鈥� for the moment, at least 鈥� an important court case about the right to protest. In 2005, Leslie Weise and Alex Young were removed from one of President Bush鈥檚 speeches. The speech was open to the public and funded by taxpayers. The lawsuit charges that they were ejected because they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker that said, 鈥渘o more blood for oil.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 filed suit on their behalf, arguing that Leslie and Alex were kicked out solely because they disagreed with the President. We reasoned that, if the stands for anything, it鈥檚 that the government cannot punish people because of their political views.
This is the sort of case that we do not expect to lose. It seems obvious that when the President gives a speech on the taxpayer鈥檚 dime and invites everyone to come, he can鈥檛 then weed out people he doesn鈥檛 like because of what they believe.
The district court in Colorado did not find it so obvious. The court wrote that Leslie and Alex鈥檚 鈥渃omplaint is essentially that they were not permitted to participate in the President鈥檚 speech. President Bush had the right, at his own speech, to ensure that only his message was conveyed.鈥� The court dismissed Leslie and Alex鈥檚 case.
We believe this decision is wrong. Leslie and Alex did not want to speak at the President鈥檚 event. They weren鈥檛 trying to stand up on the stage with him. They just wanted to listen to his message.
What the court seems to be suggesting is that when the President speaks, the audience is part of his message. The President has the right to surround himself by adoring supporters, and to exclude all of those who may not agree with him. Why the President might wish to do this is clear: so that when the nightly news broadcasts images of the event, he is surrounded by supporters, not those who vigorously question his policy choices.
This can鈥檛 be the law. If this is the law, then those who attend Presidential speeches are not audience members in the traditional sense, but are more like extras on a movie set. They are cast there to play a particular role, namely to support the President. This is a far cry from the notion of open, public debate as we鈥檝e always understood it.
It is likely that Leslie and Alex will appeal this decision.
