It was billed as a chance for the Boy Scouts of Troop 987 to earn their Citizenship in the Community merit badge.

Instead, they got a lesson in the limits of free speech when wearing a Boy Scout uniform.

The troop, which consists of Hispanic youth ages 12 to 15, participated in an immigration rally in Salt Lake City, handing out flags and carrying flags in a large public march for immigrant rights. They ended up being reprimanded for violating Boy Scouts of America policy on political neutrality.

The policy, in a nutshell, states that Boy Scouts in uniform cannot participate in an activity in which the endorsement of BSA is implied, either for a political candidate or political action.

When he first ran for attorney general, Mark Shurtleff ran afoul of this policy when he aired a commercial showing himself with Boy Scouts raising a flag. Shurtleff yanked the ad after complaints were lodged that the ad suggested an endorsement.

Michael Clara, Scoutmaster of Troop 987, said the policy seems to be selectively enforced. He told reporters that Scout executives had no problem, for example, with his troop's performing an opening flag ceremony at the state Republican Party convention and staying for the rest of the event.

But we think Clara has missed a key distinction.

There is a difference between presenting a flag ceremony and then sitting in the audience to observe political proceedings and participating actively in a march promoting a political agenda. The Scouts were not endorsing the GOP or its platform, while active participation at the immigration rally amounted to advocacy. Because their uniforms were emblazoned with official symbols of BSA -- their troop number, the Great Salt Lake Scout Council patch, the words "Boy Scouts of America" -- the boys associated their own actions with the larger organization. They were representatives of BSA no less than a soldier or police officer in full dress uniform would have been representing their respective organizations.

The Scouts had come to support Utah Coalition of La Raza, which bills itself as nonpartisan although it's stated purpose is to advocate for Latino issues. There is nothing wrong in throwing one's support behind such a group, but it's wrong to do it in uniform as a representative of BSA. If they wanted to be advocates, the boys should have left their uniforms at home.

The same rule applies to other organizations. LDS Church members involved in politics are strongly warned not to imply that the church endorses a particular candidate or proposition. As with the LDS Church when it perceives a moral issue or other matter in which it has a direct interest, BSA weighs in on issues that directly affect operations, such as the question of whether to admit homosexuals as leaders, or whether atheists can become Scouts. But on most issues BSA maintains a neutral stance. It has the right to insist that its members do the same when representing the larger organization.

We would add, however, that the Boy Scouts should take steps to ensure that the neutrality policy is consistently enforced.

The line of neutrality has been crossed during the Freedom Festival at Provo, for example. Scout leaders who turn flag retirement ceremonies into political rallies supporting a constitutional amendment outlawing flag desecration, or denouncing judges who question the constitutionality the Pledge of Allegiance, cross the line into forbidden activity just as clearly as Troop 987 did with its immigration march.

If it is unacceptable for Scouts to advocate against cracking down on illegal immigrants, it should be unacceptable to promote other political messages. Neutrality means exactly that. It does not make exceptions for certain favored political content.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6.