Long-time readers will no doubt recall the story of the Denver Three. In March 2005, Denver residents Alex Young, Karen Bauer, and Leslie Weise obtained tickets from their Republican congressman to a public town hall meeting on the president’s Social Security plan. Someone working at the event noticed an anti-war bumper sticker (“No Blood For Oil”) on their car, which prompted staffers to forcibly remove the three from the presidential event, despite the fact that they hadn’t done anything wrong.
Even for a White House known for shielding the president from potential critics, this was bizarre. There are plenty of examples of people being excluded from presidential events for being Democrats. Others, because their shirts or lapel stickers were deemed ideologically unacceptable. But this was an example of American citizens getting escorted out of a public event, dealing with a public policy issue, on public property, featuring public officials, because someone didn’t like their bumper sticker.
Last month we learned that it was White House staffers who directed bouncers to remove the three, and that White House officials lied about the circumstances to reporters. Late last week, we learned about the legal rationale behind the evictions.
Lawyers in Denver are arguing that President Bush has the right to remove from an audience people who disagree with him. […]
Attorneys for Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman, who were involved in removing them, have filed an appeals brief saying the ouster was legal.
“The president’s right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience,” states the brief, filed by attorneys Sean Gallagher, Dugan Bliss and others representing Casper and Klinkerman.
This is a Bush Era classic. If you have different beliefs than the president, you can be forcibly removed from a presidential speech on public property, even if you make no effort to express those divergent beliefs.
Denver’s Rocky Mountain News offered a common-sense editorial on the subject.
At a private fund-raising dinner or a campaign event for invitees only, sure [dissenters can be excluded]. The meeting in Denver, however, was open to the public and bankrolled by taxpayers.
Security officers indeed have a duty to protect attendees from rowdy protesters who might pose some physical danger. But the government has no right to silence or eject potential critics at a public forum.
Rewind to March 2005. The alleged protesters arrived at the Wings Over the Rockies museum in a car that had a bumper-sticker reading “no more blood for oil.” That drew the attention of the operatives, who cornered the three attendees inside and escorted them from the building.
Had someone in the administration simply apologized and said something like, “We really need to keep an eye on our more enthusiastic volunteers,” the president could have taken his lumps and the matter would have long ago been forgotten. Instead, the administration comes across looking like a bully.
And just for good measure, let’s also not forget that this story may even be part of the U.S. Attorney controversy. Two years ago, Colorado lawmakers appealed for a federal investigation of the incident, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver declined, even when evidence emerged that the bouncers impersonated Secret Service agents, which is a crime.
One wonders if perhaps politics was a motivating factor for the U.S. Attorney’s office to blow off the lawmakers’ concerns? Just saying….