attempting to create.
This administration has never approved of dissent. If someone is perceived to get out of lockstep with their system of twisted beliefs.....the nazi stormtroopers are sent in to quell any nonbelievers.
Reply
-
-
0%
Teech1 year ago
History books will have to adopt a new dating method. B.B. for before Bush, and A.B. for after Bush.
I remember when dissent was not only a right, but a responsibility. Now, however, it has become disloyal, unpatriotic, un-American, seditious and something to be vilified. Question administration policy and you're a terrorist sympathizer and don't support our troops. Suspend the Constitution and you are a patriot under the Patriot Act. Gross polluters are protected under the "Blue Skies Act." The destruction of public education starts under "No Child Left Behind" Act.
George Orwell was a visionary indeed! But I doubt that even he could have predicted the true evil of a G. W. Bush.
But Dumbya has honestly earned his most permanent legacy.......the most despised president in U.S. history.
Reply-
0%
obiefrommuskogee1 year ago
wait, isn't this guy that said BRING IT ON?? SO LET"S BRING IT ON FOLKS!
"The ACLU said in a statement that a presidential advance manual makes it clear that the government tries to exclude dissenters from the president's appearances. "As a last resort," the manual says, "security should remove the demonstrators from the event."
Reply
-
-
-
0%
AnteUp1 year ago
Whaaa?? Clinton lumped in with Bush?
I didn't like NAFTA - I wish he'd kept his drawers on -
BUT HE NEVER took away my civil liberties.
The rights that have been ours have been taken away
in dribbles. Some go quietly and others cause a storm,
- but they still go. Our legislators even show their concern sometimes and warn them, "We'll be watching you",
but they still go. I wonder sometimes if we are truly
aware of just how much has changed - Like if "someone"
had to postpone our next election for security reasons
.........what would happen? Would there be outrage?
What would we do?? Turn on CNN to see if anyone else is
doing anything about it - or would we meet our neighbors
in the street and ask what ARE WE GOING to do?
I don't have an answer - but I worry that not much
would happen.
Reply
-
-
0%
mcgrievysr1 year ago
"White House Spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing"
There never is any admission from the WH that there is ever any wrongdoing. The White House certainly has egg on its face over this incident though. :-)
"As a last resort", the presidential advance manual says," security should remove the demonstrators from the event".
How blatant is that? So much for free speech.
Reply
