Back in 2023, Jeff Hunt, talk-radio host, wore a sweatshirt to the public gallery above the Colorado Senate. The sweatshirt had the phrase “Pro-Life U” on the front, a reference to Colorado Christian University, Hunt’s former employer.

Hunt was asked to leave the gallery, which he peaceably did.

Why? The Capitol staff said this sweatshirt, with its reference to abortion, violated the rules for apparel in the Capitol galleries. The specific rule they said he broke was the one prohibiting “pins or apparel expressing political statements.” This rule was apparently ignored when a group of gun control advocates were all over the Capitol galleries with shirts equally as political as Mr. Hunt’s.

Midway through 2024, after a letter from the First Amendment advocacy group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), the prohibition above was scrubbed from the signs visitors see when entering the public gallery.

I couldn’t find an article quoting anyone who worked for the state that indicated the reason for removing the language, but I gather from both Mr. Hunt and FIRE a potential lawsuit for what they say as overly-broad and unequally enforced rules wrought the change.

At the time, 2024, I remember thinking this was a good thing, then I promptly forgot it. It came back to me recently, however, when I saw a picture on social media.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The picture was a sign with rules regarding attendance at legislative committees. On this sign was the following: “Clothing that displays a conspicuous statement in support of, or in opposition to, any legislation before the committee will not be allowed in the committee room.”

I’m not sure about you, but I frankly don’t see much daylight between this policy and the one about pins. When I contacted the Office of Legislative Legal Services, our legislature’s attorney, they told me two things. One, yes, the photo was accurate (always check things you see on social media). Two, in their view the committee policy is materially different from the earlier, now removed, gallery policy because it is a more specific, targeted policy: it refers to a specific piece of legislation in front of the committee as opposed to the broader ban from before.

Ah, lawyers. If the enforcement is in line with the strict language of the committee rule, then the gallery and committee rules are substantially different; that is, if I wore a sweatshirt to a committee that said “Down with SB25-077!” vs. one that said “Hands off our CORA requests!”, getting kicked out for the former and not the latter, then things are presumably working as intended by the Capitol staff.

But if we put aside semantics and legitimate questions on equal enforcement of rules, I question the basic, fundamental fairness here (as well the legality). Don’t get me wrong, I understand and am on board with the rationale: no one wants a disruption in the Capitol.

But I ask this: In what way is limiting the rights of someone who is peaceful, due to the misbehavior or potential misbehavior of another okay? If someone else cannot control themselves in the presence of a sweatshirt, is that the fault of he who wears it or he who can’t keep his mouth shut?

Democracy is messy and sometimes brings with it the potential for conflict and disruption. Trying to forestall those things is admirable, but doing so in a way that limits the rights of citizens to express their thoughts to their government is not okay. It’s also not my government’s job to make sure I’m not offended or tempted to misbehave. It’s mine.

I reached out to FIRE for their thoughts on the committee policy. Their spokesman sent me the following in an email: “The Colorado General Assembly’s rule for public hearings raises the same kind of First Amendment concerns as its ban on political apparel in the public galleries did. It is not reasonable anywhere for the government to prohibit silent statements of support or opposition to bills under consideration. FIRE is evaluating all options to determine next steps.”

I was glad to see FIRE’s position here, and I have asked them to keep me in the loop. I would be delighted to offer what support I can to make sure the rights of citizens to express themselves includes doing so in front of their legislature.

Cory Gaines is a physics instructor at Northeastern Junior College in Sterling. He runs the Colorado Accountability Project on Facebook and lives for what Richard P. Feynman called “the pleasure of finding things out.”