eglamkowski's Journal: Sheehan goes to jail

But apparently just for a night, then the police get all apologetic.

Look, nobody's suppressing her right to free speech - she can still say whatever the hell she wants, but when she's INVITED to an event, she has to play by the rules of the host. The host didn't want anything disruptive at the party. Break the rules, you should expect to get kicked out. Arrested was perhaps a bit much, but don't try to make this into a first amendment issue. She's been saying the same thing over and over all over the country and never had an issue. It only became an issue when she was a guest and an invitation-only event.

I'll say it again: when you get invited to an event, you gotta play by the host's rules.

It's just that simple.

And I'll say this again: arrest was excessive, but certainly they were fine to kick her out at the very least.

Sadly, I'm sure there will be lawsuits over this. She'll claim her civil rights were violated. Boo hoo! Cry me a river! She couldn't wear disruptive clothes even though she was SPECIFICALLY TOLD NOT TO. She intentionally and maliciously violated the host's rules of conduct and got kicked out and now her civil right were violated! Waah! Waah!

People in this country have become such pathetic wimps.

haven't seen that

[gmhowell]

I haven't seen any reports indicating she was notified that the first amendment is suspended within the Capital building. Any links?

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

She was invited into the Congressional building. If you are suggesting that Free Speech does not apply there, perhaps you may want to consider looking over the Constitution again.

Re:haven't seen that

[eglamkowski]

What law did congress pass that inhibited her free speech?

You might argue a right to assembly issue, but the fact that you concede the invitation requirement negates that point.

Right to redress of greivances? Read again - that's the right to redress CONGRESS, not the president.

No first amendment issue here.
Try again.

Re:haven't seen that

[gmhowell]

What law did congress pass that inhibited her free speech?

The one that says that protesters have to stay in an officially sanctioned ghetto.

IIRC, the actual offense is causing a disturbance or disruption of the business of the Congress. Which is horseshit. She said nothing. Merely sat down. There was nothing that would have been said within the chamber. If there was a disturbance, it was when the Capitol Police arrested her.

Further, there is actually now pretty good grounds for a civil lawsuit for wrongful

Re:haven't seen that

[eglamkowski]

Fourth amendment maybe. I did agree in the original JE that arrest was excessive.

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

I have conceded nothing. A person has the right to wear whatever they goddamn well please to a Congressional and Presidential event on Government land in a Government building that was paid for and sponsored by the taxpayers. To say anything otherwise is ignore the obvious truth.

Re:haven't seen that

[eglamkowski]

If you had gone to DC and demanded, as a tax-paying citizen, to be allowed to enter the capital building to witness the speech, you would have been denied. Not because they're out to get you, or because the president has you on some watch list, but because there is only a very small amount of room available in the building to hold guests.

Since the government has already imposed a rather arbitrary limit as to who may and may not enter this government event on government land in a government building, why sh

Re:haven't seen that

[neocon]

In any case, given that a congressman's wife was also ejected for wearing a shirt in support of our troops, any claim that Sheehan is being discriminated against for the content, not the illegal manner of her expression is absurd.

As for her rights, I've been asking /.'s liberals for a long time [slashdot.org] to name some of these `rights' that they believe have been taken away by the current administration. I have yet to see one named.

Re:haven't seen that

[eglamkowski]

The Pentagon is a government building on government land paid for with tax payer dollars.
Does that mean any US tax-payer should be able to gain unrestricted access to any part of the building any time they want?

The interstates are government infrastructure built on government land paid for with tax payer dollars.
Does that mean we should be allowed to drive however we want on them - speeding, DUI, ANYTHING?

I could go on ad infinitum, but the point is made.

Re:haven't seen that

[ncc74656]

I have conceded nothing. A person has the right to wear whatever they goddamn well please to a Congressional and Presidential event on Government land in a Government building that was paid for and sponsored by the taxpayers.

I'd like to see you try wearing a T-shirt saying, "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" to a presidential inauguration sometime. Let me know how it goes for you.

Idiot.

There are standards of conduct for things such as the State of the Union address. Reasonable people k

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

ncc74656!! It's been so long. I love talking to radicals like you. I mean, it's so rare and refreshing to speak with someone who calls themselves American and just has absolutely no desire to protect and preserve the Constitution and the principles of the Great Experiment. But I exaggerate - and for this I apologize. I should say wishes to maliciously harm.

Wearing your "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" T-shirt is a direct threat at a person's life. Cindy Sheehan wearing a t-shirt that

Re:haven't seen that

[Marxist Hacker 42]

She's the Socrates of the 21st century.

As much as I agree with your defense of the first amendment, if Cindy Sheenan is the Socrates of the 21st century then we're in deeper trouble that I thought when it comes to the average philosophy and intelligence of the American People.

