argh politics

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

This really irks me. I'm sure many of you know who Cindy Sheehan is. And some might know she was arrested last night at the state of the union address. For wearing a shirt that said "2,245 Dead. How many more?" that she refused to cover.

She was charged with "unlawful conduct"

Now, a congressman's wife wore a shirt to the same location, that said "support our troops" and was only asked to leave.

Hmmm...

Didn't they ask Sheehan to leave? I get that impression from "that she refused to cover." It looks like she just got arrested because she didn't leave (or otherwise remove or obscure the offending t-shirt) like the congressman's wife did.

You can read Ms. Sheehan's personal account here. I have no reason to disbelieve it especially given Bush's fondness for brooking no dissent. Insofar as Ms. Sheehan's account is accurate, her only action was wearing that shirt - no resistance at all.

In light of Cohen v. California (1971) where the supreme court said that "fuck the draft" on the back of a jacket was protected speech and could not be a crime for wearing it in a state courthouse, Ms. Sheehan's shirt seems positively demure.

This just pegged my disgust-o-meter.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution... unless you piss off someone powerful, apparently.

And her name is CINDY Sheehan.

P2

I'll agree that I think that it was overkill reaction, BUT

1) 1 person with political t-shirt is asked to leave or cover it, and does. No problem.
2) 1 person with political t-shirt and ask to leave or cover, and refuses. Arrested.

See where things go south in that history?

When they asked someone with a political message *on the other side of the isle*, and argueably a tamer message, to leave or cover, I don't think Cindy got unfair treatment. Was the treatment a bit anal on both counts? Yes. Unfair/partisan? not that I can see.

That's what I thought too... unless they really didn't ask her to cover it, giving her the opportunity to blog about how her free speech rights were violated, and just dragged her out as soon as she took off her jacket as her account suggests.

Is that case and its decision centered around the expletive "fuck," and the corresponding free speech issues surrounding it (as opposed to the expression of the idea that the draft sucks)?

I think that the capitol probably has rules of decorum that allow them to suppress any demonstrations or placards designed to draw attention away from or interrupt the proceedings of government. Interrupting the proceedings of government probably supercedes the government's ability to protect the rights to free speech. Not that she was necessarily doing that, but I'm trying to think how they could justify their actions.

Considering Sheehan has reduced the memory of her own supposedly beloved son to nothing but a tool, lied about publicly varifiable facts about the president's itinerary, claimed that the US was engaged in a "nuclear war" in Iraq, grossly trivialised hurricane Rita... just off the top of my head, mind... I don't believe anything that she says short of it being proven by a cadre of independent scientists.

Oh, also...

If you think this was "innocent political protesting", look a little deeper into the person who brought Sheehan: Lynn Woolsey.

Code Pink has a history of deliberatly staging disruptions to political speaches, and I suspect this was planned very well to do just that again.

That is, of course, conjecture on my part, but I think it's sound conjecture none the less.

My husband was in the army for awhile and was medically discharged after blowing out his ankle.(to give background for the point of view here)

I asked him what he thought of Cindy and what she was doing, and if her son would support her or openly go against her? He said that if his mother started doing what Cindy did, *if* he had been in Iraq and died, that he would be pissed at her for using his name to fight her war. He says that Cindy is ruining her son's memory by using his death like this.

I think she has some screws loose, but I haven't lost a child yet so I don't know how I would react. I don't think it's a bad thing to question the people in authority, but the way she does it is like fingernails on a chalkboard. You can be so abrasive and annoying that a very good message can get ignored because of it.


I wouldn't have brought my personal agenda to the State Of The Union address like she did. There are times and places where you can protest in a respectful manner and get your point across better.

I knew nothing about Sheehan or "Code Pink" and frankly nothing other than the lead article and Sheehan's account that I cited.

I should reserve judgement until someone less biased account is available of what transpired (which doesn't appear to much interest the media as yet) but I did find this excerpt from The Baltimore Sun telling:which suggests to me that even the Capitol Police couldn't support "demonstrating" and so used the catch-all "unlawful conduct" which to my layman's understanding means "something we don't like but can't put any more specific name on".

The rules bar "demonstrating" which I think fair for decorum, but when the police back down on a charge it usually means they think it will be laughed out of court.

I'm not trying to color this as a partisan issue, but another example of evisceration of freedom of speech. For me, this is not about personalities, but a cherished principle under siege.

Woooo hey look, we can get arrested for doing anything now! Woooo I feel so.. FREEEEEE.

Be free people.. FREEE!!

I thin with Sheehan, they saw her in the act of removing her jacket and quickly escorted her out of the gallery.

No offense but it was silly on her part. You are in a room with 99% of the leaders of the country. If there is ever a time to behave, this is it.

I sympathize with Ms. Sheehan and her loss but I do not sympathize with her on this
occassion.

She could have accomplished so much more with a solemn or stern face plastered all over every news outlet for the entirety of the SOTU.

You must behave in the presence of the Leader!

Cindy is doing a great job. She wore a t-shirt with words on it that the president didn't like and she got arrested. She's just lucky the President didn't decide she was an "enemy combatant" and have her locked up in secret some place. Now that couldn't happen, could it? Oh yeah, it already has.

And what new danger to the world did the President announce during his speech? Human-animal hybrids! How he missed self-aware genocidal robots I don't know. Iraq is in the toilet. Hamas took Bush's democracy ideas to heart and got elected. Social security reform is dead. Energy prices are obscene. The price of health care is spiraling out of control. And the Republican family values police on Capitol Hill are going down in a huge bribery scandal. "But look over there!" cries the President, "it's a human-animal hybrid! Run for your lives!"

Effing Amazing.

Miss the part where a person wearing a pro-war shirt was also asked to leave/cover, did we?

Are we reading the same article? From the first cited CNN article:Now of course, if you can't trust a congressman to tell the truth... but I digress. The phrase "ordered to leave" is different than "ordered to cover up or leave", but if you can't trust the media to accurately report... oh, hell, nevermind

Oh yeah, a wonderfully unbiased source of information. I'm surprised Introvert, really.

The congressman's wife that was asked to leave wasn't trying to hang a banner over the railing, either. Maybe Ms Sheehan should not have been arrested for being difficult about leaving, but I would have arrested her for sheer tackiness. She thought she would get her dig in with a cheesy ploy. A certain amount of personal decorum is expected from guests in the House of Representatives and both women, mainly by coming dressed innapropriately in underwear, acted wrongly, and the Congressional Representatives who invited them as personal guests should be disciplined as well.

all of this ignores the point that the President's case for aggression against a sovereign nation can't stand up to a woman in a tee-shirt.

Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Cindy's actions in the past few months, this is not why I posted this. I think Introvert has got it figured out though I sure hope those charges are dropped, if in fact all she did was wear that shirt and refuse to cover it when asked. So, you can have free speech here, and here, but not here and here? Or you can have free speech as long as the president doesn't disagree? And I'd like to know their definition of "demonstrating." I did watch most of the address last night, were the politicians who were not clapping and standing for the president demonstrating? Or perhaps those in military uniform were demonstrating?

Now as I have said before, I do have the utmost respect for those who have served our country in the military. But I really hope the freedoms you fight for are being upheld.

She was just wearing a shirt, the charges have been dropped, and the Capitol Police admit they made a big mistake.

All of which does nothing to change the climate of fascist fear this President generates.

Yes, fascist fear that suppresses support for him as well as against him! Oh noes!

Wow.

show me a photo of this alleged other T-shirt and then we'll discuss it. Otherwise I think it's a CYA job.