Recommended Posts
Quote
Where freedom of speech really has value is where it protects speech which is very unpopular, either in its content or its means of expression.
Ding Ding! We have a winna!!
"The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech." - Justice Anthony Kennedy
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Oh, and as far as the conflicting reports...well you can just keep on waitin'. I bet ya $10 that the politics of your source play heavily on how they report on the incident(s). At the moment, CNN is just pointing out the conflicting stories(@ least that's what i saw on HN 10min ago), they haven't fallen on one side of the fence or the other - yet.
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
QuoteQuote
Where freedom of speech really has value is where it protects speech which is very unpopular, either in its content or its means of expression.
Ding Ding! We have a winna!!
"The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech." - Justice Anthony Kennedy
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Oh, and as far as the conflicting reports...well you can just keep on waitin'. I bet ya $10 that the politics of your source play heavily on how they report on the incident(s). At the moment, CNN is just pointing out the conflicting stories(@ least that's what i saw on HN 10min ago), they haven't fallen on one side of the fence or the other - yet.
______________________________________
I've got a question... Should something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'? Does the word 'respect' mean anything, when the President (like him or not) is speaking? I don't believe, that the First amendment says that one may say anything he/she wants to, when and where he/she wants to and dis-regard the rights of others who want to hear and listen to the President. Respect, is a two-way street.
Chuck
Andy9o8 0
Quote
QuoteShould they have been ejected/charged, or were their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech violated?
No violation of the 1st Amendment. Sheehan is still free to express her political views. However, she will likely be arrested or even shot if she hops the fence which surrounds the White House to “deliver a message about the war in Iraq” through the oval office windowpanes. The government has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the operations of the Executive Branch, and Sheehan has plenty of other channels through which to disseminate her political communications.
(a) Beyond the scope of the question.
(b) Bad analogy.
Sheehan didn't hop the WH fence, she wore a t-shirt with a message on it, as she was about to sit in a seat to which she had a ticket given to her by a member of Congress. That in no way threatened the operations of the Executive Branch - except to the extent that all political dissent is viewed by a government as a threat to it.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteI've got a question... Should something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'?
As I said above, No. But this is where you have to look at this particular case and not let yourself get sucked into "the analogy game". If Sheehan (or for that matter Mrs Young) had simply sat there wearing that particular shirt and otherwise behaved herself, I personally don't think that would have disrupted the President's speech one iota.
QuoteQuoteI've got a question... Should something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'?
As I said above, No. But this is where you have to look at this particular case and not let yourself get sucked into "the analogy game". If Sheehan (or for that matter Mrs Young) had simply sat there wearing that particular shirt and otherwise behaved herself, I personally don't think that would have disrupted the President's speech one iota.
____________________________________
O.K. Isn't there something about 'atire' to such functions? Both women were ejected for their 'atire'.
So far, we do not seem to have all the facts in regard to this matter. We do know that one woman had hand-cuffs put on her while the other woman did not. Yet, we do not know the actions, words used, demeanor and etc. of either woman.
edit to ad: The point of the article was 'message T-shirts.
Chuck
Quote(a) Beyond the scope of the question.
Question: “were their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech violated?”
Answer: “No violation of the 1st Amendment.”
Absolutely it was within the scope of the question. See below.
Quote(b) Bad analogy. Sheehan didn't hop the WH fence, she wore a t-shirt with a message on it, as she was about to sit in a seat to which she had a ticket given to her by a member of Congress. That in no way threatened the operations of the Executive Branch - except to the extent that all political dissent is viewed by a government as a threat to it.
Sheehan violated a House rule. Accordingly, she exceeded the scope of the license granted by her invitation. Sheehan refused a legitimate request to comply with the rule. Her continued unauthorized presence in the gallery threatened to disrupt the President’s duty to inform Congress just as her unauthorized presence on White House grounds would have threatened to disrupt Executive operations there. Sheehan was and is free to communicate her political views, so there was no violation of the 1st Amendment by removing Sheehan from the gallery and arresting her.
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
Amazon 7
Just in
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Mull it over
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Mull it over
Andy9o8 0
We'll have to disagree on this. By all means, stand by your post; but I stand by mine.
QuoteShould something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'?
Wasn't she thrown out before the proceedings started? If so then the only thing that was disruptive was the guy throwing her out?
------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......
