The Secret Service is now the protector of a Federal protectee's message in addition to their person. This is a serious violation of their role.
I've always understood that the role of the Secret Service is to protect our most important current and former Federal employees.. which currently includes the leading candidates for the Presidency. I have no problem with that role in general.
However, over several years it's become clear that the SS (you'd think someone would care about this obvious abbreviation prob) is acting not only in a defensive posture but also as an actor on the Federal stage, a protector of the protectee's message.
One example, and we've all seen many others over recent years is the currently reported and diaried incident of the Code Pink guy waving the banner, 'Iran Obliterate Apologize!'. Almost everyone comments on HRC saying (in a truly elitist fashion) 'Well, I hope he didn't mess up the cookies and cakes' while standing on the table, but not one commentator notes as anything extraordinary the fact that the SS almost immediately tears the banner out of man's hands and then proceeds to hustle him out the door in force and it is reported that they then tried to intimidate him. Since when, and by what authority, does the SS have the right to act in such a fashion? Did they imagine the man with the banner would suddenly attack their protectee, the candidate for President? The answer is: of course not.
So, what's going on here? Is it proper or legal for the SS to trample on free speech? Is this American?
This needs more attention in Congress, The Press, and even The Blogs.. we should all take note of what our own SS is doing!
UPDATE ONE:
Please, this is not an anti-Hillary screed although it's clear what I think about HRC. It's about the SS and their role and methods. It doesn't matter that the SS would do exactly the same at an Obama rally. What matters is that they are suppressing NON-VIOLENT demonstrations and that is NOT their role. Period. Bear in mind that it's probably true that the SS acts independently, for the most part, from the protectee. What this does is allow the protectee to claim plausible deniability about that behavior even though it is ALWAYS in support of the protectee's message. If Federal protectee's are always of the ruling class, and they are, then how will the message of the non-ruling class be allowed in a room with that protectee? There is a Free Speech issue and a balance of power issue which the SS is violating. Is anyone here submitting that a public official or candidate should be protected from dissent?
UPDATE TWO:
Some of the comments below state that the USSS (yes I was implying some relationship to fascistic tendencies) should be maintaining order around their protectees. That is not their role even though many seem to think that it is. The man with the banner was already searched for armaments and made zero attempt to attack the candidate other than through his message. All he had was a banner and he was not showing the banner for more than 3 seconds before the USSS arrested him. If showing a sign (you can't really call one person's sign a 'banner') is a imminent threat to a candidate then the whole room would be arrested... no, it's the holding up of a sign counter to the message of the protectee which is the 'crime'. It's an important diff. Standing on a table to be seen is not a threat to anyone either!
Also, this incident is not unique.
Finally, it's one of my great fears that something terrible will happen to one of our current protectees' lives, but how does that justify the waste of resources by the USSS in safeguarding a protectee's message?