jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
Enquiring minds want to know!MidnightBlue said:What rules, specifically? Where can I find those rules?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Enquiring minds want to know!MidnightBlue said:What rules, specifically? Where can I find those rules?
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.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:
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.MidnightBlue said: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?
Apparently not.painted wolf said: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.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.
You mean, like: R E A D ?Fluffy said: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.
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.CaptainXeroid said: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.
Do you seriously believe that wearing a t-shirt in the visitor's gallery is comparable to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?CaptainXeroid said: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.
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.CaptainXeroid said: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.
Please!!! I said "causes no physical harm" !You mean, like: R E A D ?
And that would be a problem because ... ?YmirGF said: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.
They apply to anyone who enters the House Chamber anytime they are in session.MidnightBlue said:Thanks, but I had found those; it's not clear to me that they do apply to the guests of a Congressman...
No one said it was a breach of security. It was a violation of a long standing rule.MidnightBlue said:...Only an idiot would believe that wearing a t-shirt was a breach of security...
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.MidnightBlue said:...Do you seriously believe that wearing a t-shirt in the visitor's gallery is comparable to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?...
No they should not! Please read and consider YmirGF's quote.MidnightBlue said:...And they should be allowed to wear them...
I concur 100%!YmirGF said:...As amusing as that might have been, I think there is a time and a place for everything...
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.MidnightBlue said:...Why wasn't Mrs. Young arrested? If, as the Capitol Police claim, Mrs. Young was not asked to leave, why not?
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.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."
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.MidnightBlue said:And that would be a problem because ... ?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htmjeffrey said: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.
Ok, it happened under Clinton. But how is this showing people singing a different tune or not?SoyLeche said: