Court Says It's No Free Speech Violation To Kick People Out Of Presidential Speech Due To Their Bumper Stickers
from the but-does-it-make-sense dept
In an interesting appeals court ruling, a court has said that there was no free speech violation in two individuals being removed from a George W. Bush speech (while he was still President), because of the bumper stickers on their cars (which were decidedly anti-Bush). While I'm a big supporter of free speech -- especially when it comes to criticizing the President or other elected officials -- I have to admit that I tend to agree with the court here. The President and his staff had every right to determine who attended the speech for whatever reason. Excluding anyone from hearing a speech isn't a violation of their free speech rights, because there is no guaranteed right to attend such a speech in person. That said, I think it's particularly lame that a President -- or anyone in authority -- would purposely keep out those who disagree with them, rather than being willing to respond to their criticisms. As we saw just last week when President Obama responded directly to Republican questions, responding to those who disagree with you can often be quite a lot more productive than ignoring them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attendance, criticism, free speech, president, speeches
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad.
It is those Du Pont vest that one needs to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad.
I agree that it's dumb and serves little purpose, but not "right"? Why? They have ever right to deny service to whoever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad.
Depends who "they" is. If it's the museum, then...maybe, but still probably not. As I noted above, these two got their tickets from a govt. official ostensibly authorized to give them away for free. So, either the speech was open to the general public, or they were invited. Either way, they were authorized to be there, and if the only basis for denying them entry once they arrived was their political affiliations, this is discriminating against them because of their "speech", and was done so either by or with the approval of government officials and/or law enforcement.
Which is why I believe there might also be a 14th amendment violation if they were barred by anyone in enforcement collecting a government paycheck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov't vs Private
Was the President acting in his capacity as a government official? If so, then it was wrong for a government official to punish these people for exercising their free speech rights. If not, then it was was wrong for a government agency (the US Secret Service) to do so on behalf of a private party. Just wrong either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
Wow. No way. The only reason this isn't BLATANTLY stupid is because, based on the annual reports they publish, they don't appear to directly benefit from taxpayer money, though they do have close affiliations with other museums, facilities, and organizations that DO get tax money, from which they admit they benefit (though are specific by what that means.
That's beside the point. If you offer people the chance to show up, you ought not be allowed to do so with the ONLY caveat being your support of what they're going to say, particularly if you're a political person or org that benefits from public funds in any way. That's specific discrimination, and it goes against the basic tenants of our nation.
"The President and his staff had every right to determine who attended the speech for whatever reason."
They ought only have that right if the event was by invitation only, and they chose who to send the invites to. If they open it up, they open it up. In this case, the two plaintiffs received free tickets from a govt. official who had them to give...so either it was open OR they were invited. To then turn them away once they have tickets SOLELY because they don't agree with the speech giver, and THEN for anyone to call this a PUBLIC appearance? Astounding. The right to participate in the political process exists in America, and I would go so far as to say that, depending on how enforcement was handled, this might ALSO have violated the 14th amendment to the constitution.
"President Obama responded directly to Republican questions"
Oh, please. Being in the same room with them isn't responding directly to their questions. He may have responded, and he may have done so directly, but those direct responses certainly didn't address most of the questions.
Off Topic: BTW, as much as I feel bad for the folks in Haiti, can we find a way to ditch the Unicef ads? The kid that lady is holding looks like Chunk....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
I agree that it's obnoxious and dumb, but it's not illegal. Can you find the law that says otherwise?
My point is that it is dumb and makes Bush look like he's afraid of dissenters with bumperstickers (which seems to do a whole lot more harm to his reputation than actually facing them). But it's not illegal.
They ought only have that right if the event was by invitation only, and they chose who to send the invites to. If they open it up, they open it up. In this case, the two plaintiffs received free tickets from a govt. official who had them to give...so either it was open OR they were invited. To then turn them away once they have tickets SOLELY because they don't agree with the speech giver, and THEN for anyone to call this a PUBLIC appearance?
Yes, obnoxious and stupid, but, again, not illegal.
The right to participate in the political process exists in America, and I would go so far as to say that, depending on how enforcement was handled, this might ALSO have violated the 14th amendment to the constitution.
No way. The right to participating in the political process includes the right to be protected against laws stifling speech and the right to vote. Nowhere is the right provided to attend a political function.
Oh, please. Being in the same room with them isn't responding directly to their questions. He may have responded, and he may have done so directly, but those direct responses certainly didn't address most of the questions.
