Cindy Sheehan arrested for wearing an anti-war shirt and other "unlawful" conduct.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_...w_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Police Remove Sheehan From Bush Speech
Cindy Sheehan finally got her invitation to see President Bush again, but before she set eyes on him at the State of the Union address, Capitol Police removed her from the gallery overlooking the House chamber.

The offense: her shirt, bearing an anti-war message and other "unlawful conduct," police said.

Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was a misdemeanor and Sheehan was being released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to Tuesday night's speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.



I don't know what the other "unlawful" condut was but:
Does anyone else see the irony in not allowing someone the freedom to express their views in a non violent way during a State of the Union address whose primary focus was on spreading freedom?


--------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sheehan Thread - Please use it

Mod

 

[RichardE]

So if someone started yelling "Bush you hate black people" at the SOTU speech, that would be ok as well? Rules are put in place for a reason, she broke the rules. She was warned before the speech, and disobeyed the warnings.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RichardE
So if someone started yelling "Bush you hate black people" at the SOTU speech, that would be ok as well? Rules are put in place for a reason, she broke the rules. She was warned before the speech, and disobeyed the warnings.

yelling is disrupting, a t shirt is not disrupting

for someone to wear a t shirt stating "bush you hate black people" at the sotu speech, that should be perfectly fine

 

[Genx87]

Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

 

[Aimster]

What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aimster
What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

You can send them home, to change. Either way, they are leaving the premises.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

You can send them home, to change. Either way, they are leaving the premises.

Ok well was Cindy told to leave?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RichardE
So if someone started yelling "Bush you hate black people" at the SOTU speech, that would be ok as well? Rules are put in place for a reason, she broke the rules. She was warned before the speech, and disobeyed the warnings.

yelling is disrupting, a t shirt is not disrupting

for someone to wear a t shirt stating "bush you hate black people" at the sotu speech, that should be perfectly fine

No, it wouldn't. As I said, she was told the rules and expected conduct of having a guest pass to this event, if she wanted to demonstrate/protest the event, she can do it outside of the building. Instead she pressed her luck by breaking the rules she was told would apply to this event.

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

You can send them home, to change. Either way, they are leaving the premises.

Ok well was Cindy told to leave?

Umm...Yeah? They need to ask her to leave before they have the authority to physically remove her.

 

[Aimster]

well if she refused to leave

1) Why are they not charging her with resisting arrest
2) Trespassing

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

How did she disrupt anything??

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Aimster
well if she refused to leave

1) Why are they not charging her with resisting arrest
2) Trespassing

Not worth the effort. Same reason some shoplifters are let go with a warning, speeders as well ect.

Not only that but how was she resisting arrest? I am pretty sure if she resisted the cameras would have been all over that, and it hard to tresspass when you have a pass saying you are allowed there.

She was peacefull, and respectfull, but still broke the rules given to her. As I said a few posts up, Freedom of speech is not absolute.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

You can send them home, to change. Either way, they are leaving the premises.

Ok well was Cindy told to leave?

a shool child is a minor. Sheehan is an adult who is old enough to fully comprehend rules.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Genx87
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

How did she disrupt anything??

She was given a set or rules to abide by at this activity. One she refused to listen too, or comply with. That is disruptive.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Genx87
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

How did she disrupt anything??

She was given a set or rules to abide by at this activity. One she refused to listen too, or comply with. That is disruptive.

No it isn't.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Genx87
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

How did she disrupt anything??

She was given a set or rules to abide by at this activity. One she refused to listen too, or comply with. That is disruptive.

No it isn't.

Yeah, it is. But of course I will not ask you to see reason when it involves the voice of all that is anti-Bush ms Cindy. I mean, I am as anti-bush as they come, but I won't embrace whackos to try and push my message across. If she truly wanted to listen to the speech, she would have sat and listened, as it was, she came to make a disruption/point (depending what side you are on I suppose) and was removed for violating the rules she was given. But yes, she was disruptive, and was removed for it.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Aimster
What law did she break?

so

If a kid wears a shirt to school and the principal says they have to take it off and they refuse

I guess you can now arrest that kid

You can send them home, to change. Either way, they are leaving the premises.

Tinker v. Des Moines

 

[moshquerade]

she wanted to get arrested. can you not see that?

 

[jrenz]

She was wearing a T-Shirt bearing an anti-war message, and had a banner which she either tried to hang over the balcony, or was planning to (have heard differently). When asked not to, she started making a ruckus, arguing with security, and causing a scene. When asked to leave, she refused. She was then taken away in handcuffs to prevent disruption of the speech.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to interfere in a disruptive manner.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

At what time during this ordeal was any part of that right infringed upon?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Genx87
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to disrupt.

btw I am looking forward to her running against Feinstein

Amazing how when she starts attacking democrats the press stops listening.
Funny how that is isnt it?

How did she disrupt anything??

She was given a set or rules to abide by at this activity. One she refused to listen too, or comply with. That is disruptive.

No it isn't.

Yeah, it is. But of course I will not ask you to see reason when it involves the voice of all that is anti-Bush ms Cindy. I mean, I am as anti-bush as they come, but I won't embrace whackos to try and push my message across. If she truly wanted to listen to the speech, she would have sat and listened, as it was, she came to make a disruption/point (depending what side you are on I suppose) and was removed for violating the rules she was given. But yes, she was disruptive, and was removed for it.

Breaking a rule is not in and of it self disruptive. Here goal was to try and get other people to create a disruption but that doesn't matter. The arrest was most likely illegal.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
she wanted to get arrested. can you not see that?

She didn't look very happy coming out of the police station later that night.

IMO, she was just trying the standard "make a big ruckus in a very public setting" to get attention. Fortunately, authorities were able to see that and prevent it before she could disrupt anything.

 

[Al Neri]

just another bunch of people drinking the anti-bush koolaid.

what she did was wrong

appropriate actions were taken

she did it just to get the attention

/thread

 

[Al Neri]

Does anyone else see the irony in not allowing someone the freedom to express their views in a non violent way during a State of the Union address whose primary focus was on spreading freedom?[/quote]

Violence is not the only illegal way to protest something.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: moshquerade
she wanted to get arrested. can you not see that?

She didn't look very happy coming out of the police station later that night.

IMO, she was just trying the standard "make a big ruckus in a very public setting" to get attention. Fortunately, authorities were able to see that and prevent it before she could disrupt anything.

she was probably unhappy that her plan failed. she wanted to make a scene and then get arrested. only half of her plan flew.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: moshquerade
she wanted to get arrested. can you not see that?

She didn't look very happy coming out of the police station later that night.

IMO, she was just trying the standard "make a big ruckus in a very public setting" to get attention. Fortunately, authorities were able to see that and prevent it before she could disrupt anything.

There is no such thing as conspirice to create to disrupt and there for it is illegal to prevent people from disrupting an event. Besides there is no evicidence she planned to disrupt anything.