Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says

This is highly unsurprising considering the law and the attitude of the public (including HN). The first amendment has no bearing on "private" places, even if a public figure such as the President is involved.<p>However disagreeable this may be, it seems that most people on HN would agree with the ruling as evidenced by highly voted comments such as this: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959</a>

It's not a great result, but it was <i>private</i> property - I was thrown out of a friend's wedding at the Eagle's because my hair was too long! (collar length!)<p>Kind of pales next to people not being allowed to demonstrate unless they 1. have a permit and/or 2. are willing to stand inside a fenced-off area. Or to gather together on private property to attend a rave party (invaded by SWAT team, in Utah).<p>Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman

What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well.<p>If you want to see more of these rights violations, wait a couple weeks until people start protesting a particular sporting event in america's neighbor to the north. If you are carrying a sign in opposition to the rings, you'll be arrested!

Is this museum a wholly private institution?<p>It seems so, but the link at the bottom of their page to SCFD (which seems like a state governmental body) confuses me. Does the museum get tax payer dollars?