“I don’t know why they would ban me from all of Washington”
A D.C. judge’s order barring a tenacious antiabortion protester from setting foot anywhere in the city has touched off a vigorous debate over free speech and political dissent in the nation’s capital. …
“Banning him from the District because he’s sitting in a tree or speaking out, I think is absurd,” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group that is taking up Grogan’s case. “He’s strange, but do you know how many strange people enter D.C. every day who probably shouldn’t be here?”
Magistrate Judge Karen Howze signed the order Tuesday, telling Grogan to stay out of the city until a court hearing Feb. 25. The order is more sweeping than what prosecutors had sought. The U.S. attorney’s office had asked that Grogan be banned from the Capitol grounds, House and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. …
It is “a pristine example of an overbroad condition,” said David L. Hudson Jr., a law professor and First Amendment scholar at Vanderbilt University. “They need to go back and draft a more narrowly tailored restriction — meaning something that would comport with the First Amendment.”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So does this means cities can ban Occupiers from entering?
malclave on January 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM
He should consider himself lucky he wasn’t killed by a drone.
The Rogue Tomato on January 25, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Or sent to prison for making a film the Administration didn’t agree with…
UnderstandingisPower on January 26, 2013 at 12:11 AM
He said “overbroad” when referring to Karen…nice.
I guess they are also seeking to limit parts of the First Amendment that run counter to their ideas.
Now, if we could just restrict the New York Times et al to using hand driven presses….
ProfShadow on January 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Yet another example that our governments no longer serve the people. They’ve become fascists to an office.
Warner Todd Huston on January 26, 2013 at 1:10 AM
This.
petefrt on January 26, 2013 at 5:22 AM
Remember when Cindy Sheehan was banned from Crawford, Texas? Yeah, me neither.
It is so blatant now, it isn’t funny.
hawkdriver on January 26, 2013 at 7:18 AM
A clear and unambiguous denial of the right of free speech, but then again, we’ve come to expect this from our betters in Washington, haven’t we?
If this ruling is allowed to stand, can we use it as precedent to remove Barry Soetoro from DC?
turfmann on January 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Conservatives for serial bank fraud and probation violation. Another crime that conservatives consider perfectly okay (as long as you make a crusader “movie”).
lester on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM
What do you mean?
Mimzey on January 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Like “F-9/11″, the Saturday morning cartoon feature your Fat Leftist Propagandist Lumpy Moore made?
F-
Del Dolemonte on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM
If instead his name was Margaret Sanger, they’d name a building after him.
Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Yeah, something around 535 of them………
GWB on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM