Another SCOTUS attack on the First Amendment

[captain_kook]

This Roberts court already whittled away at free speech rights in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case in which they ruled that government officials can violate free=speech rights if the government feels it has a compelling motive - in that case the government's wish to suppress speech advocating pot smoking - in spite of the fact that the subject of marijuana smoking was not at issue in that case
 
 
NOW the Roberts court has taken another little chip out of our rights [the same court that has EXPANDED the speech rights of corporations]:
 
 
 
Washington
 
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of two Colorado residents who were excluded from a speech by President Bush in 2005 because White House aides saw them arrive in a car with a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No More Blood For Oil.”
 
Although they had earlier obtained tickets to the event, passed through a security checkpoint, and said they had no intention of being disruptive, White House officials and volunteers ordered them removed from the venue by two uniformed police officers.
 
The officials were acting under a Bush administration policy of barring from then-President Bush’s public appearances anyone who might disagree with him.
 
The speech was held at a privately owned museum in Denver but was open to members of the public who obtained tickets beforehand. As an official presidential speech, it was paid for with government funds.
 
The two ejected individuals, Leslie Weise and Alex Young, never said or did anything disruptive and were ejected before the speech began. They later filed a lawsuit claiming Bush aides violated their First Amendment right to display a bumper sticker on a car and not face punishment from government officials who object to the message.
 
A federal judge threw the lawsuit out. A federal appeals court panel agreed. The panel, in a 2-1 decision, said there was no “clearly established” constitutional right not to be excluded from a speech by the president because of a bumper sticker on the car in which they arrived.
 
"No specific authority instructs this court (let alone a reasonable public official) how to treat the ejection of a silent attendee from an official speech based on the attendee’s protected expression outside the speech area,” wrote Judge Paul Kelly of the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
 
In a dissent, Judge William Holloway said the ejection caused “extreme embarrassment and humiliation” to the two plaintiffs solely because they had arrived at the speech in a car with a bumper sticker that government officials found concerning.
 
“It is simply astounding that any member of the executive branch could have believed that our Constitution justified this egregious violation of plaintiff’s rights,” Judge Holloway wrote.
 
Holloway quoted the Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark First Amendment decision, New York Times v. Sullivan: “The right of an American citizen to criticize public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas for change is the central meaning of the First Amendment.”
 
 
The Supreme Court did not explain why the justices declined to hear the case.
 
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1012/Supreme-Court-declines-Bush-bumper-sticker-case
 
Remember this ruling.



 
 
 

[littleeye]

This must be why Comrade Obama had a crucifix removed from a Christian church before he gave a speech there. He decided to throw out a religious symbol for millions of this fellow citizens, thus limiting their right to freedom of expression and religion.

[Dan]

So Bush was exercising his first amendement right of freedom of association.
 
The Supreme Court made no ruling.
 
Do you oppose the First Amendment, Kook?  Don't citizens have the right to associate with whomever they please?

[topgear]

Holloway's an idiot.

"Although they had earlier obtained tickets to the event" ... end of story

[lluke47]

liberal rubbish hates the constitution, they only want to use it against Americans..

[captain_kook]

The Idiotic Chorus is singing....

[13]

This Roberts court already whittled away at free speech rights in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case in which they ruled that government officials can violate free=speech rights if the government feels it has a compelling motive - in that case the government's wish to suppress speech advocating pot smoking - in spite of the fact that the subject of marijuana smoking was not at issue in that case

NOW the Roberts court has taken another little chip out of our rights [the same court that has EXPANDED the speech rights of corporations]:

Washington

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of two Colorado residents who were excluded from a speech by President Bush in 2005 because White House aides saw them arrive in a car with a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No More Blood For Oil.”

Although they had earlier obtained tickets to the event, passed through a security checkpoint, and said they had no intention of being disruptive, White House officials and volunteers ordered them removed from the venue by two uniformed police officers.

The officials were acting under a Bush administration policy of barring from then-President Bush’s public appearances anyone who might disagree with him.

The speech was held at a privately owned museum in Denver but was open to members of the public who obtained tickets beforehand. As an official presidential speech, it was paid for with government funds.

The two ejected individuals, Leslie Weise and Alex Young, never said or did anything disruptive and were ejected before the speech began. They later filed a lawsuit claiming Bush aides violated their First Amendment right to display a bumper sticker on a car and not face punishment from government officials who object to the message.

A federal judge threw the lawsuit out. A federal appeals court panel agreed. The panel, in a 2-1 decision, said there was no “clearly established” constitutional right not to be excluded from a speech by the president because of a bumper sticker on the car in which they arrived.

"No specific authority instructs this court (let alone a reasonable public official) how to treat the ejection of a silent attendee from an official speech based on the attendee’s protected expression outside the speech area,” wrote Judge Paul Kelly of the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals.


In a dissent, Judge William Holloway said the ejection caused “extreme embarrassment and humiliation” to the two plaintiffs solely because they had arrived at the speech in a car with a bumper sticker that government officials found concerning.

“It is simply astounding that any member of the executive branch could have believed that our Constitution justified this egregious violation of plaintiff’s rights,” Judge Holloway wrote.

Holloway quoted the Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark First Amendment decision, New York Times v. Sullivan: “The right of an American citizen to criticize public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas for change is the central meaning of the First Amendment.”


The Supreme Court did not explain why the justices declined to hear the case.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1012/Supreme-Court-declines-Bush-bumper-sticker-case

Remember this ruling.   

We now have some people in the SCOTUS who should have never been seated as judges of any kind at all let alone Supreme Court Justices...  and all of the rotten apples were put in place by Republican Presidents.

[topgear]

ummm, guys? "TICKETS TO THE EVENT" That right there makes the event PRIVATE, not PUBLIC. No one in government has any say whatever as to how any PRIVATE event must be conducted. Holloway needs to be thrown off the bench.

[13]

This must be why Comrade Obama had a crucifix removed from a Christian church before he gave a speech there. He decided to throw out a religious symbol for millions of this fellow citizens, thus limiting their right to freedom of expression and religion.

Yeah, that never happened, littleeye.  It's been discussed in here including documented statements by GU officials saying that it didn't happen:

David Brody of CBN said he was told by the White House that the intent, however, was not to cover the religious symbols in particular or to leave Christ out of the picture. It was to drape the platform in a simple black background with American Flags on display. Brody said there were 26 other religious symbols in Gaston Hall that were not covered and that were visible in some pictures taken at the speech. The White House told Brody, “The President appreciated the gracious hosts at Georgetown University where he delivered his speech on the state of the economy. Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false.”

Georgetown Associate Vice President Julie Green Bataille told CNS news, “The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgetown-obama-visit.htm

 
Georgetown University spokeswoman Julie Green Bataille: In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage.
The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.
 http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/obama-at-georgetown/