OUR VIEW: Doug Bruce cited for being at Costco

Colorado Springs police cited freedom advocate Douglas Bruce and another man for trespassing outside of Costco. The men collected signatures on a petition for a ballot measure that would lower city revenue.

City officials and private citizens are free to feel as they choose about Bruce and his continuous efforts to limit government and reduce taxes. All of us should agree, however, that a right to petition government is sacred. All should agree that our First Amendment rights to ask for support, and to interact peacefully with others in public places, are sacred. As United States citizens, we have the right to be controversial and annoying in a public place.

Until recently, Colorado Springs city government greatly valued the rights of citizens to exercise protected speech that did not present a “clear and present danger.”

The Colorado Springs Police department recognizes protected speech in its General Order 701, which is on the city’s Web site at www.springsgov.com.

The general order addresses the rights to peaceable assembly, protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, and specifically protects the peaceful expression of opinions and beliefs, proclamations and distribution of literature.

The Colorado Constitution protects free speech to an extent exceeding the protections of the First Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that privately owned malls and shopping centers are not entitled to impose unreasonable restrictions on peaceable assembly and other forms of free speech. In that case, mall managers had attempted to stop religious proselytizing that bothered some customers inside the Westminster Mall. The court ruled that open and public areas of the mall effectively function as a modern public place.

Until this spring, the city of Colorado Springs specifically defended “protected speech” on the property of privately owned shopping centers and malls. General Order 701 says: “Individuals may engage in First Amendment related activities on privately owned property which offers routine public access, whether or not it is privately posted and whether or not the owner/manager has granted permission, so long as the individuals do not violate a law such as blocking ingress or egress, harassing or assaulting other persons, etc.”

That portion of the order was in place to allow citizens to gather signatures, distribute literature, or preach in large parking lots and on sidewalks outside of retail establishments the law views as places of public accommodation. It clarified the right of people like Bruce to gather signatures in spaces such as the parking lot of Costco.

Today, that section of Public Order 701 has a line drawn through it — despite a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that says free speech is protected on the property of shopping centers and malls. By trying to restrict access to crowds, the city makes it difficult for anyone to gather signatures on a petition.

Free speech is important, but so are property rights. If the owners of Costco have genuine private property rights, it seems reasonable they should be able to order anyone to leave for any reason.

If we lived in a society that respected private property rights, the owners of Costco would be able to order Bruce and his friend to leave on nothing more than an objection to their religious or political beliefs.

In Colorado, however, the state constitution and the courts have upheld free speech as a value that trumps some aspects of private property rights. City officials cannot change this fact by simply crossing out a paragraph of text that acknowledges well-established state law. Like it or not, the law is the law. Unless Bruce and his friend were blocking access to Costco, or causing a clear and present danger to Costco customers — charges the city would have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt — it seems the city had no right to prevent them from gathering signatures.