Denver Three: Media Highlights Ridiculous Argument by Defendants

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Defendants argue in Appellate brief this week that President & Team have the right to exclude people based on perception alone:
No Malfeasance Required!

New York Times: "2 Ejected From Bush Speech Posed a Threat, Lawyers Say" by Dan Frosch - 4/15/07

Rocky Mountain News: "Lawyers argue Bush can eject protesters" by Ann Imse - 4/13/07

Rocky Mountain News editorial: "Still wrong after 2 years" 4/14/07
""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 [representing defendants] Casper and Klinkerman. ...
Weise responded, "My read of the Constitution does not give the president free speech rights greater than the citizens he serves.""

Rocky Mtn. News 4/13/07
2 Ejected From Bush Speech Posed a Threat, Lawyers Say
By DAN FROSCH
New York Times Published: April 15, 2007

DENVER, April 13 - Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president's staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.

Alex Young and Leslie Weise said they were ejected because of an antiwar bumper sticker.

Lawyers for the two, Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman, said the men were working as organizers for a public presidential forum on Social Security at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver on March 21, 2005, when they were involved in ejecting two audience members, Alex Young and Leslie Weise.

Mr. Young and Ms. Weise filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court here, saying they were ejected shortly after they had arrived in a car that had an antiwar bumper sticker, although they had done nothing disruptive. The suit charged Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman with violating Mr. Young's and Ms. Weise's First Amendment right to free speech.

Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and this week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush's.

"They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive," said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.
The brief filed by Mr. Gallagher and other lawyers refers to a 1992 case involving a woman who wore a button supporting Bill Clinton for president as she tried to enter a campaign rally in support of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle. She was denied entry until she removed the button.

A lawyer for Ms. Weise and Mr. Young, Martha Tierney, said that case was different because the event was sponsored by the Strongsville, Ohio, Republican Party, a private entity. "I think if the court adopts this argument, they'll essentially gut the First Amendment in terms of viewpoint discrimination," Ms. Tierney said.

Earlier this year, Mr. Young and Ms. Weise filed a separate lawsuit against three White House staff members who were also working at the Denver speech, saying they were responsible for their removal and thus had violated their right to free speech.

Lawyers argue Bush can eject protesters
Brief defends pair's ouster from president's talk
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
April 13, 2007

Lawyers in Denver are arguing that President Bush has the right to remove from an audience people who disagree with him.

The case involves two people ejected from a taxpayer-funded Bush speech two years ago.

Leslie Weise and Alex Young were removed from a Bush address on Social Security after a staffer for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., pointed them out as suspicious because they had arrived in a car with an anti-war bumper sticker.

Weise and Young sued, arguing that the ouster violated their First Amendment right to free speech.

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.

The White House declined comment, citing the ongoing lawsuit. Three White House staffers have also been sued in the case for ordering the ouster.

Gallagher said the White House was not involved in developing the argument.

The appeal centers on "whose speech is at issue - the president's or the plaintiffs'?" the brief says.

Weise responded, "My read of the Constitution does not give the president free speech rights greater than the citizens he serves."

Martha Tierney, attorney for Weise and Young, described the argument as "pretty amazing." She said it claims her clients' mere attendance forced the government to adopt their views.

Casper's attorneys cited a case, Sistrunk vs. City of Strongsville, involving the first President George Bush. There, an appeals court supported the removal of a person with a Bill Clinton button from an event organized by the Republican Party.

The speech organizers were trying to "convey a pro-Bush message to the media by use of pro-Bush speakers and largely pro-Bush attendees," they quote the case. They wanted to 'send the media a message' that Bush would win; to convey the message that 'Strongsville Trusts George Bush.'"

But Tierney said that the cited case doesn't apply because it was a Republican Party event, "and a private party can control speech." The Denver speech was open to the public and paid for by taxpayers, she said.

If the argument that the government can exclude people based on their views is supported by the appeals court, "it guts the First Amendment," Tierney said.

Alan Chen, a University of Denver law professor, agreed. "The whole purpose is to protect dissenters from the government," he said. "That's an inherent element of the democratic process."

Weise added, "Perhaps if the president and his team were more willing to engage differing viewpoints we wouldn't have the catastrophic and unnecessary loss of life in the wars we are still fighting, not to mention the astronomical costs they have burdened us taxpayers with."

Still wrong after 2 years
Bush rally defense misses the point
Rocky Mountain News Editorial
April 14, 2007

For the "political tone-deafness" file, consider the latest development in the legal battle between President Bush's handlers and three local residents who were booted from a rally on Social Security reform that Bush convened in Denver two years ago.

Attorneys defending Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman, two GOP operatives who removed the attendees, have come up with a novel (and a somewhat chilling) argument: "The president's right to control his message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience."

At a private fund-raising dinner or a campaign event for invitees only, sure. 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.

Technorati Tags: Alerts Denver Three protest Bush Cheney