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

Socrates was played up by Plato. His basic function was to follow people around, and annoy them with questions. Almost exactly like Sheehan.

Re:haven't seen that

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but the problem is that Sheenan seems to be a one-trick pony; a War on Terror peacenik. There's a hell of a lot more wrong with the United States than just that- and that's what I mean by we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

Yeah, but the key feature of the modern economy is specialization. :P

Re:haven't seen that

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, but the key feature of the modern economy is specialization. :P

And here I thought the key feature of the modern economy was widely diversified holdings centralized in a relatively few key families, who use government to raise barriers of entry into the marketplace to protect their own huge fortunes....the rest of us are just puppets in their playroom...

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

Nah, it's always been like that. The modern economy has increased specialization.

Re:haven't seen that

[kikta]

She's the Socrates of the 21st century.

Bullshit. She's the Jane Fonda of our times.

Re:haven't seen that

[Stargoat]

Bullshit. Jane Fonda was a goddamned traitor who should have been hung by the neck until dead. Going to a Communist country and sitting in an anti-aircraft gun. Sheehan is a grieving mother.

Have some respect, dickweed. Sheehan may be annoying. She might even be wrong. But comparing her to Jane Fonda is the words of an asslick.

Re:haven't seen that

[kikta]

And Sheehan isn't pushing the line on traitor-ism when she makes friends and assists the leader of another country who is obviously hell-bent against us?

While I have no doubt that she is very sad about her son, I think it is fucking despicable to use his death to push her political agenda.

She's a liar and the worst kind of self-centered.

Re:haven't seen that

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Read again - that's the right to redress CONGRESS, not the president.

When did government become Congress only? Do the other two branches have no need to answer to the population? Like I said before, this says one hell of a lot more about the President than it does about the Protestors.

Re:haven't seen that

[Talinom]

CNN has a story [cnn.com] that states a Republican was also removed from the proceedings for wearing a "Support the Troops" t-shirt.

Equal treatment. Each shirt was considered, at the time, to be a political demonstration; and there are rules against any demonstrating within the House.

Sheehan was first asked to remove the t-shirt. She refused to comply with the code of conduct. She was then removed and arrested for failure to comply with the law.

The details are vague on Young. I do not know if she was first a

Re:haven't seen that

[gmhowell]

Bzzt. Head of Capitol Police was on the local news this morning. He slipped up and admitted to different treatment. They walked up and arrested Sheehan. They went to the Congressman's wife, 'explained the situation' and she was given the chance to leave voluntarily.

Re:haven't seen that

[Xaoswolf]

Sheehan is crazy, I've got no problem with getting her out quickly before she can cause a scene.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Good

[gmhowell]

Just proves that your behavior affects the outcome of your social interactions.

Dealing with the police is a 'social interaction'? Boy, glad to see the law applied equally to everyone. The flexability of conservative values always amazes me.

Re:Good

[eglamkowski]

Police get a phone call that a gun fight is in progress. When they arrive they identify two people with guns. Person A is well known to the police, having a history of violence and even a few arrests. Person B is known the police as a upstanding pillar of the community.

If you believe the police are going to react in the same way towards both people, you're out of your mind. Past behavior absolutely influences how police will deal with you. This is not a matter of "equal treatment", it's a matter of pol

Re:Good

[gmhowell]

If you believe the police are going to react in the same way towards both people, you're out of your mind. Past behavior absolutely influences how police will deal with you. This is not a matter of "equal treatment", it's a matter of police safety and just plain common sense.

Gimme a break. What, were they afraid she would again sit quietly like she did in Crawford last summer?

Ok, Sheehan hasn't actually caused physical harm to anybody, but she still has a reputation that should make the police react unfavor

Re:Good

[elmegil]

As if they'd know.

And how could anyone NOT know what Sheehan's political stripe was?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Good

[elmegil]

I haven't seen anyone here claiming that she makes sense. Nice straw argument though.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The host didn't want anything disruptive at the pa

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The host didn't want anything disruptive at the party.

That says WAY more about the host than about the idiots who choose to be disruptive at the party anyway. It's the same argument as the anti-privacy argument: if you haven't got anything to hide, you've got nothing to fear from wiretapping. Likwise, a politician who has nothing to hide has no need to restrict free speech in this fashion.

I've read some of the arguments above...

[Allen Zadr]

I see this as a free speach issue because of the arrest, not because of the removal.

Had she merely been kicked out, and sent out the door, she'd have had an interview on ... probably just after the 'Ginny Gov'nor's odd eyebrow finally was put to bed. By holding her in custody... they were able to prevent both. Getting all apologetic is a whole bunch of bullshit.

In the end, she gets her say - and far more attention than she would have gotten had they just let her wear the damned shirt. So, for that