NationStates Jolt Archive

I put this in the Obama-Mccain thread but this deserves its own attention. A 61 year old librarian was arrested for tresspass on public property for standing in line to a McCain event, open to the public, carrying a sign that said McCain=Bush. Unbelievable.

Watch the video attached to article.

http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/Cqyh

More undeniable proof that the US is in a rapid slide towards despotism (or at least, a police state).

No one ever suspects the librarians of the world. That's how they get so much accomplished.

Trespassing is really quite a stretch. The only possible charge I could see would be inciting a riot, which I hardly think was likely. And while a nasty four-letter name, saying "McCain=Bush" is not the same as saying "McCain=Satan". I mean, at least FOX News likes Bush.

Trespassing is really quite a stretch.

Stretch and then some. The woman was clearly told that without the sign she could stay and would not be considered trespassing but with the sign it somehow constituted trespass. What law is this that the police are enforcing? And how does a sign that simply says McCain=Bush be the sole reason that someone could be considered trespassing?

She should sue the RNC Colorado chapter, force them to give her money they'd otherwise use to elect that lich.

I see that it says this was an "open" event (which could simply mean no invitations or tickets are necessary), but where are you seeing that it was public property? I have to think McCain's campaign would be allowed some kind of discretion over what kind of signs are permitted at an event they're holding.

I have to think McCain's campaign would be allowed some kind of discretion over what kind of signs are permitted at an event they're holding.

Why? Does McCain also have discretion over what you might say in the event as well? If you say something he doesnt like is it ok to just get hauled away and arrested?

So the DNC has "Free Speech Zone" in their National Convention in Denver, and the RNC takes away old ladies who has a sign.

Fan-Fucking-Tastic.

Can ANYONE tell me why we still have either party?

Can ANYONE tell me why we still have either party?
Because they serve the most delightful finger sandwiches at conferences.

I put this in the Obama-Mccain thread but this deserves its own attention. A 61 year old librarian was arrested for tresspass on public property for standing in line to a McCain event, open to the public, carrying a sign that said McCain=Bush. Unbelievable.

Watch the video attached to article.

http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/Cqyh
It was an event open to the public, it was not, however, on public grounds. Note the police officer explicity states "[the private security guard] said you are on state property" in response to the woman stating that was what the police officer was saying. That would pretty clearly say it is NOT city property. 30 seconds on google also shows that the concert hall this was held at (The Donald R. Seawell Grand Ballroom) is owned by the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, a private organization.

More undeniable proof that the US is in a rapid slide towards despotism (or at least, a police state).

Think again. Not public land.

Stretch and then some. The woman was clearly told that without the sign she could stay and would not be considered trespassing but with the sign it somehow constituted trespass. What law is this that the police are enforcing? And how does a sign that simply says McCain=Bush be the sole reason that someone could be considered trespassing?

Because, when a private organization pays to host an event at a private venue (or even if they pay to host a private event, even if declared "open to the public" on public property) they have the right to refuse entry to anyone. McCain didn't want her there. He may ask for her removal from the immediate area.



In summary, a website with a political agenda has taken an event, edited it somewhat selectively, and has posted it in such a way that makes it difficult to get the facts in an effort to "prove" what it wants to.

In other news, one legged ducks swim in circles.

Why? Does McCain also have discretion over what you might say in the event as well? If you say something he doesnt like is it ok to just get hauled away and arrested?
But since while it was open to the public, if it was on private property they can still refuse entry, similarly to if you had a party and someone you didn't like had shown up, you could kick them out. Isn't that essentially what happened here?
I think that he could probably have them removed but not arrested unless they refused to leave.

Why? Does McCain also have discretion over what you might say in the event as well? If you say something he doesnt like is it ok to just get hauled away and arrested?

To a degree, sure. The question doesn't make much sense as it is -- if you took your turn to say or ask something he didn't like, but didn't further disrupt the event, why would he want to have you removed? On the other hand, I'm sure you could be removed (though probably not arrested) if after asking your question, you refused to hand the microphone over and continued trying to speak to him.

I'm no apologist for either the Republicans or McCain, but if this wasn't really on public property, I think it makes sense that he would be allowed enough control to ensure that his town hall is not disrupted or filled with people who are visibly hostile to him.

Do we have an unbiased source on this?

