Sheehan arrested

[jeffrey]

What rules, specifically? Where can I find those rules?

Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[Valjean]

I thought the rule in the US was freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience. I thought federal court rulings and constitutional rights and freedoms trumped institutional regulations, Kowaki.

This sort of thing is nothing new. People have been uncovering anti-war, anti Republican, pro-environment, &c T-shirts, Democratic candidate buttons, even dissenting banners at public Republican events for several years now. Usually they're just hustled out of the building or away from the area. Sometimes they're arrested and held till the speech or event is over then released. Only occasionally do they press charges. The mainstream press/media does not generally report these incidents.
At many presidential speeches and events only registered Republicans are allowed to attend. Democrats, Independents &al are excluded from public, taxpayer paid events even though Bush is their president as much as he is the Republicans, and they pay the same taxes the Republicans do.
What kind of Democracy is that?

Google "Early Nazi history" and "Brown Shirts."

 

[Fluffy]

Since the same rule applies to everyone who enters the Chamber, she was informed and willfully chose to ignore it, I don't have any problem with her arrest. She was quite arrogant to presume that the rules did not apply to her.:149:

Agreed. We have the right to protest as long as it does not break the law. You can't use the defence "you are taking away my right to free speech" if you have been given that provision in law and then choose to go about it in an unlawful way.

 

[Bangbang]

She got what she wanted..They should have just ignored her. I bet that would have made her angry. She is an attention seeker so she would have been disappointed.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Is there, in fact, a rule that observers in the House galleries may not wear clothing with messages on it? Where can I find such a rule?

If there is such a rule, is it Constitutional?

Here is a link to rules for Radio-Television Correspondents. You will notice that despite Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, there are many rules that Congress deem necessary to mainttain the security and decorum of the Chamber. These rules apply to visitors in the gallery as well as members of the media. I did not search for a court case in which these rules were challenged, so I leave that for you to do. I am willing to bet that they would upheld if they were.

While you're searching for those cases, you might also find several cases in which courts have agreed that there are limits of Freedom of Speech. 'You can't tell fire in a crowded theatre' is one that comes to mind to reinforce the idea that F.O.S. is not carte blanche to say and do whatever you want in what ever situation.

Just think if Sheehan and her anti-Bush shirt were allowed to stay. Maybe the next time, the anti-gay marriage members of Congress give their passes to people who wear 'godhatesfags' shirts or something similarly offensive to your sensibilities. Bottom line, I agree 100% with rules Congress sets for people who visit the Chamber and for enforcement of those who willfully disobey them.

 

[painted wolf]

of cource the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
"free speech zones" and the banning of protest in public places (places owned by the people for the sole purpose of running the government and upholding the Constitutional laws of the nation) is the anthisis of free speach IMHO.

We have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't insite others to do physical harm, and any law that restricts that right is unconstitutional. Sheehan was not catcalling or delaring that Bush should be harmed... she was not breaking any constitutional laws.

what good is free speech if the people in power can simply make a law to ban it from the public sphere? What good it protest if you can only do it out of sight?

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't insite others to do physical harm, and any law that restricts that right is unconstitutional.

Apparently not.

 

[BUDDY]

The rules for conduct in the gallery have been in place for a very long time, and the fact that she was arrested for breaking those rules has nothing to do with who is in the White House. The fact that someone on this forum would use this to jab at the Bush presidency, and exclude all others under the same rules, makes it very apparent to me the lengths to whoch some will go to stroke their own ego and blast at a man they do not like. Very sad.

 

[Fluffy]

We have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't insite others to do physical harm, and any law that restricts that right is unconstitutional.

That is a fair opinion to hold and I in fact agree with you. However, protesting against an unjust law by breaking it is not a very good way of getting it changed, in my humble opinion. Especially when you have other legitimate forms of protest at your disposal.

Here is a scenario that causes no physical harm yet is an illegal form of free speech: Standing outside a school and handing out leaflets with certain four letter words on to the children as they leave.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is a scenario that causes no physical harm yet is an illegal form of free speech: Standing outside a school and handing out leaflets with certain four letter words on to the children as they leave.

You mean, like: R E A D ?

 

[YmirGF]

One can only imagine the Tshirts folks may have worn to such events when Bill Clinton was going through his Monika Lewinski troubles. As amusing as that might have been, I think there is a time and a place for everything.

Frankly, I have seen Cindy Sheehan on TV several times now. I do not completely dismiss her aims, but her methods are questionable and perhaps ill conceived. I do not think she is getting very good counsel from those that support her.

I think what disturbed me about her camping out near the Bush home in Crawford was the idea that if you sit there long enough, a president will come calling. This is a very bad precedent. Any wacko could then simply camp out, waiting for their president of the day, hoping the media will notice them.

Sorry, there are more constructive ways to express ones displeasure with policy.

 

[Smoke]

Here is a link to rules for Radio-Television Correspondents. You will notice that despite Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, there are many rules that Congress deem necessary to mainttain the security and decorum of the Chamber. These rules apply to visitors in the gallery as well as members of the media.

