Do you think they would have had the same reaction if her sign had said "McCain = Reagan"?

In Denver the free speech area will be in a cage.

I'm really not sure I see much of a difference, except McCain's campaign seems better at getting cooperation of the local cops in disposing of nonsupporters.

Location: Denver, CO
My Story: Retired newspaper reporter, full-time student interested in criminal justice reform, part-time librarian at a think tank. More of two grown daughters.
Birth Date: September 20th
Issues: Affordable Healthcare; Education ; Energy and Global Warming ; Environment and Conservation; Equality/Civil Rights; Foreign Policy; Immigration Reform; Iraq War
Registered to Vote: Yes
Party Affiliation: Democrat
Political Identification: Progressive

and

Bush is a Republican

Get twenty people to wear them and head to the next McCain event.  Let's see how far the thought police go.  I mean really, this is too easy.

The video says 'Why was she asked to leave'?
A non-official looking person asks the original official looking person why she's been asked to leave (which I'm not sure we've seen asked yet).

OLP says he's been asked to, by the Secret Service.  'Secret Service' to me has a slightly different spin than 'security detail'.  McCain doesn't employ the Secret Service (isn't it Treasury Dept or something?)

Enter the police.  The police-looking person tells the librarian that she can:

you have two choices you can keep the sign and receive the ticket, for trespass, or you can give up the sign and stay in line and attend the town hall meeting.

Emphasis added.

When she asks the police looking person why he's saying it's a trespass, he says (a bit comically) "No, he's saying it's trespass on city property."

The sign thing was exactly the same as Obama's event policy -- no homemade signs or you can't come in.  The only difference was the trespass ticket.  Either the official looking guy working at the behest of the Secret Service had a license allowing for exclusions, or the cop was acting outside his authority.

Personally, I think both campaigns are equally bad from a free political discourse angle.  And I would say the same about Clinton if this was her policy as well.

How can you trespass on public property after being invited to the event being held on that property?

is

IOKIYAR, but not if you oppose them.  The latter gets you arrested.

Sec. 38-115.  Trespass.

(a)   It is unlawful for any person knowingly to enter or remain upon the premises of another when consent to enter or remain is absent, denied, or withdrawn by the owner, occupant, or person having lawful control thereof.

(b)   It shall be prima facie evidence that consent is absent, denied, or withdrawn, to enter or remain upon the premises of another when:

(1)   Any person fails or refuses to remove himself from said premises when requested to leave by the owner, occupant or person having lawful control thereof; or

(2)   Such premises are fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders; or

(3)   Private property or public property, which is not then open to the public, is posted with signs which give notice that entrance is forbidden.

(c)   For purpose of subsection (b)(3):

(1)   A "conspicuous sign" shall mean a sign that is at least one (1) square foot in size and sufficiently lighted to be clear and visible and that is posted in a conspicuous location.

Of course, it was all about the sign, because I was listening to McCain - I assume it was at that same event, but I caught it after it started - taking questions from the audience.  The first person to ask a question was a man wearing a Vietnam Vets hat - McCain selected him because of the hat - but instead of getting what I think McCain imagined would be praise, the man asked why McCain had not voted for the new GI Bill, and why he had not supported increases to VA funding for the previous 5 years, helath care for vets being a major concern what with all the vets coming home from war.

McCain responded by doing a backward somersault with a half-twist, explaining why Webb's original bill was not good enough, and how he and Graham "fixed" it so now it's just wonderful.  He reeled off a list of veterans' organizations that had backed him for years, talking about his 100% rating - then saying he did not have any clue what VA funding bills the man was referring to.

He let the man respond - and the questioner offered to list the actual bills that McCain had voted against, and told McCain that he had not gotten 100% ratings and McCain just said something snide like he guessed the organizations did not have the same info this man did.

Another man, who was apparently filming the Q & A, brought up the trampling of the Constitution here at home, and mentioned the Patriot Act and this FISA compromise bill, and wanted to know how McCain would respond to the Petition for Redress that had been delivered to every member of Congress on June 20th.  Of course, McCain had no idea what he was talking about, but agreed that he would read it and respond.  He went on, though, to express his disdain for those who did not want to give immunity to the telecoms - who, after all, were just coming to the aid of their government in the interest of national security.  He went on to say that no company acting at the request of the government should ever have to fear prosecution.  

It sure didn't take long to turn this into an Obama-bashing instead of the topic at hand.

hardly, you wuss! i could give you obama bashing, but it would be low-hanging fruit. just way too easy.

you might want to find another site, where your delicate feelings won't be bruised, by people opining freely.

As such, the owner or the entity who has lawful control of the facility makes the rules, as long as those rules to not contravene the law.

If the owner or lawful controller of a piece of private property says you can't use the word "fiddlesticks" on that property and you then use the word "fiddlesticks" they have the right to ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, you are trespassing.

It would very much seem that Ms. Kreck was in violation of:

(a)   It is unlawful for any person knowingly to enter or remain upon the premises of another when consent to enter or remain is absent, denied, or withdrawn by the owner, occupant, or person having lawful control thereof.