But since while it was open to the public, if it was on private property they can still refuse entry, similarly to if you had a party and someone you didn't like had shown up, you could kick them out. Isn't that essentially what happened here?
I think that he could probably have them removed but not arrested unless they refused to leave.

That's how I see it. If I have a party at my apartment and hang a sign on my door that reads "Come on in," I can still tell someone to leave just for showing up in a "[Copiosa Scotia] Sucks!" T-shirt.

Do we have an unbiased source on this?

Why would anyone bother with that? This is NSG...90% of people don't bother reading the source in the first place.

Do we have an unbiased source on this?

I think all of the sources saying that it was on private property have been unbiased... no one who states its priate property has suggested ridiculous police state theories, or shown outrage at a gross infringement of rights when it wasn't at all.

A venue has a right to control it's population, remember that McCain is paying for the venue, and so it is the venue's job to make sure he is pleased while there, this falls under that category, it's the same with you going into a grocery store, you should be able to expect a friendly cashier, after all, the groceries you purchase pay their wages, so it is in their direct interest to try to keep you satisfied. (Can you tell I'm a cashier who understands economics? lol).

At politcal events, when there are protestors, the head of teh event has teh protestors in a free speech zone (first of all the idea of a zone fo free speech ina free country makes no sense) which is away from the cameras and press. This is one fucked up country, sorry for those who take offense, but the way our freedoms seem to be going doesn't seem good.

I see that it says this was an "open" event (which could simply mean no invitations or tickets are necessary), but where are you seeing that it was public property? I have to think McCain's campaign would be allowed some kind of discretion over what kind of signs are permitted at an event they're holding.

The DPAC is owned by the City/County of Denver. Public. The woman was not causing a disturbance or disruption. The offer to allow her to stay without the sign is telling. McCain's security detail (the Secret Service, as mentioned by name by the policeman in the video) made that call, and until Neo Art shows up to clarify this (I SUMMON THEEEEEEE!) I'm not entirely sure they had the right.

Think again. Not public land.

Wrong. See above.

Or click on this link (http://www.artscomplex.com/pages/aboutus.html).

What they don't realise is that the mighty army of librarians have infiltrated the White House. One of our number made the ultimate sacrifice and married G W Bush.

Trespassing is really quite a stretch.

When your cited for trespassing your just old by the police if you come back to the this place / event that you will be charged/arrested.

while I like free speech this all seems reasonable to me.
For instance a bar is "open to the public" but they can still kick out the homeless person for appearing or smelling offensive.
It is Mccain's even he can exclude whomever he so chooses.

What they don't realise is that the mighty army of librarians have infiltrated the White House. One of our number made the ultimate sacrifice and married G W Bush.

Since when is a collection of coloring books, comic books, bartender guides and My Pet Goat considered a library?

I'm no apologist for either the Republicans or McCain, but if this wasn't really on public property, I think it makes sense that he would be allowed enough control to ensure that his town hall is not disrupted or filled with people who are visibly hostile to him.

He's allowed such control. The question I have is, is it a good idea?

A town hall is supposed to be a way for members of the public to get access to a candidate and ask questions. It's a bit of a circle jerk if those who disagree with the candidate aren't allowed in.


The DPAC is owned by the City/County of Denver. Public. The woman was not causing a disturbance or disruption. The offer to allow her to stay without the sign is telling. McCain's security detail (the Secret Service, as mentioned by name by the policeman in the video) made that call, and until Neo Art shows up to clarify this (I SUMMON THEEEEEEE!) I'm not entirely sure they had the right.

I'm pretty sure they did, as it was a private event.

I just think it was stupid of them to do it.

Wrong. See above.

Or click on this link (http://www.artscomplex.com/pages/aboutus.html).

And yet, the event was paid for by a private organization, who has the right to eject or refuse accest to anyone while their event is going on. Stunning concept, eh?

Unless you would like to argue that all those holding a wedding in the space (one of the primary uses of the location) must invite all of the US, or that the RNC is not a private entity....

And yet, the event was paid for by a private organization, who has the right to eject or refuse accest to anyone while their event is going on. Stunning concept, eh?

Unless you would like to argue that all those holding a wedding in the space (one of the primary uses of the location) must invite all of the US, or that the RNC is not a private entity....

