Bad Cindy!Follow

Woah! Hold on there. I didn't say that free speech only applies to speaking with people who "agree with you". I said it only applies to speeking to people who want to hear what you have to say. Totally different statement.

My point is that there's a time and a place for political expression. There's a time and a place for protest. Free speech does *not* give you the right to impose your speech onto others on their time and their dime.

If I tune in to see the SOTU speech, it's *not* for the "Cindy Sheehan protest hour". It's to hear what the president has to say about *cough* the "State of the Union". If Cindy Sheehan wants to schedule her own press conference, then the press can choose to cover it as they wish, and I can choose to tune in as I wish. *That's* freedom of speech.




They aren't "stiffling dissent". She's free to dissent on her own time all she wants. What they are doing is allowing the President to say what he wants to say on his time. What they are allowing is for the public who has tuned in to hear what the President has to say to do so without someone else imposing their speech on top of his.

Free speech goes both ways. In order for speech to truely be free, you have to periodically shut the heck up and let other people speak too.

It became an issue because people made it an issue. While I disagree with her choosing of the venue to once again show her displeasure with the current administration's choices, it is after all only a t-shirt, it wasn't like she was standing on camera shouting Attica over and over.

The Democrats were licking their lips waiting for Sheehan to get either A. Arrested or B. Thrown out so that they can continue their mudslinging towards the administration and leap to her defense in a situation which they arguably led her into.

In the same token though the Republicans were just waiting for her to do something like this so they would have an excuse to remove her from the audience. They had the classic soccer mom, knee jerk reaction.

I think it's fine to be disagree, it's your choice. If everyone always got along then everyone here would have nothing to talk about. Is she wrong for protesting? No. Is she wrong for doing what she did at the SoTU address? Absolutely.

In Soviet USA, shirts wear you!

Eh? In your own link, it seems more like this was their reason:




And yeah. Of course they're going to appologize. Because that's what civilized people do when they cause an uproar, even when they had the best intentions.

Where's Cindy Sheehan's appology to Bush for showing up to the event deliberately dressed in a disrespectful manner?


See the difference? Sometimes, it's not about what you *can* do, but what you *should* do. It was simply inappropriate to do what she did. Period. Did the capitol police overreact? Maybe. But what sort of person show's up to a formal affair wearing a T-shirt with a message written on it critisizing the main speaker at the event? Or any message for that matter?

What part of attending an event where the entire US government will be there in an official capacity as required by the constitution of the US, makes one think "Gee. I'll wear this t-shirt with a clever slogan on it"? Maybe the sea of black ties when one walks in might make one think that they're not dressed appropriately for the event. You can express your political opinion and still be freaking polite. Is that too much to ask?

Sorry. I just don't get it. Like I've said over and over. There's a time and a place for making your own personal political statements. That just wasn't one of them.

Well...



Now, maybe I'm reading into this, but the statement "Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested", in connection with the fact that Sheehan *was* arrested, implies to me that she didn't leave, and therefore was arrested.


Might was to rethink your position a bit. Sounds more to me like she was asked to leave and refused. Maybe your "side" is leaving a few details out? Just saying...

I'd argue that they appologized because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Not because they actually did anything wrong. But that's just my take on it.



I'd need to dig up the source I read this on, but from what I've heard it's pretty normal proceedure to remove anyone wearing or holding something that might contain a specific political message that might be shown during a SOTU speech. This isn't something new and recent. I recall several articles saying that it's "normal" to ask people to change or remove the message prior to the speech itself. I'll see if I can dig up something more concrete.

And the fact that the wife of the Congressman *should* have known better doesn't really change anything.



And that's part of the problem. She honestly doesn't seem to understand what she did wrong. It's a matter of decorum and appropriateness. Even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office of the President. The SOTU speech is (as far as I know) the *only* speech required by constitutional law to be delivered by the president to the entire US government as a body. As such, when he's giving that speech, he's fullfilling a service demanded of him by that constitution. He is acting as a constitutional agent at that time. So even if you don't like him, and you don't like his office, you should respect the act of the SOTU and the rest of the country that *does* think it's a really big deal.

It's not just Bush she's offending/attacking/whatever. It's the institution of the SOTU. By such a blatant disregard and absolute lack of care for the process of the constitution being carried out during the SOTU, she shows a disregard for our nations laws and system as a whole. And she shows a disrespect to the people of that nation as well.


The fact that she doesn't think she did anything wrong doesn't change the fact that what she did *was* wrong. I'm sorry if you don't understand this. There are very few things in our political processes that still hold a degree of decorum and respect, and the SOTU speech is one of those. Do we have to turn it into yet another mockery?





It's not a "political gathering". It's a constitutionally required speech, given by the president to the rest of the government. It's not an appropriate place for anyone other then the president to express political opinion. It's the one time and place that he gets to express *his* and only his. No questions. No cross examination. Even the opposition opinion is politely held at completely different location.

And I think there's a far cry between clapping and/or demonstrably *not* clapping and wearing a written message to show while Bush is giving his speech. Can you not see a difference between those?

If t-shirts with messages are allowed, what about protest signs? And heck. Why not allow people to yell and chant while he's speaking? After all, it's not preventing him from speaking is it? There's a line you have to draw somewhere, and I think not allowing any form of written or spoken political message that isn't the presidents *during* the SOTU speech is a reasonable one, given the entire purpose of that speech.


Maybe it wasn't spelled out for them, but most guests simply know better. The person who brought them should have explained the behavior and dress they should have used while there. I personally blame the two members of Congress who both apparently brought guest to the show but didn't explain that it's impolite to unwrap candy while there (blatant theatre reference for those totally ignorant). Guess what? I don't think it was wrong at all of the police to have done what they did. In either case.


