DENVER (Reuters) - Protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver can be restricted to fenced-in areas, federal judge ruled on Wednesday, saying that security needs outweighed curbs on their rights.

A dozen groups who intend to protest at the August convention sued the U.S. Secret Service and the city of Denver over plans to confine their activities to a parade route and fenced-in zone, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Friends Service Committee and others argued that the rules would keep them too far away from delegates to get their message across during the convention, which is scheduled for Aug 25-28 at the city's downtown Pepsi Center.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement on their freedom of expression but said those interests had to be balanced with security concerns.

"The restrictions inhibit the plaintiffs' ability to engage in some forms of expressive conduct, (but) ... the plaintiffs have a wide variety of alternative means of expression that will allow them to effectively communicate their messages," Krieger wrote in her 71-page ruling.

More of the article here: Link

---------------------------------------------------------------
What a load. No one should be restricting freedom of speech.

Come on. They will find a way to protest. You know this. All it did is limit where they can protest. It didn't say they can't protest.

Did they have the same thing at the last republican convention?

The Bill of Rights isn't a list of suggestions.

both sides do it. will do it. sadly.

Agreed entirely. I will defend the BoR until my last breath.

Nor are the BoR "a living document." The rights recognized within are sacrosanct, and as much as written in stone.

I don't see much to suggest peoples right to think/speak is being infringed. They are going to protest, its just not gonna turn into a riot....

Who said it was going to be a riot in the first place? Worst case outcomes should not be the deciding factor... If they were, we would never even walk out our front doors for the fear of being hit by a car.

We should have the freedom to protest there because that is the right thing to do. If it gets out of hand, then call in the cops... But I can't see the threat of violence as a valid excuse to stomp on rights. They're no better then Bush and his domestic spying.

Just asking, but are you so onboard with all the other rights recognized by the Bill of Rights?

On one hand, I'm glad the ACLU and the like are contesting this; the same type of "penning in" was used against protesters at Bush speaking functions and political rallies.

On the other hand . .. I would really not like to see any type of recurrence of what happened at the 1968 Convention. Obviously, things aren't quite as highly charged as they were in 1968, but what happened there was a total fiasco that wounded the party in the 1968 election, and which led to some arguably poor future decisions.