Yes, and how many weddings have you been to that were "open" or "town hall" in nature? You're either open or you're not. Now, if said sign-holder had started disrupting the event, there's grounds for expulsion. Sure the McCain folks have the right to deny entry, I'll concede that, but they've got a lot of gall trumpeting "open" if they can't take a grandmother and her sign.

Yes, and how many weddings have you been to that were "open" or "town hall" in nature? You're either open or you're not. Now, if said sign-holder had started disrupting the event, there's grounds for expulsion. Sure the McCain folks have the right to deny entry, I'll concede that, but they've got a lot of gall trumpeting "open" if they can't take a grandmother and her sign.

It is open, if you can follow their rules.

Same as you have the right to protest as a large group peacefully, if you have your permits.

"Open" in no way implies that every single person has to be permitted. They, as a private host, can reject anyone for any reason. She was told that she could attend the event if she got rid of the sign, or would have to leave. She chose to keep the sign. Her choice.

Why should McCain allow someone with a sign that is clearly against him into a meeting that will likely be aired on the news at some point? Do you honestly think anyone would allow such a thing, regardless of how "open" the event may be?

It's not quite true that it's a mere public/private dichotomy. To be more specific, while there is no first amendment rights on private property, even your first amendment rights on public property can be restricted if the property is of the type not normally used for public demonstrations.

"Open" in no way implies that every single person has to be permitted. They, as a private host, can reject anyone for any reason.

A private host on private land? Absolutely. However if that private host decides to have his event on public land, he may just have to deal with whatever part of the public decides to show up and exercise their rights on that public land.

I can't just rope off a section of the sidewalk, put up a sign saying "Neo Art's private celebration" and kick out anyone I want who tries to walk on that sidewalk.

When your cited for trespassing your just old by the police if you come back to the this place / event that you will be charged/arrested.

That depends on the circumstances. I know this because I've been arrested for trespassing without any such warning. Not that I'm complaining, mind you... I knew very well that I wasn't supposed to be where I was. ;)

He's allowed such control. The question I have is, is it a good idea?

A town hall is supposed to be a way for members of the public to get access to a candidate and ask questions. It's a bit of a circle jerk if those who disagree with the candidate aren't allowed in.

This is true, but at the same time there should probably be a balance. Naturally he doesn't want dozens of protesters coming to wave signs at his Q&A sessions. It looks bad, and it's not conducive to the kind of calm discussion that he presumably wants to have at these events. He's not deliberately barring people just because they disagree -- even after seeing the sign, security was apparently willing to let the woman in as long as the sign didn't come with her.

No one's asked yet -- and I didn't think to ask until just now -- whether he allows signs at his town hall meetings at all. I'll see what I can find on this.

A private host on private land? Absolutely. However if that private host decides to have his event on public land, he may just have to deal with whatever part of the public decides to show up and exercise their rights on that public land.

I can't just rope off a section of the sidewalk, put up a sign saying "Neo Art's private celebration" and kick out anyone I want who tries to walk on that sidewalk.

I was more going with the fact that the RNC had rented a hall...I would assume that, since they could choose to make it "open", they can choose who they want to restrict, no?

I was more going with the fact that the RNC had rented a hall...I would assume that, since they could choose to make it "open", they can choose who they want to restrict, no?

it...depends. OK, here's how it works, in general. The mere fact that a private entity may occupy, temporarily, a public land does not make it suddenly "private". The fact is, if the government rents public space to a private party, it doesn't suddenly become private land. The rules run with the land. For instance see Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). In this case, the town of Wilmington Delaware leased space in a municipal parking garage to a private restaurant, which discriminated against black patrons. The Supreme Court found that because the government owned and operated the building, it had an obligation to prevent any private actor who rented space in this building from engaging in conduct the state could not itself engage in.

So the mere fact that a private actor rented public land doesn't defeat obligations under the first amendment. With that in mind, there are basically four types of land:

1) private land - this is easy, no first amendment rights, at all, sorry.

