Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[rogue yam]

They threw the wife of a senator out too.

Two points: (1) This lady's husband is a Representative, not a Senator. (2) Her's was a conservative message, so her removal demonstrates that the "no protest" policy was applied in a non-partisan manner. Now, back to the show.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Finally, the idea of there being absolutely no rules and thus "free speech", as the most childish here put it, is clearly a non-starter. Is there any legislature anywhere on Earth that conducts its business in the face of a braying, spewing mob of deranged leftists? Of course not.

If you can't have free speech in the government's main home, then the entire concept of free speech is out the window. It's a T-shirt. You must be a real weenie if you are afraid of a shirt. You big girl's blouse.

spewing mob of deranged leftists?

Ah, I see the real reason you're afraid. You want to ban the content, not the medium.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Two points: (1) This lady's husband is a Representative, not a Senator. (2) Her's was a conservative message, so her removal demonstrates that the "no protest" policy was applied in a non-partisan manner. Now, back to the show.

Yes, I would agree that it was applied equally. I think her free speech rights were violated as well. I see nothing wrong with wearing a shirt that says "Support the Troops." I'm not afraid of a shirt like you are.

 

[rogue yam]

I'm not afraid of a shirt like you are.

You know that I am not afraid of a shirt. You know that I simply do not want to see my government disrupted by a mob. You do want to see the U.S. government disrupted by mobs, and are just loathe to admit it.

 

[The Old Sarge]

It's not a question of fear. It's about having rules and following them. ... or changing them.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You know that I am not afraid of a shirt. You know that I simply do not want to see my government disrupted by a mob. You do want to see the U.S. government disrupted by mobs, and are just loathe to admit it.

No one was disrupting. They were both just wearing T-shirts and sitting in their chairs. In a free country that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It's not a question of fear. It's about having rules and following them. ... or changing them.

Dress codes do not trump the constitution.

 

[chilango]

Dress codes do not trump the constitution.

Quite.

For a country willing to kill thousands in the name of "freedom" abroad, they don`t seem to respect it at home too much.

The USA cannot project its image as the heart of the Free World and then supress the right to dissent because of a "dress codes" and the like.

 

[rogue yam]

Dress codes do not trump the constitution.

Neither do they violate it.

 

[lostexpectation]

and

I see Laura Bush was wearing a muslim woman and a black man.

 

[rogue yam]

Quite.

For a country willing to kill thousands in the name of "freedom" abroad, they don`t seem to respect it at home too much.

The USA cannot project its image as the heart of the Free World and then supress the right to dissent because of a "dress codes" and the like.

So what do you think of the substantive replies to your arguments already posted to this thread?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Neither do they violate it.

The Supreme Court has often said otherwise.

There is case some years ago (Cohen v. California, 1971) where a guy was arrested for wearing a shirt that said "Fuck the Draft." It went all the way to the Supreme Court. They determined that he did have the right to say "Fuck the Draft" via the medium of his shirt.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html

It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be

Reversed.

 

[chilango]

So what do you think of the substantive replies to your arguments already posted to this thread?

Remind me what they were...I didn`t see any.

But i`ll quote you the Bill of Rights if you like:

Amendment I

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.

My emphasis added.

 

[rogue yam]

There is case some years ago where a guy was arrested for wearing a shirt that said...

Where was he wearing it? In the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Where was he wearing it? In the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address?

You don't leave your rights at the House door.

 

[rogue yam]

Remind me what they were...I didn`t see any.

But i`ll quote you the Bill of Rights if you like:

If you say something substantive, I might respond. Otherwise you will be ignored.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

If you say something substantive, I might respond. Otherwise you will be ignored.

I didn't realize that the Bill of Rights was unsubstantive.

 

[chilango]

Where was he wearing it? In the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address?

Hang On....is the constitution suspended in the House Chamber then? Has it seceded from the USA?

C`mon....do you not support the Constitution?
...are you, dare i say it, unpatriotic?

are you anti-american?

TRAITOR!

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

He ought to go live in Russia where he belongs. Love it or leave it.

 

[rogue yam]

You don't leave your rights at the House door.

The case you cited in your revised post above concerns the use of the word "fuck", not the constitutionality of the House rules as you previously claimed. Now you simply reassert your claim. When are you going to admit that your posts to this thread are devoid of substance?

 

[chilango]

He ought to go live in Russia where he belongs. Love it or leave it.

Yeah.

They hate our freedoms....

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

The case you cited in your revised post above concerns the use of the word "fuck", not the constitutionality of the House rules as you previously claimed. Now you simply reassert your claim. When are you going to admit that your posts to this thread are devoid of substance?

Are you thick or what? I said that it dealt with the use of words on clothing and the constitutionality thereof.

 

[rogue yam]

I didn't realize that the Bill of Rights was unsubstantive.

You know as well as I do that merely quoting the First Amendment, without addressing its particular application to the present case, is completely unsubstantial. When are you going to stop this charade and admit failure?

 

[rogue yam]

Are you thick or what? I said that it dealt with the use of words on clothing and the constitutionality thereof.

You are being obtuse. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing her shirt in the House chamber. Had she been wearing the same shirt out on the sidewalk there would have been no arrest and you know it. Thus your present claim to be discussing the use of words, rather than the use of words in a certain location is patent falsehood and nonsense. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You are being obtuse. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing her shirt in the House chamber. Had she been wearing the same shirt out on the sidewalk there would have been no arrest and you know it. Thus your present claim to be discussing the use of words, rather than the use of words in a certain location is patent falsehood and nonsense. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?

Yes or no, do you leave your rights at the house door?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Its a simple question, boy. Yes or no?

 

[rogue yam]

Yes or no, do you leave your rights at the house door?

In my estimation, no one has a Constitutional right to wear a shirt with a message on it in the House chambers. That is, I do not think that House Policy, as enforced against Cindy Sheehan and that other woman last night, is unconstitutional. Further, I think that the House Policy is good and sensible, for the reasons I've stated above and to which no one on this thread has substantively replied. Finally, I think that this is obviously true to all (the reasonableness of the policy, that is) and that the time has come for you to stuff a sock in it, YW.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

In my estimation, no one has a Constitutional right to wear a shirt with a message on it in the House chambers. That is, I do not think that House Policy, as enforced against Cindy Sheehan and that other woman last night, is unconstitutional. Further, I think that the House Policy is good and sensible, for the reasons I've stated above and to which no one on this thread has substantively replied. Finally, I think that this is obviously true to all (the reasonableness of the policy, that is) and that the time has come for you to stuff a sock in it, YW.

Then, you have just admitted that you don't live in a free country. And moreover, you don't want to.

The government has no rational interest in regulating print on shirts-- on the street or in the House. You have just confirmed what has been said of conservatives for years-- they don't really value free speech. You certainly don't when you say "stuff a sock in it."

(You're just mad 'cuz you're losin', boy)

 

[rogue yam]

Then, you have just admitted that you don't live in a free country. And moreover, you don't want to.

The government has no rational interest in regulating print on shirts-- on the street or in the House. You have just confirmed what has been said of conservatives for years-- they don't really value free speech.

Hysteria.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Hysteria.

Mysogeny.