People who express dissenting views at political rallies in Colorado can be arrested only if their conduct is intended to significantly interfere with an event, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The decision came in the case of Matthew C. Dempsey, a supporter of Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. Dempsey was arrested in 2002 for disrupting a rally on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Thomas Strickland that featured actor Robert Redford among his supporters.
Dempsey, the leader of a group of anti-Strickland protesters, approached the stage prior to the speakers’ appearance and shouted into a bullhorn “lawyer lobbyist” and “toxic Tom.”
He was later convicted on charges of disrupting the gathering and obstructing a police officer.
While upholding the constitutionality of the disruption law, the high court threw out the verdict because the evidence didn’t demonstrate Dempsey “significantly” disrupted the rally.
The ruling was hailed by both the Colorado Republican and Democratic parties as upholding the right of people to express their political opinions.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court upheld the most revered personal-freedom rights allowed under the Constitution – that a person has a right to free speech,” said Rachael Sunbarger, spokeswoman for the Colorado Republican Party. “I think it is a victory for anyone involved in the political process whether they be activists, protesters, supporters, anyone and everyone involved in the democratic process.”
Joelle Martinez, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party, said the opinion allows the kind of debate that historically has led to change and progress.
“I think protest of public events is going to continue, and I don’t think the opinion deters from that,” Martinez said. “They (the Supreme Court jurists) are really … saying you have the right to go out and protest. I think it allows freedom of speech yet at the same time … it sets limits on going too far.”
Justice Rebecca Kourlis said the law against disruption is constitutional because it says that before jurors can convict, they must find that the defendant intended the disruption and that a significant disruption occurred.
The law, Kourlis said, is not designed to stifle robust debate. She noted that audience activities, such as heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning and booing, even though impolite, fall under First Amendment protection.
“Appropriately, the statute … focuses on the conduct of the defendant – not the content of his speech,” Kourlis said. “Accordingly, we conclude that the Colorado statute, because of its language, can be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional concerns.”
The court upheld Dempsey’s obstruction conviction.
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-820-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