2) public forums - this is the kind of public land of the sort that is "traditionally used to facilitate open communication" which is to say it is of the type of land that we traditionally view as open to communication. The public square, the sidewalks, the parks, the boardwalks, the town hall. It is of those types that are consistent with our traditional notions of places where people gather to exchange ideas. For these, the ability for the government to restrict speech is considerably weakened. Restrictions can neither restrict subject matter, nor viewpoint (for example, the government can neither say "you can't talk about the war in Iraq" nor can it say "you can't say negative things about the war in Iraq", as those are both subject matter and viewpoint restrictions respectively), unless strict scrutiny is met. What the government can do however is place restriction on the time, place, or manner of speech, provided such restriction serves an important government purpose, and leaves open adequate alternatives (for example, no protesting within 1000 meters of an abortion clinic is ok)

3) limited forums - these are places that the government, either locally or nationally, has chosen to open to speech, even if it would not be normally one of those places that is traditionally a public forum. Same rules as #2 apply

4) non public forums - these are government lands that are not public forums, and the government has NOT treated as a public forum. A post office, a school, the whitehouse, military bases, airports. In these cases, the government has far greater power to restrict. In this, the government can impose any reasonable restriction, as long as it is viewpoint neutral


Now, in this case, the hall is almost certainly a governmentally owned non public forum. Which is to say publically owned, but not of the type of land that is traditionally open to public communication. I can't walk into the Boston symphony with a placard yelling about the war, and if I do, they'll likely kick my ass out, and that's fine. The restriction need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Preventing protests is arguably reasonable. The big question remains, was it viewpoint neutral? Did they target ALL people with placards, for and against McCain? Or only those against McCain? Therein lies the rub

it...depends. OK, here's how it works, in general. The mere fact that a private entity may occupy, temporarily, a public land does not make it suddenly "private". The fact is, if the government rents public space to a private party, it doesn't suddenly become private land. The rules run with the land. For instance see Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). In this case, the town of Wilmington Delaware leased space in a municipal parking garage to a private restaurant, which discriminated against black patrons. The Supreme Court found that because the government owned and operated the building, it had an obligation to prevent any private actor who rented space in this building from engaging in conduct the state could not itself engage in.

So the mere fact that a private actor rented public land doesn't defeat obligations under the first amendment. With that in mind, there are basically four types of land:

1) private land - this is easy, no first amendment rights, at all, sorry.

2) public forums - this is the kind of public land of the sort that is "traditionally used to facilitate open communication" which is to say it is of the type of land that we traditionally view as open to communication. The public square, the sidewalks, the parks, the boardwalks, the town hall. It is of those types that are consistent with our traditional notions of places where people gather to exchange ideas. For these, the ability for the government to restrict speech is considerably weakened. Restrictions can neither restrict subject matter, nor viewpoint (for example, the government can neither say "you can't talk about the war in Iraq" nor can it say "you can't say negative things about the war in Iraq", as those are both subject matter and viewpoint restrictions respectively), unless strict scrutiny is met. What the government can do however is place restriction on the time, place, or manner of speech, provided such restriction serves an important government purpose, and leaves open adequate alternatives (for example, no protesting within 1000 meters of an abortion clinic is ok)

3) limited forums - these are places that the government, either locally or nationally, has chosen to open to speech, even if it would not be normally one of those places that is traditionally a public forum. Same rules as #2 apply

4) non public forums - these are government lands that are not public forums, and the government has NOT treated as a public forum. A post office, a school, the whitehouse, military bases, airports. In these cases, the government has far greater power to restrict. In this, the government can impose any reasonable restriction, as long as it is viewpoint neutral


Now, in this case, the hall is almost certainly a governmentally owned non public forum. Which is to say publically owned, but not of the type of land that is traditionally open to public communication. I can't walk into the Boston symphony with a placard yelling about the war, and if I do, they'll likely kick my ass out, and that's fine. The restriction need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Preventing protests is arguably reasonable. The big question remains, was it viewpoint neutral? Did they target ALL people with placards, for and against McCain? Or only those against McCain? Therein lies the rub

Interesting.

*bows and ponders.*

"Open" in no way implies that every single person has to be permitted. They, as a private host, can reject anyone for any reason. She was told that she could attend the event if she got rid of the sign, or would have to leave. She chose to keep the sign. Her choice.

Why should McCain allow someone with a sign that is clearly against him into a meeting that will likely be aired on the news at some point? Do you honestly think anyone would allow such a thing, regardless of how "open" the event may be?

I guess we have differing definitions of the word "open". It seems to me that if they are going to restrict entry for any reason, they need to add something to that word to reflect the qualifications. "Open to the non-placard-wielding public" -- okay, a bit clunky, but you get the idea.