You miss my point. The point was that he actually stood in a room full of people who disagreed with him, and took and answered their questions. You may disagree with many of his answers (as do I), but the point, which I think is irrefutable, is that he did in fact face those who disagreed with him. Bush, on the other hand, refused to do that, even to two random people because of their bumpersticker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Yes, the first and possibly fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution. Follow my thought process here and tell me where I'm wrong:
1. The two plaintiffs obtained their tickets to the event, which gain them entry, by a government official who was authorized to give them away.
2. The facility utilized for what was described as a public appearance is NOT a govt. facility, and no additional clearance or authorization is required to gain entry.
3. Per the two above, the plaintiffs were reasonably authorized to attend a public appearance made by a public official.
4. They were denied entry solely due to something that case law and common sense both define as protected speech.
5. This denial was either sanctioned by people's serving in public office (1st amendment violation), and possibly enforced by either municipal, state, or federal law enforcement (14th amendment violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF?
No, the two tickets only said they were able to attend, should the organizers allow it. I could get tickets to a concert, but show up naked and the venue can choose not to let me in. Perfectly legit.
2. The facility utilized for what was described as a public appearance is NOT a govt. facility, and no additional clearance or authorization is required to gain entry.
Those organizing the event have every right to determine who to allow entry and who not to. There is nothing that says just because you hold a piece of paper that you are automatically guaranteed entry.
3. Per the two above, the plaintiffs were reasonably authorized to attend a public appearance made by a public official.
They were given a ticket to the event. That does not mean that they were given carte blanche to automatically attend the event no matter what. Those organizing the event have every right to later decide that they don't want certain individuals to attend.
4. They were denied entry solely due to something that case law and common sense both define as protected speech.
No, they were denied entry for fear of what they might do at the event. Again, I think this is stupid, and speaks poorly to President Bush and his staff, but it is not illegal by any means.
5. This denial was either sanctioned by people's serving in public office (1st amendment violation), and possibly enforced by either municipal, state, or federal law enforcement (14th amendment violation.
Again, neither is true. Saying that you can't attend is not a violation of free speech. No speech was barred in any way. The 14th Amendment argument is just silly. There is no 14th Amendment issue here at all. No one is trying to remove their rights to be citizens.
You are misinterpreting both amendments as allowing proactive action in very specific circumstances. Neither is true.
We agree that this was dumb. But it was not illegal, by any means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF?
Oh come on, that would be legit because you're breaking a law: public indecency. They're not the same thing.
"Those organizing the event have every right to determine who to allow entry and who not to. There is nothing that says just because you hold a piece of paper that you are automatically guaranteed entry."
Dammit, they DID. They allowed another public official to give away two tickets, and therefore de facto authorized their attendance.
"Those organizing the event have every right to later decide that they don't want certain individuals to attend."
Based on blatant discrimination? I don't think so.
"No, they were denied entry for fear of what they might do at the event."
That's not what the article you linked to said. It said that they were denied because of their bumper stickers, which is protected speech.
"Saying that you can't attend is not a violation of free speech. No speech was barred in any way."
You're right. The attendance isn't the violation, it's the attempt to coerce or limit the protected speech of the bumper sticker by barring entrance to an event they were otherwise authorized to attend.
"There is no 14th Amendment issue here at all. No one is trying to remove their rights to be citizens."
Sigh, please tell me that was a poor attempt at playing dumb. The 14th amendment doesn't only outline the right to citizenship. It also affords all citizens equal protection under the law. If law enforcement officials barred them entry as a result of their political views, it's a 14th amendment violation. Calling it silly is insulting.
"You are misinterpreting both amendments as allowing proactive action in very specific circumstances. Neither is true."
Neither case I cited was proactive, it was reactive. Besides which, the 1st and 14th amendments ARE proactive measures against govt. and law enforcement.
Yes we agree it was dumb, but at the very least a sensible argument can be made for illegality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF?
No. They did not authorize attendance. They granted attendance if those on site decided it was okay. Those on-site always have the final word. There is nothing magical on the tickets that say "guaranteed entrance" and nothing in the law says that if you have a ticket you're guaranteed entrance.
Based on blatant discrimination? I don't think so.
What discrimination? The law only recognized discrimination in the workplace on a few very limited factors: race, age, gender/pregnancy. But that's got nothing to do with whether or not they can be kept out of an event. Seriously, where in the law does it say that it's illegal to keep people you disagree with out of an event? It doesn't.
That's not what the article you linked to said. It said that they were denied because of their bumper stickers, which is protected speech.
They were not prevented from speaking. Only from attending this event.
You're right. The attendance isn't the violation, it's the attempt to coerce or limit the protected speech of the bumper sticker by barring entrance to an event they were otherwise authorized to attend.
Again, attendance at an event is not a right. I don't see how you can claim it is.
No rights were denied.
