Cindy Sheehan is a toolbag.

[SteveG1]

Apparently, Sheehan was sitting quietly, and her “crime” was that she wore a T shirt critical of Bush. No banner, just a shirt. I suppose she wan’t in the duly designated “free speech zone”. If she committed a misdemeanor, write her a ticket and send her on her way. It’s sad how a dissenting opinion is now a “thought crime” in this country. It’s disgusting that some Dopers see fit to say she should have been tazered or had the crap beat out of her. As it turnes out, the SOTU was a pile of dog shit, and the media (some of them) are finally calling the preznit on it. I suppose they should get beat up and tazered too?

If Sheehan lost a son in the war and wants to call bullshit on that war, she has the right to. If Bush or anyone else doesn’t like it, tough.

[Mtgman]

I’m of two minds on this issue. On the one hand there is freedom of expression and speech which, being a constitutionally protected right, requires very strong motivation to restrict. Disruption of a speech, even the SOTU, is a pretty minor thing overall. When the disruption is nonverbal and localized it is even more minor. No threat to life, limb, or property was present. This seems a pretty flimsy justification for abridgement of the first amendment right to freedom of speech.

On the other hand I realize the rules of the house prohibit even minor disruption, and I agree this is necessary for day-to-day functioning because if every house member, staffer, guest, etc. were to wear disruptive shirts the house’s work would grind to a halt.

Hmm, maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing…

In any event, the rules, in the context of every-day operations, may be of enough benefit to justify the restrictions, but enforcing them in this situation probably caused more disruption than the t-shirt would have.

I am on record stating that I vehemently disagree with this administrations approach towards dissent. The infamous “Free Speech Zones” were the subject of an early arguement I had on the topic. Another poster argued the Clintons had used goon squads to suppress dissent during their public appearances/speeches and that at least with Bush’s methods no one was getting clubbed with an axe handle. I stated, and still believe, using the official state apparatus(Police, Secret Service, House Security, etc.) to suppress dissent is actually WORSE than hiring ruffians to assault dissenters. When the offense against free speech is committed by a goon with an axe handle the dissenter has an ally, the law and the police. They still have their rights and the state will protect them and punish those who assaulted them in the course of exercising their free speech right. A person whose political speech was stifled by a goon squad still has a remedy to make them whole again.

When someone in power uses the apparatus of the state to stifle dissent they have done more than simply stifle dissent. They have disenfranchised the dissenters. They have subverted the law to serve their cause instead of serving the whole population. A person whose political speech was stifled by those in power using the state law enforcement institutions have no such remedy.

The “Free Speech Zones”, as implemented by Bush, were struck down by the courts. I’m not sure the House of Representatives rules on speech would stand up to strict scrutiny, but it would be interesting to see it tried.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Acsenray]

@Lama Pacos

Right. Politeness and decorum are social understandings and norms, not law.

And thus should not be enforced by law enforcement officials, such as the Capitol Police, or other forceful means.

[Squink]

@Mtgman

The “Free Speech Zones”, as implemented by Bush, were struck down by the courts.

So they’ll try again:
New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events

A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any “special event of national significance” away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.

[Acsenray]

@flickster

It’s not a freedom of speech issue, it’s a following the rules issue.

The right to free speech limits what kinds of rules the government may impose.

@DirkGntly

To do otherwise disrepects the OFFICE of the presidency. Now, if you think the OFFICE of the presidency deserves to be disrespected, then piss on you and tag you with a taser, because it doesn’t matter WHO is in the office - it is a POSITION that deserves a certain level of decorum, just as any high office should.

Bullcrap. The president is our employee, not our boss. It is an important office but not a “high” one. He’s the one who should be deferring to members of the public who are wearing whatever they want to wear and have not otherwise caused any disturbances or committed any crimes.

@Biggirl

You have no idea what she was going to do. No matter what delusions my be playing in your head right now, you cannot look into the future. We do not have “pre-crime” in this nation (not officially, anyway. Sure looks like it’s our unofficial policy)

I think the term you’re searching for is thought crime.

[NurseCarmen]

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-1337c.pdf
(warning, pdf)

In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 – the section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol – to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a “demonstration.”

That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress decreed as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building.” 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).

