WHAT'S UP? HOW COME THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR MARIJUANA ADVOCATES THAN FAMILY COURT REFORM ADVOCATES?

Today, activists went to the State Capitol to speak before the Law Committee about the legalization of marijuana.  This issue is not really that interesting to me as much as the issue of freedom of speech.  I am wondering whether people who spoke regarding this issue were required to remove all their pro or con marijuana political statements before providing their testimony.  Does anyone have an idea?

Were they made to feel like they were bad people for having their own opinions on a subject that mattered to them?  It sure would be interesting to know.  

I saw pictures of people walking around with pro-marijuana capes, and I saw folks with very colorful clothing promoting marijuana. Were they at any point required to take that clothing off the way family court reform activists were told to remove their anti-Judge Emons T-shirts?  See the article below for pictures on the law committee audience today:

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-marijuana-voices-20180314-story.html

Please note the videos from the hearings on judicial reappointments where Judiciary Committee leaders forced citizens to remove their T-shirts.  Why do you think there was a difference in treatment?  Is it possible they love Judge Emons more than they love marijuana? That's pretty hard to believe!

See links:  

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/03/connecticut-legislators-prohibit.html

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/rep-william-tong-violates-public-right.html

Shouldn't these two groups be treated equally?  What's up?