Thanks, but I had found those; it's not clear to me that they do apply to the guests of a Congressman. As for decorum: Sheehan sat down and unzipped her jacket. She had not yet removed the jacket when a policeman yelled "Protester!", jerked her out of her seat, forced her from the gallery and cuffed her. Only an idiot would believe that wearing a t-shirt was a breach of security, and if anything breached the decorum of the Chamber it was the actions of the policeman.

While you're searching for those cases, you might also find several cases in which courts have agreed that there are limits of Freedom of Speech. 'You can't tell fire in a crowded theatre' is one that comes to mind to reinforce the idea that F.O.S. is not carte blanche to say and do whatever you want in what ever situation.

Do you seriously believe that wearing a t-shirt in the visitor's gallery is comparable to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Just think if Sheehan and her anti-Bush shirt were allowed to stay. Maybe the next time, the anti-gay marriage members of Congress give their passes to people who wear 'godhatesfags' shirts or something similarly offensive to your sensibilities.

And they should be allowed to wear them. In fact, I would encourage such members of Congress to give out passes to those people. Let's call a spade a spade, gentlemen, and quit blathering about the "sanctity" of civil marriage.

As it happens, someone did wear a t-shirt offensive to my sensibilities to the State of the Union address, and she says she was also asked to leave. Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Young of Florida, wore a t-shirt that read, "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom." While I disagree with the sentiment expressed on Mrs. Young's t-shirt, I fully support her right to wear a t-shirt saying any idiotic thing she wants, and to wear it in the house gallery. However, Mrs. Young was not arrested, as Cindy Sheehan was. Furthermore, Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider denies that Mrs. Young was asked to leave at all. According to Schneider, she left of her own accord.

Why wasn't Mrs. Young arrested? If, as the Capitol Police claim, Mrs. Young was not asked to leave, why not?

 

[Fluffy]

You mean, like: R E A D ?

Please!!! I said "causes no physical harm" !

 

[Smoke]

I think what disturbed me about her camping out near the Bush home in Crawford was the idea that if you sit there long enough, a president will come calling. This is a very bad precedent. Any wacko could then simply camp out, waiting for their president of the day, hoping the media will notice them.

And that would be a problem because ... ?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Thanks, but I had found those; it's not clear to me that they do apply to the guests of a Congressman...

They apply to anyone who enters the House Chamber anytime they are in session.

...Only an idiot would believe that wearing a t-shirt was a breach of security...

No one said it was a breach of security. It was a violation of a long standing rule.

...Do you seriously believe that wearing a t-shirt in the visitor's gallery is comparable to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?...

Yes, in that both of them represent legal restrictions on Freedom of Speech. If you didn't understand that, then you really need to read more often.

...And they should be allowed to wear them...

No they should not! Please read and consider YmirGF's quote.

...As amusing as that might have been, I think there is a time and a place for everything...

I concur 100%!

...Why wasn't Mrs. Young arrested? If, as the Capitol Police claim, Mrs. Young was not asked to leave, why not?

Perhaps she was asked to cover/remove the shirt or asked to leave, but the Capitol Police spokesperson was not aware of such. Maybe she left before police could approach her. Maybe you could post a link to the story so we can get some more details as I don't feel like speculating anymore.

We have stated our cases, we are not going to change each other's minds, so this is the point at which we agree to disagree and move on to the next thread. Adieu!

 

[BUDDY]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1565113

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn't the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Well, for those of you are adamit about this being President Bush apposed to anyone that crosses him, please read the article above. This women was removed from the gallery for protesting, only in th exact opposit way that Cindy Sheehan did. In fact, I know of several times historically that people have been removed and or arrested for this same type of action, it is nothing new. The reason that this rule against protesting is in place, is because the House is for debate, not protest. When you protest, you do not allow for th exchange of ideas and the identification of common ground. That is the whole purpose of the House....debate. Protest in the gallery or anywhere else, is in direct opposition to the purpose for the existence of the chamber in the first place.

 

[YmirGF]

And that would be a problem because ... ?

I do not really see it as a problem, per se. It is just, imho, a rather unrealistic use of ones energy. I firmly believe there are far more constructive ways to voice ones displeasure, and ways that will have a far greater chance of having a lasting impact.

 

[jeffrey]

I'm sure the democrat from California whom she was the guest of knew of the shirt and IMO used this for his own political gain. I do like his idea for a 'Department of peace'.

I also wonder if this was reversed, and let's say Clinton was still in office, If some people would be singing a different tune.​

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sure the democrat from California whom she was the guest of knew of the shirt and IMO used this for his own political gain. I do like his idea for a 'Department of peace'.

I also wonder if this was reversed, and let's say Clinton was still in office, If some people would be singing a different tune.​

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

 

[jeffrey]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

Ok, it happened under Clinton. But how is this showing people singing a different tune or not?