New York Times, The Supreme Court today let stand the decision of an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two plaintiffs who claimed their 1st Amendment rights were denied in 2005. The duo was evicted from a public speech President Bush gave on the subject of Social Security at a Denver art museum because they drove to the speech in a car adorned with a bumper sticker that read "No More Blood for Oil." The pair did not make any attempt to disrupt the president's speech or to protest his talk.
The court did not give a reason for its refusal to hear the case, but two justices (Ginsburg and Sotomayor) dissented saying that "no reasonable person" could see a bumper sticker as a reason for ejection to a public event. The lower court's decision was settled 2-1 by a three member panel. The dissenting judge, William Holloway said, “It is simply astounding that any member of the executive branch could have believed that our Constitution justified this egregious violation of plaintiffs’ rights.” Clearly his colleagues disagreed.
How do you view the ejection of these two people? Were they denied their right to free speech? Or do you agree with the Appeals court in upholding the ejection, perhaps on the grounds that the president was fighting two wars at the time, and that some people clearly found the language of the bumper sticker offensive? Where should this line be drawn? Who should decide?