It's an honor to attend an event like that. How about treating it like one? I know. Crazy thought.

Cindy Sheehan is an attention ***** and likely encouraged her son to go to a combat zone in the hopes of getting him killed to further her political ambitions. 'Nuff said.

Totem

That's sooo sad.

I won't pretend to know what Cindy's motivations are, but seems her methods are faulty.

As far the t-shirt incident, yeah, it sucks that you can't wear your opinion on your chest in certain places, but she's not being singled out. As another post mentioned there are many instances of political events that "require a dress code".

Yes, yes, I think we all get that. But even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

Look past the person to the events.

No. That's not what I was saying with that statement. I was responding to this specific part of your earlier post:



Specifically the bolded part. I figured you'd get it in context, but apparently not. You are claiming that Sheehan was treated differently because of the message on her shirt. I responded that she was treated differently then Mrs. Young specifically because of her reaction to being asked to leave. That's why it's relevant to point out that "Young left the gallery and therefor was not arrested". It implies strongly that the reason Sheehan *was* arrested, wasn't because of the specifics of what was written on her shirt, but because she was asked to leave and refused.

So no. She was not arrested for expressing a first ammendment right. She was arrested for exactly what they said they arrested her for. Unlawful Conduct. Specifically, refusing to follow directions given to her by a police officer on the scene. In exactly the same way that you'll be arrested for that charge anytime you refuse to follow a reasonable order from a police officer. Asking someone to leave an event when they are in violation of the rules of the event is *not* unreasonable. Arresting someone for refusing to leave is *also* not unreasonable.


[/quote]


That has absolutely zero bearing on whether it actually was the right thing to do, or whether the police were following proceedure, or (more importantly) whether Sheehan was specifically singled out for this type of treatment (as you suggest). It has a hell of a lot more to do with the fact that the Capitol police chief is an elected official of the city of Washington DC, a primarily Democrat constituency. Sheehan is a poster child of liberal activism (sad as that is). He's saying what he needs to say in order to keep his job. Nothing more.

In actual fact, his officers were following standard proceedure. They did nothing that hasn't been done in similar situations in the past. The *only* difference is that because Sheehan is a poster child of the Left, the Left is making a big stink out of her arrest.


The simple fact is that Sheehan was doing something she should not have been doing. She got caught doing it. She was asked not to do it. She refused. She was asked to leave. She refused. So she was removed, handcuffed and arrested. This is no different then all those idiots who get pulled over for a traffic ticket and end up in jail because they claim some sort of "right" to not cooperate with the cop. And just like in that case, the reaction of the public isn't based on what happened, but who it happened to. When joe random person does it, they deserved it and were being an idiot. When some famous person we support does it, the cops must have been "wrong". Nothing really new here...

So who's stuck at work today? If the office busy? What are you doing tonight to celebrate? Where are you taking your loved ones? Did you buy any special presents for the day? What kind of presents did you get? What does your Groundhog Day tree look like? Does it bother you when people refer to it as an Early February Spring Forecasting Conifer? Would you boycott Target for saying so? Did you hide your Groundhog Day candy out in the yard for the groundhogs to find? What are you dressed up as this year? Have you had a moment of silence for our fallen groundhogs?

Whew! So much to talk about on this special day!

This is a government building which required a ticket to enter. It is a non-public forum and therefore government regulation requires the 2 prong test stated supra. This was not a private party at a private residence so your scenario is inapplicable. By confronting both women regarding the content of their respective shirts and asking them to leave, the Capitol officers as government actors infringed on both Sheehan’s and Young’s 1st Amendment freedoms. The confrontation was only the result of symbolic speech (which the Capitol police admitted and stated was wrongful). Again there was no law or regulation supporting the treatment Sheehan or Young were given. Young insulted the officers and she was escorted out of the room. Even if Sheehan disobeyed officers (which there is no proof), they did not have a legitimate purpose for removing her. Thus, if she failed to comply with an order the Capitol police could not give (because they had no rational basis), they had no grounds for arresting her.

As a result, Sheehan’s case is much stronger than Young’s, but Young easily has a prima facie case for violation of her 1st Amendment rights because the government was silencing her protected speech as well.

BTW I certainly think that the police could have removed people interrupting Mr. Bush’s speech, those being disruptive, someone distracting Mr. Bush’s, or for any violation of Capitol Building/Speech rules. However, Sheehan and Young don't fall within these rules.


It was the wrong thing to do and it was not within any procedures. http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2004/pr_12-02-04.html.
Your strongest argument is that the shirts were inappropriate, which is pretty weak.



Wrong. The Capitol Police chief is appointed and he's a Republican. See http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1230,q,540802.asp see also http://www.senderberl.com/china/addon_comment.htm

You seem to do that a lot.



I don’t. It’s a fact. “Capitol Hill Police Chief Terence Gainer, whose history as Washington, DC deputy police chief, Illinois State Police director, Chicago cop, and Republican loyalist...” (http://www.senderberl.com/china/addon_comment.htm) He was also an appointee in Chicago by Republican Governor Edgar in 91. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Edgar.


No, it merely bolsters the argument that they did something wrong. If you'd bother to read instead of assuming, then your arguments (or rebuttals) wouldn’t be so weak. If you bothered to look at the law, then you wouldn’t have to assume so much. If you had a strong argument, then you wouldn’t have to make everything into a partisan issue or personally attack Sheehan.