NEO ART -- your legal knowledge and the way you make it accessible even to chowderheads like me makes me warm in my happy place. Thank you.

This is true, but at the same time there should probably be a balance. Naturally he doesn't want dozens of protesters coming to wave signs at his Q&A sessions. It looks bad, and it's not conducive to the kind of calm discussion that he presumably wants to have at these events. He's not deliberately barring people just because they disagree -- even after seeing the sign, security was apparently willing to let the woman in as long as the sign didn't come with her.

Holding a sign isn't a disruption. The woman might held the sign during the meeting, and very calmly asked a question or simply listened.

I don't think allowing people who disagree with a politician access to him looks bad. And who knows? He might even change their mind.

No one's asked yet -- and I didn't think to ask until just now -- whether he allows signs at his town hall meetings at all. I'll see what I can find on this.

That does seem to be the question, and it's certainly possible. If that is true, they could have actually explained that to this woman, though - and that doesn't seem to have happened.

it...depends. OK, here's how it works, in general. The mere fact that a private entity may occupy, temporarily, a public land does not make it suddenly "private". The fact is, if the government rents public space to a private party, it doesn't suddenly become private land. The rules run with the land. For instance see Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). In this case, the town of Wilmington Delaware leased space in a municipal parking garage to a private restaurant, which discriminated against black patrons. The Supreme Court found that because the government owned and operated the building, it had an obligation to prevent any private actor who rented space in this building from engaging in conduct the state could not itself engage in.

So the mere fact that a private actor rented public land doesn't defeat obligations under the first amendment. With that in mind, there are basically four types of land:

1) private land - this is easy, no first amendment rights, at all, sorry.

2) public forums - this is the kind of public land of the sort that is "traditionally used to facilitate open communication" which is to say it is of the type of land that we traditionally view as open to communication. The public square, the sidewalks, the parks, the boardwalks, the town hall. It is of those types that are consistent with our traditional notions of places where people gather to exchange ideas. For these, the ability for the government to restrict speech is considerably weakened. Restrictions can neither restrict subject matter, nor viewpoint (for example, the government can neither say "you can't talk about the war in Iraq" nor can it say "you can't say negative things about the war in Iraq", as those are both subject matter and viewpoint restrictions respectively), unless strict scrutiny is met. What the government can do however is place restriction on the time, place, or manner of speech, provided such restriction serves an important government purpose, and leaves open adequate alternatives (for example, no protesting within 1000 meters of an abortion clinic is ok)

3) limited forums - these are places that the government, either locally or nationally, has chosen to open to speech, even if it would not be normally one of those places that is traditionally a public forum. Same rules as #2 apply

4) non public forums - these are government lands that are not public forums, and the government has NOT treated as a public forum. A post office, a school, the whitehouse, military bases, airports. In these cases, the government has far greater power to restrict. In this, the government can impose any reasonable restriction, as long as it is viewpoint neutral


Now, in this case, the hall is almost certainly a governmentally owned non public forum. Which is to say publically owned, but not of the type of land that is traditionally open to public communication. I can't walk into the Boston symphony with a placard yelling about the war, and if I do, they'll likely kick my ass out, and that's fine. The restriction need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Preventing protests is arguably reasonable. The big question remains, was it viewpoint neutral? Did they target ALL people with placards, for and against McCain? Or only those against McCain? Therein lies the rub
That does it. If I ever need a lawyer, I'm hiring you. You clearly know your stuff.

Has anyone been able to find out if they targeted all people with signs or only her?

Holding a sign isn't a disruption. *snip*

Surely that depends on the nature of the sign and its message? I mean, if I go to protest, say, a Catholic gathering of priests with, say, a big ol' picture of some old guy in a mitre ass-spelunking an altar boy...that's a serious disruption.

That does it. If I ever need a lawyer, I'm hiring you. You clearly know your stuff.

Here's a secret...I don't actually remember offhand everything that I seem to know. I just:

1) know where my bar review notes are

2) remember enough details about landmark cases to look them up. I didn't remember the name Burton, but I remembered it was a case about a restaurant in a parking lot, which was enough to look it up.

Here's a secret...I don't actually remember offhand everything that I seem to know. I just:

1) know where my bar review notes are

2) remember enough details about landmark cases to look them up. I didn't remember the name Burton, but I remembered it was a case about a restaurant in a parking lot, which was enough to look it up.