Andy9o8 0
Slight hijacking of my own thread:
I'm almost hesitant to discuss the subject of "heckling", because last night wasn't an example of heckling. But let's talk about heckling for a minute. I'm generally against heckling someone making a speech, or speaking up at a town meeting, etc., to the point where they are prevented from finishing their remarks, because that violates the speaker's own freedom of speech. And yet heckling those in power, and especially the tolerance of it, may be seen as an indicator of a democracy that is so healthy and robust that it need not fear open and vigorous dissent, even in the form of some heckling. It's a proud tradition in some countries. Look at some of the raucous heckling that sometimes goes on in the UK's House of Commons - far more so than you would ever witness in the US House of Representatives or most US state legislatures while one of the members had the floor. And I've seen news clips of incredible heckling going on by members in the Israeli Knesset while someone else has the floor speaking, often the Prime Minister. It apparently takes quite some doing before the heckling member is escorted out for being disruptive. And the governments have no fear of it; they don't feel threatened by it. Now that's a hallmark of a true democracy.
Do I think heckling the President during a speech should be allowed to go on for as long as the heckler wishes? No, but there are times when this happens (with any president) when I think it wouldn't kill them to let the heckler get out a couple sentences of free expression, and then gently escort him out (thereby demonstrating to the world, "this is how it's supposed to be done"), instead of pouncing on him on his first words, and then, as often as not, charging him with a misdemeanor. To me, that comes uncomfortably close to criminalizing expression of open political dissent.
I'm almost hesitant to discuss the subject of "heckling", because last night wasn't an example of heckling. But let's talk about heckling for a minute. I'm generally against heckling someone making a speech, or speaking up at a town meeting, etc., to the point where they are prevented from finishing their remarks, because that violates the speaker's own freedom of speech. And yet heckling those in power, and especially the tolerance of it, may be seen as an indicator of a democracy that is so healthy and robust that it need not fear open and vigorous dissent, even in the form of some heckling. It's a proud tradition in some countries. Look at some of the raucous heckling that sometimes goes on in the UK's House of Commons - far more so than you would ever witness in the US House of Representatives or most US state legislatures while one of the members had the floor. And I've seen news clips of incredible heckling going on by members in the Israeli Knesset while someone else has the floor speaking, often the Prime Minister. It apparently takes quite some doing before the heckling member is escorted out for being disruptive. And the governments have no fear of it; they don't feel threatened by it. Now that's a hallmark of a true democracy.
Do I think heckling the President during a speech should be allowed to go on for as long as the heckler wishes? No, but there are times when this happens (with any president) when I think it wouldn't kill them to let the heckler get out a couple sentences of free expression, and then gently escort him out (thereby demonstrating to the world, "this is how it's supposed to be done"), instead of pouncing on him on his first words, and then, as often as not, charging him with a misdemeanor. To me, that comes uncomfortably close to criminalizing expression of open political dissent.
QuoteJust in
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Mull it over
Well then. That would be something completely different.
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
QuoteQuoteShould something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'?
Wasn't she thrown out before the proceedings started? If so then the only thing that was disruptive was the guy throwing her out?
_________________________________
The guy throwing her out, was doing his job.
Chuck
QuoteThe guy throwing her out, was doing his job.
Now it's sounding as if that guy was doing _more_ than just his job
Which could take this matter outside of the 1st Amendment ...
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
JohnRich 4
QuoteI think it wouldn't kill them to let the heckler get out a couple sentences of free expression, and then gently escort him out...
Negative. Once you start that procedure, it will be abused. You could have potentially hundreds of hecklers, each wanting their own two minutes of fame. And then nothing would get done.
The hecklers can say anything they want on their own time. But inside Congress, it's strictly government business under Robert's Rules of Order for debate.
QuoteI've got a question... Should something disruptive, during the President's State of the Union speech be allowed and covered under 'The First Amendment'? Does the word 'respect' mean anything, when the President (like him or not) is speaking? I don't believe, that the First amendment says that one may say anything he/she wants to, when and where he/she wants to and dis-regard the rights of others who want to hear and listen to the President. Respect, is a two-way street.
valid question. problem is, you
1 - assume a t-shirt is disruptive
2 - assume an opposing argument is disruptive
in your first sentence.
imho, wearing a t-shirt isn't disruptive. but i can see the attire argument, on it's face, holding water. of course, if that was the case, i would assume the offender(s) in question would be stopped before ever entering the "main" area(wherever that may be, depending on the event).
respect, of course, should be provided to *any* speaker, especially a speaker holding an elected office. but, honestly, are we just to assume that had ms. sheehan stayed, she would have been *automatically* disrepsectful to mr bush? because it seems, on it's face, that this was the assumption of the capitol police when they removed her: get her out now, before she is able to make a scene. the assumption is that the t-shirt is the tip of iceberg (perhaps she has a sign hidden, maybe an egg to throw, or maybe she'll stand up and yell), rather than assuming that the t-shirt is just her way of publicizing 'the cause'.
