The $80,000 T-shirts
A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.
Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed in U.S. District Court.
"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."
But, will they really? Who really believes that? Where is the accountability? Why must the innocent American taxpayer pay for this injustice? Those who violated the law will not bear the brunt of the punishment. And, thus will have no incentive to curb their behavior.
Moreover, White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing:
"The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct."
Comments (3)
The perfect illustration of the Hoppe's argument. Monopoly Law will provoke violence to rule in its favor and thereby expand its power.
I wonder what portion of our judicial services is funded by taxes versus fines & fees. I get the feeling the state currently funds its supposed reason d'etre mostly by highway robbery.
Published: August 18, 2007 10:47 AM
"I get the feeling the state currently funds its supposed reason d'etre mostly by highway robbery."
More than a feeling... proven fact...
Published: August 18, 2007 2:14 PM
I'm interested in that last statement. The government can settle a lawsuit by agreeing to pay, and then claim it has not admitted any wrongdoing, but is simply trying to avoid larger expenses proving its innocence? Fine - and what is it when an innocent person is accused of a crime, but agrees to a plea bargain because of the larger expense and risk involved in going to trial? By White House logic, that person should not have a criminal record - an outcome I agree with, by the way, but which the White House surely would disagree with. Which leaves them with only one option - that they play by different rules than the rest of us, and nothing they do is wrong - but we already knew that.
Published: August 18, 2007 9:10 PM