As the Bynum court explained: “Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a ‘demonstration,’ the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets ‘demonstration activity,’” and that regulation specifically provides that it “does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158”

[Captain_Amazing]

@Otto

I would agree with you if, at any time during my life, any president of either party had ever used the SOTU as anything other than a jingoism session in front of a largely captive audience.

Well, yea. but that’s part of the tradition of the SOTU…the president talks about how great his administration is and what he wants to do in the next year, and Congress listens and claps. That’s part of the “protocol and unwritten rules” that’s developed.

[NurseCarmen]

Oops, followed this link for the ruling.

I do think Sheehan is an attention whore and a one trick pony, but she shouldn’t have been arrested.

[Biggirl]

@acsenray

I think the term you’re searching for is thought crime.

Nah, I was thinking about that movie with Whathisname Scientologist guy who was a police with the Pre-Crime unit whose job it was to arrest people for crimes they were going to commit.

[BrainGlutton]

@Biggirl

Nah, I was thinking about that movie with Whathisname Scientologist guy who was a police with the Pre-Crime unit whose job it was to arrest people for crimes they were going to commit.

Minority Report. The “Scientologist guy” would be Tom Cruise. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

Well, yea. but that’s part of the tradition of the SOTU…the president talks about how great his administration is and what he wants to do in the next year, and Congress listens and claps. That’s part of the “protocol and unwritten rules” that’s developed.

Then maybe it’s about time we stopped putting up with it.

[NurseCarmen]

@Ravenman

Hey folks: Cindy Sheehan was not the only protestor ejected from the speech for wearing a t-shirt.

The wife of Congressman Bill Young was ejected for wearing a t-shirt that said, “Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom.”

Loading...

It seems to me that the rules were being enforced fairly.

Ms. Young was escorted from the chamber. Ms. Sheehan handcuffed and led out, even though she put up less resistance. Ms. Young was released outside the chamber doors. Ms. Sheehan was put in a holding cell for four hours. Umm-hmmm. The rules were being enforced fairly. :dubious:

[vibrotronica]

Yesterday, in the United States of America, a woman was arrested for the message she had on her t-shirt. What was the message? It was the number of soldiers who had been killed in Iraq.

Think about that for a moment.

[BobLibDem]

Even worse- Casey Sheehan died so that his mother could get arrested for wearing a t shirt. Exactly what freedom did he die for?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

And yesterday in America hundreds of homeless people were arrested or rousted for vagrancy while they were sleeping and trying to stay warm. They weren’t even trying to disrupt anything important or anything like that.

Imagine that. Right here in the good US of A.

[Frank]

@NurseCarmen

Ms. Young was escorted from the chamber. Ms. Sheehan handcuffed and led out, even though she put up less resistance. Ms. Young was released outside the chamber doors. Ms. Sheehan was put in a holding cell for four hours. Umm-hmmm. The rules were being enforced fairly. :dubious:

And the Congressman is pitching a fit on the floor of the House today. I’d be more impressed if, in his quoted remarks, he had also defended Sheehan’s right to wear a political t-shirt.

[Otto]

@Airman Doors

And yesterday in America hundreds of homeless people were arrested or rousted for vagrancy while they were sleeping and trying to stay warm. They weren’t even trying to disrupt anything important or anything like that.

Oh, fuck off with that shit. SOTU is not important. It’s a fucking dog and pony show from the president to point out people he’s planted in the crowd for cheap applause and to blather out platitudes. And even if it were important, sitting in a chair wearing a t-shirt can not, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, be construed as a disruption. Stop being so fucking ridiculous.

[Waverly]

@Airman Doors

And yesterday in America hundreds of homeless people were arrested or rousted for vagrancy while they were sleeping and trying to stay warm. They weren’t even trying to disrupt anything important or anything like that.

You seem to know quite a bit. Would you mind providing us a list of their names? I’d ask for addresses too, but I understand that even for you, that would be difficult.

[BrainGlutton]

@Airman Doors

And yesterday in America hundreds of homeless people were arrested or rousted for vagrancy while they were sleeping and trying to stay warm. They weren’t even trying to disrupt anything important or anything like that.

Imagine that. Right here in the good US of A.

Your point being?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@BrainGlutton

Your point being?

Some of you are trying to hold this up as some sort of injustice, and the post that I was quite clearly parodying is particularly smarmy about it so I retorted in kind.

What happened last night was not injustice. It was someone being a butthead where she shouldn’t have, and she paid for it by being shown the door.