i'm all for maintaining the dignity of the office, the value of the speech, and the significance of the event. hell, i'm even for providing respect to a man i deeply disagree with. my main problem is that without any real 'evidence' of disruption or disrespect both women were removed. they were removed because it was the easiest, fastest method to make sure nothing worse happened. i think, in all reality, in probably came down to the capitol police thinking, "if i remove her now, i risk violating her rights. if i dont remove her now, i risk her making scene and me losing my job"
here's a question (for those of you that watched the televised event): in your opinion, what would be more disruptive - having a speaker, such as mr bush, speak about a controversial issue (pick one) and then be applauded energetically by his followers, while the opposing party sits stone faced, silent, not even rising out of the chair (keep in mind you're watching this on TV and it's rather easy to tell the different groups apart) OR having 2 women sit silently in the crowd, each wearing a controversial t-shirt. to me, watching the dems sit silent, scowling, still in their chairs, while the repubs are applauding and providing standing ovations was far more disruptive than either woman.
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
unformed 0
There's a time and a place to confont the president. It is not right in the middle of one of his speeches. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to interrupt.
When the president, or anyone else, is speaking, it's your time to shut your trap and listen.
When the president, or anyone else, is speaking, it's your time to shut your trap and listen.
This ad space for sale.
quade 3
QuoteThere's a time and a place to confont the president. It is not right in the middle of one of his speeches. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to interrupt.
When the president, or anyone else, is speaking, it's your time to shut your trap and listen.
I'll give you that, however, they where removed -before- any either could have possibly interrupted anyone so how is it possible for anyone to say how they would have behaved during the speech itself?
I dunno about you, but I don't have a crystal ball that works that well.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
There are set 'rules' for the atire an attendee wears to such an event. She was wearing a coat (it is winter up there) and when she entered, her coat was not open in a manner to see what she was wearing underneath it. She knew, she would get 'bounced' for wearing that shirt. Once inside, she opened her coat and thus the shirt in question was there for the world to see. She got what she wanted... more attention. Besides, all charges have been dropped.
Chuck
Chuck
QuoteQuoteThere's a time and a place to confont the president. It is not right in the middle of one of his speeches. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to interrupt.
When the president, or anyone else, is speaking, it's your time to shut your trap and listen.
I'll give you that, however, they where removed -before- any either could have possibly interrupted anyone so how is it possible for anyone to say how they would have behaved during the speech itself?
I dunno about you, but I don't have a crystal ball that works that well.
I thought you always touted your FutureCam.
Quote
QuoteThe guy throwing her out, was doing his job.
Now it's sounding as if that guy was doing _more_ than just his job
Which could take this matter outside of the 1st Amendment ...
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
__________________________________
If, the guy was doing more than just his job... he should be dealt with.
Chuck
quade 3
Quote
I thought you always touted your FutureCam.
Touche' (sort of)
The FutureCam™ is a tricky piece of technology. If you ever read the story (which I don't think is actually online anymore) then you'd know that even though it's possible to see into the future with it, it's impossible to know exactly if the events revealed by it will actually come to fruition since other action might take place between the time you look into the FutureCam™ and the events actually take place.
In any case, since I keep the FutureCam™ locked up these days (highly secured bunker; miles underground), I'm -almost- certain the Capitol Police didn't have access to it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rehmwa 2
QuoteYou are conjuring up these presumed "facts" out of thin air, or out of your wishful thinking. There is absolutely nothing in any of the reported stories to even remotely suggest that Cindy Sheehan, once ejected, did anything else but submit to arrest peaceably.
First off, I was guessing why there's different treatments (giving the security staff the benefit of the doubt). I NEVER claimed facts and stated so several times. Get off your high horse.
I also stated I'd like to know more of the real facts. You seem to be doing enough guessing for all of us.
Why do you assume the worst of the capitol security staff? Got an agenda worth putting words in my mouth? I don't know them, but we all know the Cindy is a drama queen on political issues. So I'll lean on what I know so far UNTIL THE WHOLE STORY IS RELATED.
Edit: I deeply apologize for not following lock step in your little comfort zone of political outrage. I will atone by screaming shrilly at anyone who ever decides to play devil's advocate on any issue. Hope that helps
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
No violation of the 1st Amendment. Sheehan is still free to express her political views. However, she will likely be arrested or even shot if she hops the fence which surrounds the White House to “deliver a message about the war in Iraq” through the oval office windowpanes. The government has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the operations of the Executive Branch, and Sheehan has plenty of other channels through which to disseminate her political communications.
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites