Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[Oh, Gee!!]

So there are to be no rules governing behavior on Capitol Hill? Next.

There are rules in place; Cindy Sheehan violated none of them. NEXT!!

[SA210]

I also said that it made no difference whether there was a law in place or not. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expression do not infringe First Amendment rights. So, even if she didn't break the law, she was only denied that forum, and not because of her viewpoint, as evidenced by Beverly Young's ejection.



I'm quite familiar with Cohen and you apparently, haven't read it very closely. The issue in Cohen was whether the statute that permitted his arrest was uncons tutionally vague -- not whether his arrest was an appropriate use of the time, place, and manner restriction.



That distinction, it would seem, is fatal to your argument here -- Cohen says nothing about whether the police could have ejected him from the courthouse to maintain some level of decorum in that building, based on a time, place, and manner basis. It says, instead, that the California law is too vague:



Thus, Cohen is inapposite to your argument. It says that a state cannot punish citizens for using certain words in public -- in other words, a state cannot prohibit altogether the use of a incendiary word. It does not say, though, that the state is powerless to eject those who use such words (or otherwise express themselves) at inappropriate times or places. Ample other authority, however, supports the concept that the government can limit speech in certain cir stances. Find me a case that says time, place and manner restrictions are no longer valid, or that they don't apply in the United States Capitol, and we can talk.



Read above. Again, Cohen doesn't say that and perverting that holding to support a claim that rights were violated in this context is ridiculous.

I'm all about defending civil rights and liberties when they're legitimately jeopardized. I'd think that the discussion of the NSA surveillance program and the numerous threads concerning church-state separation would bear me out on that. But in this case, I don't see how anyone's cons utional rights were ever jeopardized.



Indeed.

Not so fast. I'll use the "Keep it Simple Stupid" way to refute.
How many words do you have to put together to finally understand that...

The Capitol Police say she BROKE NO LAW.

NEXT, indeed.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But in this case, I don't see how anyone's cons utional rights were ever jeopardized.

I'm pretty sure Cindy Sheehan won't have trouble finding an attorney who will reach a different conclusion.

[SA210]

Indeed

[SA210]

I'm pretty sure Cindy Sheehan won't have trouble finding an attorney who will reach a different conclusion.

She's already found one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Not so fast. I'll use the "Keep it Simple Stupid" way to refute.
How many words do you have to put together to finally understand that...

The Capitol Police say she BROKE NO LAW.

NEXT, indeed.

I'll keep it simple for you as well:

TIME PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LAWS!

You harp so much on the existence or not of a law, but that's not the question. The question is whether in ejecting her for wearing the shirt, the Capitol Police engaged in anything other than reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and whether such efforts were viewpoint neutral.


And good luck to Cindy in suing the federal government on any tort claim -- sovereign immunity can be a real problem in that case.

[SA210]

I'll keep it simple for you as well:

TIME PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LAWS!

You harp so much on the existence or not of a law, but that's not the question. The question is whether in ejecting her for wearing the shirt, the Capitol Police engaged in anything other than reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and whether such efforts were viewpoint neutral.


And good luck to Cindy in suing the federal government on any tort claim -- sovereign immunity can be a real problem in that case.

Time and place are important to the President. Must rush that woman out at that moment. Her rights were violated. Funny, people even try and say the law permits Bush to do these wiretaps without a court order when he even disagrees with himself on the matter.

You're the one that said she broke the law, that was a question up for debate, now that is settled. A T-shirt was not against the law to be worn at the SOTU. The Capitol Police admit that themselves. So, her rights were violated. As Oh Gee!! said, other attorneys will disagree with you.

Even though those are the facts, there, apparently will be a back and forth with this, as if there even should be.

[SpursWoman]

And as SpursWoman said herself, "showed how some of you wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the *ss and then crawled on up there anyway". It shows how that statement really applies to certain people.

Her situation has nothing whatsoever to do with being objective, I am not morally required to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when she has repeatedly been in trouble for being disruptive outside of the appropriate bounds.

The fact that those blood-sucking left extremist have quite notably used and taken advantage of that poor woman to the point that they've made her anything but credible and sullied what was once a very noble objective, I'm even less inclined to do so.

That is not even remotely comparable to the bull ya'll sling around here. Ya'll would blame AIDS on the Bush Administration if you could find some left-wing fruitcake blog link that said so.

[SA210]

Her situation has nothing whatsoever to do with being objective, I am not morally required to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when she has repeatedly been in trouble for being disruptive outside of the appropriate bounds.

The fact that those blood-sucking left extremist have quite notably used and taken advantage of that poor woman to the point that they've made her anything but credible and sullied what was once a very noble objective, I'm even less inclined to do so.

That is not even remotely comparable to the bull ya'll sling around here. Ya'll would blame AIDS on the Bush Administration if you could find some left-wing fruitcake blog link that said so.

You claimed crap that wasn't true, because that's what you wanted to believe without having an opened mind. Plain and simple. Now all you have is egg on your face. And it doesn't change anything for you to respond and deny that or to pretend to blow it off.

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you say, That isn't even remotely comparable to the bs yall sling about Cindy Sheehan.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ight=bush+lied

[FromWayDowntown]

You're the one that said she broke the law, that was a question up for debate, now that is settled. A T-shirt was not against the law to be worn at the SOTU. The Capitol Police admit that themselves. So, her rights were violated.

Now you're being disingenuous. I originally said she broke the law. I apologize for not having independently researched the ordinances and statutes applicable to conduct in the United States Capitol. When I learned that there is no law governing the situation, I acknowledged that, but I also said that it did not matter whether her ejection was based on a written law.

So, while I originally justified the ejection (and the absence of a cons utional violation) on my belief that the protest was illegal, I've subsequently acknowledged both that there was no law (as you've gone out of your way to repeat) and that the ejection was not made uncons utional by the absence of a law. So, you can back off the "you're the one who said she broke the law" nonsense and engage me in the merits if you so choose.

Sheehan's ejection could have just as easily been based on a verbal policy -- and it would be equally defensible if it were based on only a verbal policy. Or if it were based only on the judgment of an officer in the moment. The only question is whether the restriction (from whatever source) on her right to free speech (which, again, is not absolute) is reasonable and whether it was viewpoint neutral.

Your only argument to contest the reasonableness is either: (1) a dislike for the President and a distrust for the motives of his Administration -- neither of which has been proven to be a reason for Sheehan's ejection; or (2) the absence of a written law applicable to this situation -- again, a matter that is irrelevant, given that time, place, and manner restrictions do not require positive law for their enforcement. So, what you're left with (other than conjecture) is a viewpoint hostility argument, but that argument is undermined fairly significantly by Beverly Young's ejection.

Even though those are the facts, there, apparently will be a back and forth with this, as if there even should be.

There's only back and forth on this because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than my original (and admittedly uninformed) post and cannot, apparently, address the focal cons utional issue at play here.

As Oh Gee!! said, other attorneys will disagree with you.

Cindy Sheehan will find an attorney who, in the heat of the moment, will take her case. But that attorney will quickly find that the law does not support an argument that Sheehan's rights were infringed.

[SpursWoman]

You claimed crap that wasn't true, because that's what you wanted to believe without having an opened mind. Plain and simple. Now all you have is egg on your face. And it doesn't change anything for you to respond and deny that or to pretend to blow it off.

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt. As you say, That isn't even remotely comparable to the bs yall sling about Cindy Sheehan.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ight=bush+lied

I don't regularly watch it, but I assumed MSNBC had people that knew what they were talking about. Obviously not. And don't even ing pretend you knew any differently until you found that article.

There is no egg on my face, honey. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a serial rapist at a sorority party with a big bottle of ruffies, either.

[Crookshanks]

Selective outrage on free speech
Feb 2, 2006
by Debra Saunders

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her beloved son, Casey, in the Iraq war, and for that she has my sympathy.

But losing your son in a war doesn't give you license to violate House decorum, as she did by wearing a t-shirt (reading: "2,245 Dead. How many more?") before President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. It also doesn't grant you special wisdom on foreign relations in South America. If it did, Sheehan would not have let herself be embraced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

While supporters say Sheehan's loss gives her credibility, I don't see antiwar types changing their tune after listening to parents of slain vets who support the war. So her words don't change my mind, not when she talks like a little girl.

Worse, Sheehan feeds the conceit of many Bay Area war protesters -- that they are brave warriors risking their safety and the wrath of the Bushies as they protest the war.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., obviously buys into that conceit. Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the address, issued a statement Wednesday that asked, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?"

Ditto Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who told The San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery."

I expect members of the House to show more political sophistication than a novice blogger. They must know that the Capitol Police report to Congress -- not the Bushies. But Stark, who introduced a resolution calling for a probe into the police action, is happy to mislead.

It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

(Sheehan asks why she was the only one arrested. Duh. She's not married to a congressman. And rightly, the charges against Sheehan were dropped on Wednesday. The Capitol Police have apologized.)

If Sheehan wants to fight for First Amendment rights, she might want to stand up for The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. The group paid to put up billboards on BART that ask the question, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Abortion-rights activists defaced and tore down billboards -- squelching the message of a dissenting voice in the Bay Area. Suzanne ''Sam'' Joi, a member of Code Pink, which has hosted many Sheehan events, told The Chronicle: ''I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Free speech? Sheehan should take a look at how her buddy Chavez treats dissidents. As Jackson Diehl reported in The Washington Post last year, the Chavez-controlled legislature passed new media laws that included this choice provision: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the president of the republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of six to 30 months if the offense is serious, and half of that if it is light."

Dissidents who stand up to Chavez are courageous. They risk time in a Venezuelan prison. Californians who bash Bush on the war risk being hailed as local heroes and appearing on cable news.

Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had allowed Sheehan to stay for the speech in her t-shirt. I think she would have chased a few moderate voters into the pro-Bush column. But that could happen anyway. Americans have to notice when a friend of Hugo Chavez bemoans that she was denied free speech -- when she never seems to stop talking.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[SA210]

Now you're being disingenuous. I originally said she broke the law. I apologize for not having independently researched the ordinances and statutes applicable to conduct in the United States Capitol. When I learned that there is no law governing the situation, I acknowledged that, but I also said that it did not matter whether her ejection was based on a written law.

So, while I originally justified the ejection (and the absence of a cons utional violation) on my belief that the protest was illegal, I've subsequently acknowledged both that there was no law (as you've gone out of your way to repeat) and that the ejection was not made uncons utional by the absence of a law. So, you can back off the "you're the one who said she broke the law" nonsense and engage me in the merits if you so choose.

Very well, you acknowledge they both broke no law. My point is if they didn't, then their rights were violated.

Sheehan's ejection could have just as easily been based on a verbal policy -- and it would be equally defensible if it were based on only a verbal policy. Or if it were based only on the judgment of an officer in the moment. The only question is whether the restriction (from whatever source) on her right to free speech (which, again, is not absolute) is reasonable and whether it was viewpoint neutral.

Apparently there was no verbal policy either. Maybe a plan.

Your only argument to contest the reasonableness is either: (1) a dislike for the President and a distrust for the motives of his Administration -- neither of which has been proven to be a reason for Sheehan's ejection; or (2) the absence of a written law applicable to this situation -- again, a matter that is irrelevant, given that time, place, and manner restrictions do not require positive law for their enforcement. So, what you're left with (other than conjecture) is a viewpoint hostility argument, but that argument is undermined fairly significantly by Beverly Young's ejection.

Not really. Beverely Hill was ejected a whole 45 minutes later. This is critical.
Boutons posted:

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said. She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest. She said an officer mentioned that Sheehan was removed earlier and therefore "it was kind of only fair" that she be asked to leave, too.
-The Washington Post


Maybe they felt the heat about to come their way from what they did with Sheehan. Seems pretty obvious and that someone would be closedminded to not make that connection.

There's only back and forth on this because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than my original (and admittedly uninformed) post and cannot, apparently, address the focal cons utional issue at play here.

Read my first statement.

Cindy Sheehan will find an attorney who, in the heat of the moment, will take her case. But that attorney will quickly find that the law does not support an argument that Sheehan's rights were infringed.

By being arrested, manhandled, embarrased, bruised and rushed out of a place where she had a right to express herself with a T-Shirt that violated no law, and capitol Police agree it was wrong what they did. Ok.

[SA210]

I don't regularly watch it, but I assumed MSNBC had people that knew what they were talking about. Obviously not. And don't even ing pretend you knew any differently until you found that article.

There is no egg on my face, honey. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to a serial rapist at a sorority party with a big bottle of ruffies, either.

Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing. You pre-judged her off of what you wanted to be true and what you wanted to believe. And that was wrong. Your smiley was a nice try, but didn't change anything.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And Bush has repeatedly lied to America, so noone is morally required to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Again, all politicians lie.

If you reference Iraq, all Bush did wrong was listen to the CIA, Mossad, MI:6, FSK (Russians), and ISA (Poland).

What a liar

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing.

Sort of like every re ed ass post you've made in this thread

[SA210]

Sort of like every re ed ass post you've made in this thread

Man, you've been owned on here by scott. keep reaching popping in and out letting others argue for you. No matter what yall say the facts remain.

[Peter]

There are rules in place; Cindy Sheehan violated none of them. NEXT!!

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.

[SA210]

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.

yea, ok, the facts are out dude.

[Peter]

Yes they are. FWD laid them out.

[SpursWoman]

Just another post that said nothing and changed nothing. You pre-judged her off of what you wanted to be true and what you wanted to believe. And that was wrong. Your smiley was a nice try, but didn't change anything.

Are you really that obtuse? That's not even close to what I've said.

[Oh, Gee!!]

She did, as did Young and the individual at the impeachment debate.

US Capitol Police Chief Gainer disagrees with you:

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.

He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

Gainer said he has attempted to reach Sheehan to tell her he is recommending that charges be dropped and to express his willingness to talk to her at her convenience, but has only been able to leave her a message.

[SA210]

Yes they are. FWD laid them out.

Why do the Capitol Police disagree with you?

And by the way, FWD now says, no law was broken. If only you'd actually read some things instead of being selective as many of you are.

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/press..._02-01-06.html

[SA210]

Are you really that obtuse? That's not even close to what I've said.

now that is funny. We all know your viewpoint. But again, your one liner changed nothing.

[SpursWoman]

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

That can be pretty tricky though if you think about it. T-shirts are not the norm at SOU addresses and they stick out like a sore thumb. Just sitting there in one is going to draw attention to it. How's that for ?