Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case - CSMonitor.com
This event was sponsored by the government, paid for by taxpayers, open to the public, but held on private property. The said reason why these individuals were ejected was because President Bush had a right, thru the First Admendment, to control his speech's message. However, these individuals were not disruptive nor was the vehicle in attendance at the speech. Additionally, part of the defense's arguement was that government officials are shielded from these kind of lawsuits.
I'm not a lawyer and am not knowledgeable about all the laws, court cases, and rulings about our First Admendment rights. But you can clearly see the basic issues--Individuals have a right, in a public forum, to be able to give an undisruptive message yet, in that same forum, others have that same right. How do you balance that conflict ? Can a President in a public forum, with his message paid for by public funds restrict a public message to only his message ? Without public funding what opportunity would others have to give a different message ? And that is the key---a public message in a public forum paid for with public funds but restricted to that message only and no opportunity for others, without the same access to public funding , to give an alternative message.
This ruling clearly benefits a limited group of people and does not benefit the general public.