Federal Agent tells businesses they must take down signs!

According to Atrios this morning, federal agents called businesses in Memphis to tell them that they couldn't hang signs in their windows criticizing Mr. Bush's SS plan while he was in town.

So, my first question is "Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment?"  My second question is "Why isn't dKos talking about this?"  Where's the outrage?!

I apologize if this has been diaried already.  I looked and didn't see anything on it.  

•  Probably campaign workers

  Which as Atrios notes, is also outrageous.

  What kind of "federal agent" would use that term, rather than "FBI" or "Secret Service?"

  by Elwood Dowd on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:04:39 AM PDT

  •  I could be wrong

    but I believe that presenting yourself as a federal agent(if you are not) is against the law.  I'm not sure about the details.  

    My real outrage stems from the fact that it seems that the businesses actually took down the signs.  If I had received such a call, my first move would have been to call a lawyer.

    by sanrand on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:17:15 AM PDT

    •  and make bigger signs N/T

      by ctkeith on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:33:37 AM PDT

    •  18 USCS § 912 (2005)

      § 912.  Officer or employee of the United States

      Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
      

      by RatIV on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:47:19 AM PDT

      •  Thank you for posting that

        I thought it was against the law.  

        It seems to me, whether or not the calls were made by actual agents of the federal gov. or simple someone misrepresenting themselves as such, that this is an actionable case. These people's 1st Amendment rights have been violated.

        by sanrand on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 12:01:11 PM PDT

•  People Need to be Brave and Speak Regardless

  We know our rights.
  The Freedom of Speech did not ORIGINATE IN LAWBOOKS, and CANNOT BE LAID TO REST IN LAWBOOKS.

  by NewDirection on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:11:06 AM PDT

•  I agree...

  it seems to clearly be a free speech issue.

  As long as no profanity is used, why not allow people to use their property as they see fit?

  ------

  My opinion of the #1st amendment is simple:

  Speech: as long as you are not inciting violence  or engaging in criminal sexual behavior, you have a right to whatever you want.

  Press: except for national defense secrets or lies, the press should print whatever they want. However, we SHOULD curb paparazzi-ism.

  Religion: everyone gets to practice whatever religion they want, people should not pressure each other to convert.

  If you want to display something on public property, you must open the display to ANY and ALL religious and anti-religious views.

  Petition: everyone should be able to communicate with the government and get redress

  Assembly: anyone who wants to peaceably assemble should be able to
  

  by Jonathan4Dean on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:36:20 AM PDT

•  I just changed

  the title of the diary.  I thought that it might help to garner some attention to this subject.  

  by sanrand on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 12:29:43 PM PDT