One form of speech allowed with a vote, another took the threat of legal action. Framing and misdirection in support of Prop KK (excise tax on guns and ammo)--be aware so you don't fall prey.
One form of speech allowed with a vote, another took the threat of legal action.
The Westword article linked first below updates a March 2023 story about Jeff Hunt (from Colorado Christian University). Back then he had been booted from the gallery of the state senate for wearing a sweatshirt with the words "Pro-Life U" on a day when the state senate was debating an abortion bill.
The state senate rules have it that you cannot wear apparel with political statements on a day when a bill on that topic is on the floor. Mr Hunt was escorted out for his sweatshirt.
Hunt claimed unfairness due to uneven enforcement when quoted in a different Westword article (second below):
"'When East High School was down there protesting, there were lots of pictures of hundreds of students wearing 'Angels Against Gun Violence' sweatshirts in the Senate gallery,' Hunt says. 'So you kind of look at that and go, "My goodness. It seems like there's a double standard here." You don't have one person, you have hundreds of people. Sweatshirts with messages, political messages on them. That was allowed...and then one guy in a Pro-Life U sweatshirt, which is just the name of Colorado Christian University, all of a sudden gets targeted ...' 'It does raise questions,' he adds."
The staff at the capitol claim that the high schoolers were not removed due to no gun bills being up for debate when they were there.
Flimsy if you ask me. Mr. Hunt rightly raises questions not only about the fairness but the equal application of this rule.
FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, agreed and stood up for Mr. Hunt and the rule was rescinded this last Spring, likely due to the threat of a suit.**
So you can now wear clothing with political messages that do or do not pertain to a bill up for debate at the state capitol on any given legislative day. Let's hope that the legislators can soldier on having to look up and see the likes of "Pro-Life U".
I want to point out one other thing.
The rules of the chamber are set by the houses of the chamber, that is the legislators inside decide on rules. I do not think that the rule about apparel is new. That is, I don't think it's the product of the Democrat majority.
But I do know that they did nothing to rescind or change this rule after Hunt's 2023 run in. They did, however, pass a bill in 2024 (see the fourth link below) which, quoting the bill,
" ... allows a preschool, public school, or public college or university student to wear objects of cultural or religious significance as an adornment at a graduation ceremony."
Some kinds of free speech apparently matter. Others don't. Wonder if it has anything to do with it being about abortion. Perhaps it was the 2024 bill is because someone got in trouble at a graduation and it ended up in a CPR article.
**I link to FIRE's page third below. They are a good organization (I know of some friends that have attended conferences there) and are doing good work. If this issue is a passion, give them a look and possibly some money.
https://www.westword.com/news/colorado-capitol-ends-political-apparel-ban-lawsuit-threat-21656392
https://www.thefire.org/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1323
Related:
I sympathize with Mr. Hunt here because my First Amendment rights were also trod upon by the government (CPW Commissioners to be precise when I testified to tell them about how poorly they handled the first release of wolves), and it took the threat of legal action then to get anyone to do anything.
Then AG Phil Weiser’s office kind of strung me along for about 6, 7 months on a settlement which in the end didn’t match what I was told. So, back to going to court.
My op ed below was about the initial experience, I have not updated with an op ed since the settlement fell through.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/cpw-cut-my-mic-silenced-and-ignored-me-so-i-threatened-to-sue-opinion/article_9e29b5be-2d05-11ef-bf44-8311bcb4c1cd.html
Framing and misdirection in support of Prop KK
This November you will get to vote on Proposition KK (see the first link below for the ballot language).
This is an excise tax on guns, gun parts, and ammunition which will go to fund (quoting the language of the proposition itself): "mental health services, including for military veterans and at-risk youth, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support services for victims of domestic violence".
People that write laws and the advocates that work for their passage are not (in general) thoughtless in their approach. They may be wrongheaded in what their policy is for or what it will do (including unintentional consequences), but make no mistake about this: they know PR and they know how to sell their ideas.
Prop KK is a perfect example.
As with many other measures that go before the people they will be couched in language intended to make you feel good.
Who, after all, could oppose things that would help military vets, at-risk youth, or school safety?
These "good words"** are there to approving something without thinking much in the way of careful or thoughtful deliberation.
Further, I present you the following quote from an advocate for passage of Prop KK from the KDVR article linked third below:
“'We are very much struggling. VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) fundings are mainly used to pay for staffing and operations,' said Soledad Diaz of Violence Free Colorado. 'And this means some programs might lose staff, half or 40% of the staff. And that is the real struggle right now. It’s enough to keep doors open. We’d love to see more so we can innovate and grow. But this will definitely help us keep our doors open, yes.'”
In other words, if you don't pass this measure programs which help (presumably) those same groups above might have to be cut back or stopped. At the very least, those programs might not be able to get bigger or develop new approaches.
Again, who could be for closing down mental health help? Who could be against getting help to those that need it.
When I say above that this is intended to stop careful deliberation, this is a perfect example. Stopping to think about this instead of responding solely to the superficial emotional appeal, one arrives at the following.
Being against a tax on guns does not in any way equate to being against helping others.
Civilized societies and reasonable individuals reject the notion of collective guilt, of punishing some for the sins of others. Prop KK does exactly that: it holds reasonable gun owners fiscally responsible for problems they had no hand in making.
Legally owning and using a gun IN NOW WAY makes you culpable for harms others do to each other or to themselves with or without guns. Yet they and they alone will be paying for tax.
If we as a society are concerned about the amount to which we funding mental health, let's by all means divert more money into those efforts. There are any number of ways to do this that do not require a tax on gun owners.
Let me end with a quote from another ardent supporter of gun control, State Senator Tom Sullivan. This also comes from the KDVR article:
“'In 2022, 1,033 Coloradans lost their lives to gun violence. The crisis demands action. That’s why Prop KK is going to move us forward,' said state Sen. Tom Sullivan, a longtime advocate of victims’ rights following the death of his son during the Aurora theater shooting in 2012."
Ignoring the fact that Senator Sullivan intentionally doesn't distinguish between self- and other harm in his quote about gun violence, ignoring the weird ambuiguity inherent in the statement that Prop KK will "move us forward", we arrive at the main point you should remember and share with others about this referred measure.
We arrive at the idea that suicide and violence do demand action, but Prop KK unfairly makes one group pay for problems they didn't cause and is not the only way to support things we all agree should be done.
** Synonymous with "virtue words", see the attached screenshot from the second link below, a university page on recognizing propaganda.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_hb24-1349final.pdf
Also note the Prop KK money is not going to the govt but to an NGO, whose statement above is not "we won't be able to help people" but "we won't be able to save our own jobs."