Sigh, please tell me that was a poor attempt at playing dumb. The 14th amendment doesn't only outline the right to citizenship. It also affords all citizens equal protection under the law. If law enforcement officials barred them entry as a result of their political views, it's a 14th amendment violation. Calling it silly is insulting.
No, it was completely accurate. Yes, it affords citizens equal protection under the law. But that does not include the right to attend a political event where the staff does not wish to allow you entry. There is no law against discrimination based on political views.
Neither case I cited was proactive, it was reactive. Besides which, the 1st and 14th amendments ARE proactive measures against govt. and law enforcement.
I don't understand what you mean here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF?
Not if they're the government.
No, they were denied entry for fear of what they might do at the event.
According to court documents, they were denied entry in retaliation for a bumper sticker previously attached to their car. I.e. for exercising their free speech rights. (Prior restraint is not the only way the gov't can violate the first ammendment. Retaliation for the exercise thereof is another way.)
5. This denial was either sanctioned by people's serving in public office (1st amendment violation), and possibly enforced by either municipal, state, or federal law enforcement (14th amendment violation.
Again, neither is true.
The District Court found that they were asked to leave by government agents (who thus had legal immunity). So are you saying that what the court said is not true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Not the same situation at all. Obama faced a group of professional, elected representatives who he has every responsibility to converse with. That is very different than dealing with the obnoxious, shout-down type of behavior that often comes from those attending a public function of the opposite party. If Obama faced did a question-and-answer with a small panel of right-wing attendees of the RNC, then that would be equivalent.
That said, I'm glad that Obama put on the show of bipartisanship. I am saddened that it was clearly only a show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
What you are suggesting is that if I throw a party, I can't kick people out if I invited them. Or really if a friend invited them. Actually in this case it would be more like a friend of a friend.
So, I have this party. And I invite you. And you invite your friend Jill. And she invites her friend John. And John's a total douche - last party he vomited on my carpet. But he received a legitimate invite, so I can't kick him out, right? That's essentially what you're saying...
Yes, it's stupid. Very, _very_ stupid. But it is perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
No, they were ordered to leave by gov't agents.
http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Probably, though the administration referred to it as a public event.
"and they were kicked out by the owners of the property."
Uh, no they weren't. Try law enforcement. Hence the issue.
"What you are suggesting is that if I throw a party, I can't kick people out if I invited them."
Are you a public official having said event somewhere other than your home, printing ticketed invitations and handing them out to other public figures to give to their constituents? Do you have federal law enforcement agents catering to your whim? Otherwise, your analogy doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
What "free speech" was blocked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Important Correction
Assuming the White House staff went through the parking lot looking for objectionable bumper stickers, how did they then match those vehicles up to attendees? Did the SS look up the license plates for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Important Correction
> the SS look up the license plates for them?
No, the staffers simply saw them arrive and recognized them as people who had heckled the president during a previous event a few weeks before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
So it actually had nothing to do with bumper stickers then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
It was a combination of things. I think the staffers were wrong in what they did and I disagree with the court's ruling here, but at the same time, these were not wide-eyed innocents who got kicked out. They were professional protesters who showed up looking to disrupt the event and cause a confrontation. And they got what they wanted.
Incidentally, if the staffers had just restrained themselves and contacted the owners of the museum hosting the event rather than taking it upon themselves to eject the protesters, there would have been no question of legality. The Wings Over the Rockies museum is private property and a private property owner is not bound by the 1st Amendment; they could have kicked the protesters out for just about any reason they liked and there would have been no legal recourse for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
Agreed, but they didn't. Thus the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
So it actually had nothing to do with bumper stickers then? I wonder then why Wired reported "Shortly after Weise and co-plaintiff Alex Young got to their seats, they were asked to leave -– all because their vehicle in the parking lot had a bumper sticker the government did not like." What would cause Wired to make such a false statement? Moreover, the SS itself "confirmed to Plaintiffs that they were asked to leave because of the bumper sticker on Ms. Weise’s vehicle." Why would the also SS lie?
Finally, while it may not have been an SS agent, the District Court did find that the person who ordered them out was indeed a gov't agent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
> seats, they were asked to leave -– all because their vehicle
> in the parking lot had a bumper sticker the government did
> not like." What would cause Wired to make such a false
> statement?
It isn't technically a false statement. The "government" in this case is the staff, not the Service.
The article gives the impression that it was the Service because earlier on, it talks about how the Service warned the protesters as they entered the museum not to cause problems. But you'll note that the Service did indeed let them in nevertheless. It was only later that the staff decided they didn't want them there that the staff kicked them out.
> Moreover, the SS itself "confirmed to Plaintiffs that they were
> asked to leave because of the bumper sticker on Ms. Weise’s
> vehicle." Why would the also SS lie?
