Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[FromWayDowntown]

We should get some lawyers in here. I relied on facts of what happened over what people wanted to believe. No matter what you want it to be, if I were treated in that same way, my rights would have been violated. There is a reason for the First Ammendement. For our Freedom of Speech rights. That was taken away from her, seeing as how she was within her right to wear that shirt and within her right to be there. And that is true, not spin.

It's not a matter of what I believe. It's a matter of what the law is. The law is that government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that limit speech and expression, irrespective of whether there is a policy (written or verbal) that directs the limitation. The only question is whether the limitation is reasonable and whether the limitation is viewpoint neutral.

Cindy Sheehan might, I suppose, have a claim for false arrest or something along those lines, but that would not be a claim based on an infringement of her First Amendment rights. You're right to say that claim would be based on the absence of a law to support her ejection, but in the end, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Look, this isn't personal for me. I actually have agreed with you a number of times on a variety of topics, SA210. But I think you're misapprehending the scope of the First Amendment. If the government had wholly prohibited Cindy Sheehan from making her statement, you'd have a good argument. But the government didn't do that -- she certainly could have stood on any street in D.C. wearing that t-shirt and could not have been stopped from doing that (unless she broke another law). In this case, the government simply prohibited her from making her statement in the Capitol building in conjunction with the State of the Union address.

[SpursWoman]

Anyone remember when DeSPURado used to post here?

I'm having some deja vu...

DeSPURado was a law student, wasn't he?

[SpursWoman]

Until my return, keep telling yourselves what you want to believe.

I will, if you promise to look up the definition of opinion while you're "out".

[Oh, Gee!!]

Then take that offensive shirt off.

who says I'm wearing clothes? growl

[Yonivore]

Then take that offensive shirt off.

You take your's off first!

[SA210]

It's not a matter of what I believe. It's a matter of what the law is. The law is that government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that limit speech and expression, irrespective of whether there is a policy (written or verbal) that directs the limitation. The only question is whether the limitation is reasonable and whether the limitation is viewpoint neutral.

Cindy Sheehan might, I suppose, have a claim for false arrest or something along those lines, but that would not be a claim based on an infringement of her First Amendment rights. You're right to say that claim would be based on the absence of a law to support her ejection, but in the end, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Ok, I can see your point there. But in the arrest, that in itself, stopped her from expressing that 1st ammendment right.

Look, this isn't personal for me. I actually have agreed with you a number of times on a variety of topics, SA210. But I think you're misapprehending the scope of the First Amendment. If the government had wholly prohibited Cindy Sheehan from making her statement, you'd have a good argument. But the government didn't do that -- she certainly could have stood on any street in D.C. wearing that t-shirt and could not have been stopped from doing that (unless she broke another law). In this case, the government simply prohibited her from making her statement in the Capitol building in conjunction with the State of the Union address.

Which she had a right to do. That right was taken away.

Anyhow, until later, I gotta go, good talk.

Peace.

[Yonivore]

DeSPURado was a law student, wasn't he?

I think that's Manny.

And, besides, what the frig does being a lawyer tell anyone? I know plenty of lawyers...from many of whom I wouldn't dare ask for a legal opinion.

[SA210]

I will, if you promise to look up the definition of opinion while you're "out".

Before I leave, just a question on opinions. Did Cindy resist and Mrs. Young Not resist as you believed yesterday?

See ya....

[FromWayDowntown]

I think that's Manny.

And, besides, what the frig does being a lawyer tell anyone? I know plenty of lawyers...from many of whom I wouldn't dare ask for a legal opinion.

I don't think it tells anyone anything. Law degrees in general don't mean a great deal these days, based on the performances of many lawyers.

I try to confine that reference to instances where it is directly relevant to a discussion point or where I'm asked about it directly. SW brought it up for me here.

Personally, Oh Gee made me wonder if I mention it too often and I found 3 threads in the last year or so where I mentioned it without someone asking me. If that's too often, I'll stop using that frame of reference.

[Peter]

I, for one, appreciate the perspective that FWD brings. As we have seen, it may be incovenient for some, but it's objective. Also, given his general political viewpoint, it is quite telling that his analysis puts the law ahead of his own bias. If only some others could follow his lead.

[Mr. Peabody]

Law degrees in general don't mean a great deal these days....

Try having a degree in Philosophy.

[FromWayDowntown]

Try having a degree in Philosophy.

OK, now you're just making me feel like a looser.

[Mr. Peabody]

OK, now you're just making me feel like a looser.

[Spurminator]

I, for one, appreciate the perspective that FWD brings. As we have seen, it may be incovenient for some, but it's objective. Also, given his general political viewpoint, it is quite telling that his analysis puts the law ahead of his own bias. If only some others could follow his lead.

Concur.

[Yonivore]

Try having a degree in Philosophy.

Can one have a degree in philosophy or is it merely a manifestation of chemical processes of the brain?

[SpursWoman]

Before I leave, just a question on opinions. Did Cindy resist and Mrs. Young Not resist as you believed yesterday?

See ya....

My opinion was based on her actions on several similar occasions in the past, where she did not "peacefully" cooperate. Which would not make it unreasonable to suspect that this instance would have been any different.

If that's not how the story unfolded today...then that's not how it unfolded. The only thing I'd be sorry for is that those bloodsuckers got a hold of that poor woman at her most vulnerable and exploited her loss to promote their own agenda, giving her the reputation she now has. If she was treated more harshly than the other woman, she only has those who have been pulling her strings and putting her into the situations she has been in to blame.

[SpursWoman]

what the frig does being a lawyer tell anyone?

That they probably know more than the average Joe about the law than someone who, well....has not studied it? That'd be my guess. But then, I'm an accountant, and I've worked with some of the dumbest damn CPA's on the planet.

[SpursWoman]

Concur.

Me, too.

[SpursWoman]

Try having a degree in Philosophy.

I had 15 hours of Philosophy when I graduated...which was 3 more than I had in my "actual" minor. Philosophy is awesome.

[Mr. Peabody]

That they probably know more than the average Joe about the law than someone who, well....has not studied it? That'd be my guess. But then, I'm an accountant, and I've worked with some of the dumbest damn CPA's on the planet.

I agree. I think people who study subjects probably know more about those subjects than people who don't study them.

[Mr. Peabody]

I had 15 hours of Philosophy when I graduated...which was 3 more than I had in my "actual" minor. Philosophy is awesome.

I just took the classes so people on campus would see me carrying around a copy of The Republic and assume that I was really deep.

[Yonivore]

I agree. I think people who study subjects probably know more about those subjects than people who don't study them.

You would think so...but...

[SpursWoman]

I had at least 4 books en led The Meaning of Life from a class of the same name...would that have qualified as deep?

[Mr. Peabody]

You would think so...but...

You're not going to call out the doctor from Columbia Medical School or the dean of Stanford Law again, are you?

[Yonivore]

You're not going to call out the doctor from Columbia Medical School or the dean of Stanford Law again, are you?

If they get stuck on stupid again, I damn sure will.