That's a lot better than most people. You'd be surprised, but being able to research effectively like that is not a skill everyone possesses(despite the fact that pretty much everyone is CAPABLE of that...)

Besides, I don't know any other lawyers except for Cat Tribes and Neesika, and Neesika's in Canada and Cat is probably too expensive. :D

I can't walk into the Boston symphony with a placard yelling about the war, and if I do, they'll likely kick my ass out, and that's fine. The restriction need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Preventing protests is arguably reasonable. The big question remains, was it viewpoint neutral? Did they target ALL people with placards, for and against McCain? Or only those against McCain? Therein lies the rub

Ok, but if you walk into the Boston Symphony with a placard denouncing war, and I walk into the Symphony with a placard promoting the Boston Symphony, they have to kick both of us out, merely because we are using a similar media type? Why should McCain have had to kick out pro-McCain placard holders?

For example, in high school, I've known people who had to remove/turn inside out shirts that had tobacco/alcohol reference, but merely because the medium of the message was in that circumstance was inappropiate, did not imply that the school system (to make sure they were being fair) had to make everyone remove or turn inside out their shirts, merely because one person ad to. No the situations are not exactly the same, but it nonetheless adequately destroys your attempt to denounce all placards in every public area for all time just because one person used one placard inappropriately.

Surely that depends on the nature of the sign and its message? I mean, if I go to protest, say, a Catholic gathering of priests with, say, a big ol' picture of some old guy in a mitre ass-spelunking an altar boy...that's a serious disruption.

Umm, no, you must have misread, signs cannot be disruptive. :rolleyes:

And, I agree with you, that they can indeed be disruptive... maybe it was just that McCain felt personally disrupted, and was to disturbed to be able to comfortably make his speech with that sign in the crowd, while I doubt that situation, and it would be laughably wussy, it nonetheless expresses enough disruption (though only in one subject) to be an ejectable offense.

If this librarian really needs to wave her sign, she can feel free to do so on some other day, when that building is not reserved, or she can reserve it herself to proclaim her uneducated belief that McCain is indeed Bush, in a less cowboy-ish costume.

Surely that depends on the nature of the sign and its message? I mean, if I go to protest, say, a Catholic gathering of priests with, say, a big ol' picture of some old guy in a mitre ass-spelunking an altar boy...that's a serious disruption.

Ok, correction. Holding a sign is not necessarily a disruption. Obviously, if you intentionally design your sign to be highly offensive, it might be.

In this case, the sign was simple. There was nothing lewd on it. There were no accusations or insults. It was simply an expression of a political opinion - one that could be good or bad for the candidate in question. Someone who likes Bush would probably see it as a positive message.

A woman calmly holding that sign during the meeting wouldn't be disruptive. If she interrupted McCain or yelled or used it to block someone else's view or any number of things, she could be disruptive. But simply having it is not.

In this case, the sign was simple. There was nothing lewd on it. There were no accusations or insults. It was simply an expression of a political opinion - one that could be good or bad for the candidate in question. Someone who likes Bush would probably see it as a positive message.

Umm, perhaps you aren't aware of public opinion of Bush, and it was clearly meant to be an insult, and apparently McCain felt insulted.

Yes, technically, one could argue that perhaps it was meant to be positive, but that really is a foolish argument.

Umm, perhaps you aren't aware of public opinion of Bush, and it was clearly meant to be an insult, and apparently McCain felt insulted.

I'm aware of the overall public opinion of Bush. I'm also aware that some people - often in the Republican base - have a highly favorable opinion of him.

Meanwhile, I doubt that McCain personally had anything to do with this decision. It's possible, of course, but I find it unlikely that he even knew about it.

Yes, technically, one could argue that perhaps it was meant to be positive, but that really is a foolish argument.

I don't think this particular woman had a favorable opinion of Bush. I was simply pointing out that the message itself is not inherently negative. The meaning of it is dependent upon the viewer's personal opinion of Bush.

Personally, I don't care if it was meant to be positive or not. It was stupid of them to kick a woman out of an event that was supposed to be open for having a relatively innocuous sign unless they disallow signs altogether. It gives the impression, whether true or not, that McCain only wants to have discourse with people who already support him.