They didn't. The Service confirmed to the plaintiffs that they were asked to leave BY THE STAFF. There was an investigation after the incident and when the protesters lawyered up and filed suit, depositions were taken and the USSS confirmed that yes, the plaintiffs were asked to leave because of their views but the USSS wasn't the one who did the asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Important Correction
> agent, the District Court did find that the
> person who ordered them out was indeed a gov't
> agent.
In this case, the meaning of the word "agent" is being confused here. The court is using it in the context of agency law, which makes the government responsible for the actions of any government employee acting within the scope of his/her employment (in this case, the White House staff).
The court was not using the term "agent" in the more common vernacular as a way of referring to federal law enforcement personnel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It surely was a violation of their rights
It isn't about any right to attend or speak at an event, it's about state employed authorities attempting to suppress the exercise of free speech by punishing people for having done so.
This was a public speech given by a public official to which attendance was denied by public officials on the basis of a previous exercise of free speech.
That court was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questionnaire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nonsense
> people coming armed and clearly spewing hate
> sewage and yet are not excluded.
Baloney. Cite me one instance where an armed individual was allowed access to an Obama site.
Betcha can't, because it's never happened.
You're presumably referring to the individual this past summer who showed up at the health care event in Arizona carrying a rifle. That individual never entered the secure perimeter. He remained outside the perimeter where state law was in effect and in the state of Arizona, it's not illegal to carry a rifle in public.
As for "hate sewage", I'd be interested in hearing your definition of that term, because for every hateful thing said about Obama by a protester, I can find examples of just as many Bush protesters saying the same things (and worse).
But I guess it's only "hate sewage" when it's said about the guy you like, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
Yes, that's the Arizona incident I referred to. And that individual was not allowed into the event with his weapon as "scott" claimed. He was outside the venue, outside the secure perimeter. He was basically out in the "rest of the world" and in the State of Arizona-- all the parts that are not part of a presidential site-- you're allowed to carry weapons around like that.
Even the article you cited makes the point that these individuals were not inside the events, but rather outside the secure perimeters:
"It was the latest incident where gun-carriers have been spotted outside
events where the president has appeared, usually to tout his health care
reform plans on an increasingly dubious public."
And incidentally, this sort of thing isn't unique to anti-Obama protesters. When Bush was running for president the first time back in 2000, the New Black Panther Party would routinely show up at his campaign appearances in Texas openly carrying loaded shotguns, which again is perfectly legal to do in Texas. At least with the Obama protesters, they were just random individuals, not an organized group with a history of violence.
And of course the New Black Panther protests didn't make the media with nearly the national saturation as it did when Obama protesters did it. I wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just freedom of speech...
They were not prevented from speaking. Only from attending this event.
...Nowhere is the right provided to attend a political function.
The first amendment does not only guarantee freedom of speech. It also guarantees freedom of assembly, religion , etc. (see text above) Your argument that they weren't prevented from speaking does not cover the more relevant potential first amendment violation. One could argue that they were denied the right of assembly. (Though, the information provided later in this thread, could be cause to deny them entrance, this was not the argument you made.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just freedom of speech...
Freedom of assembly does not include access to any and all political events. They were not prevented from assembling at all. They had every right to assemble elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
Perhaps the problem is they sued for money? I would have sued for an apology from george himself because he did nothing to stop what was happening. See, its about principle but that's the wonderful thing about taking the Constitution into this thing we call law as of now..it LEAVES no principle to be had.
I'm with D Helmet , the range of the implications may not seem large now but its always the little things guys, they come back larger like an abscess. After all these "presidents" are like teeth from the same jaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really?
Oh yeah? tell that to Obama he has repeatedly stated that the constitution is a flawed document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really?
> himself because he did nothing to stop what was
> happening.
Of course such a ruling in itself would also be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Bush has just as much right to speak or not to speak as anyone else, especially now that he's a private citizen, and no court can order him to say something he doesn't want to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a Democracy? Seriously?
Now if you want to argue that dissenters can be turned away from the rethuglican convention, I might have to sadly agree. That can be categorized as a private function.
Y'know, techdirt, although I mostly agree with what you say, there are times when I think you seriously misunderstand The Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In a Democracy? Seriously?
The USA is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In a Democracy? Seriously?
No, it's an oligarchy posing as a constitutional republic that constantly talks about the virtues of democracy.
In other words, our own govt. is full of crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breach of promise/informal contract?
In the case where you turned up naked for a concert, it could be argued that you actually violated a law or a contract clause, and non-admittance would have been valid. Yet not honoring an invitation for something like unfavorable free speech (that happened outside of the event) seems arbitrary and disproportionate, if it was even mentioned in the rules for admittance (hidden clause, anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bushes speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]