a political sidenote
ok, so i really try not to make this an overly political blog. there are lots of other blogs out there (americablog.com, for instance) that do a much better job than i ever could.
but when i hear something like this on the radio, i just have to say something. i can put up with a lot of george w.'s idiocy, trying to ignore the way he's turning our government more and more like communist russia each day. then something like this happens:
apparently, that strange, blonde shit-starter cindy sheehan was protesting outside bush's state of the union address last night. stephanie called me to ask me to tape it for her, but i informed her that i wouldn't be watching because i get too mad. i literally have to turn off the tv if i hear him talking. i'll hear about it the next day on NPR or online; i'll get informed. i just can't stand to watch him. anyway, cindy sheehan was protesting outside the state of the union address, wearing a shirt with an anti-war slogan even though she was warned that it wouldn't be allowed.
um, FUCKING EXCUSE ME? wearing an anti-war shirt wouldn't be allowed????
she was arrested, charged with a misdemeanor, and released. how dare the government charge someone with a misdemeanor for wearing a shirt. she wasn't wielding a gun, she hadn't strapped a bomb to her chest. she was voicing an anti-war opinion on a t-shirt.
these are the kinds of opinion-stifling antics that really fucking worry me. when the people who make the law start making it illegal to voice our opinions, we're in serious trouble. because that's a step away from the people who make the law making it illegal for us to vote them out of office. you call it far-fetched, but hitler and saddam had to start somewhere.
and, i'm sad to say, i'm more than certain that my name is on some government list somewhere, as are my friends' names. if the government can subpoena google for records of searches, you can't tell me that writing a gay, liberal column and blog won't get me in trouble with this new, fucked-up regime.
now back to curing pediatric asthma.
posted by Robert @ Wednesday, February 01, 2006
13 comments
13 Comments:
You are so right on about that. A peaceful war protest is our civil right. This administration is constantly trying to take those rights away. If yesterday was the mark of his first year being over, then we have 1094 days left. God, I pray we make it.
robert, you should have watched it. it was pretty hilarious--he sort of used gay marriage in the same thought as natural disasters (things that could damage our children) and expressed his anger towards human-animal hybrids. he really is able to touch on all of my pressing concerns. yes. human-animal hybrids. manimals, if you will.
Robert,
1) I am like you, I too have to shut off the TV when that SOB gets talking. Mostly not because of anger, but to protect my own IQ.
2) It is WRONG what they did to Ms. Sheehan.
3) I have lived under 2 different dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. Bush's stupidity, conservativism and warlike demeanor will never compare to that of Pinochet's and Galtieri's. Their authoritarian oppression came suddenly and breathing a negative word about the gov't was punishable by torchure or just putting you in a plane and throwing you into the ocean.... with wieghts. Those types of SUDDEN overnight dictorships are clearly bad, no black or white about it. But I find the most dangerous types of dictartorships are those that are likened onto putting a frog into a slowly increasing boiling pot of water. Those types of dictatorships feed of the complacency, stupidity, and naiveness of the people. They increase the tempurature (or the suppression of rights for the sake of symbolism) ever so slowly, that we just get acustomed (some of a many numerous of us at least) until we dont realize we are slowly boiling to death. I hope in the next presidential election we have sudden splash of some cool blue to cool this simmering pot.
ok, I am down from the soap box now.
Rico formerly of Greenbelt now Silver Spring.
Hey Robert!
Legally speaking, a person is allowed to wear a t-shirt in front of a federal court house saying "Fuck the Draft." There is no problem with that because the constitution does not consider that a fighting word.
However, Ms. Sheehan was charged not with protecting, but with protesting inside of Congress. The constitution considers this protest to enrage the reasonable man, thus allowing the federal system to regulate it. Even if this wasn't a constitutional "fighting words" issue, it still would pass strict scrutiny because the law has a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. This law was enacted to preserve the Presiden't constitutional duty to provide Congress with the state of the Union.
Do I agree with it, not necessarily. But if Kerry was in Power and some right wing Republican wanted to do the same thing, Id agree with the government. I think it's all about perspective. There is a time and place for everything. She would have been more effective if she just sat in the front row, didn't clap, and didn't stand up. Its a shame.
Dennis
very interesting...ok, so you know about law things. i have a question.
there was a similar case where a guy wore some shirt that was like, "fuck the draft" in the courthouse and was arrested. then the supreme court ruled that his arrest was unconstitutional. is that the same or different? because it's a courthouse?
Dennis,
The question is, is simply wearing a t-shirt stating an indisputably true fact a protest?
According to the accounts of the story on Americablog, she engaged in no behavioral protest, and it is concievable to me that such a shirt is normal everyday wear for Ms. Sheehan.
And if Kerry started a war and someone went to his SOTU wearing a shirt with the number of dead, would you really side with the government on his arrest? Which "enrages the reasonable man" more, a citizen wearing a t-shirt stating an indisputably true fact, or a politician who seeks to create a dissent and logic-free alternate reality?
?
Brian
In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol -- to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a "demonstration."
That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).
As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a 'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that regulation specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158"
Courtesy of Greenwald.blogspot.com
You can read Bynum here:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-1337c.pdf
Hi Robert - it's Missy. Totally agree that it's ridiculous, but it's also being reported that Rep. C.W. Bill Young's wife was removed from the address last night, too - only she was wearing a shirt that said "Support Our Troops". Granted, she wasn't arrested, which might bring up a totally different set of discussions - like why was Sheehan arrested and not Young? But, in any case, it sounds like they were enforcing it across the boards no matter what the message. I don't know that I necessarily agree that it's considered a protest, but I guess they chose their definition and went with it.
that's interesting, missy. but the argument still stands: why should anyone be removed for wearing a t-shirt, no matter what it said?
Robert, I addressed the "F the draft" issue above.
Brian Fountain. You are correct. The court would have a difficult job trying to interpret what in fact a "protest" really is. However, things would have been completely different if she was in the Capitol on a tour or within a small group of people weraing a simple t-shirt. I believe you must look at the circumstances underlying the "protest." While T-shirt wearing by itself is not constituted as protesting, I believe that wearing a t-shirt, sitting in the front row, in front of millions may just cross the line. I'm not trying to defend the govt., but I do feel that she may have crossed the line to something more than just wearing a t-shirt. I don't see this issue moving up in teh court system.
Thats just my opinion. Im but a measley little 2L who hasnt even completed first amendment rights in Con law.
One small note, the section of the U.S. code that is pertinent here uses the word "demonstrate" not "protest."
If only the Capitol police had chosen a definition of "demonstrate" that matched the one the District Court laid out expressly for them, which specifically stated that "merely wearing t-shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message" does not constitute "demonstration activity."
Also, as has been noted on Crooks and Liars, if simple T-shirts are now to be considered "demonstration", then what do you call all that excessive clapping and standing by Republicans?
Also, it is worth noting that unlike Bill Young's wife, Cindy Sheehan's shirt did not sport a message, only a simple and undisputed fact.
I think the larger question beyond the technicality of the t-shirt legality is:
Does the president have the right to try to get his message out unhindered?
Some people may say "yes, its just a few hours, let him make his SOTU, say what he has to say, and then we can all have our chance to dissect it after the fact."
I would agree to that if I thought there was a reasonable counterpoint to the president's tune, but unfortunately there isn't. And this president in particular is addicted to creating hyper-realities from which to broadcast his empty but grandiose messages. Trying to banish dissent from sight is understandable. Dissent is annoying. But trying to banish truth from sight, as this president routinely does, is remarkable. Remember the no photographs of the flag draped caskets, the President's disneyland speech from the one not-destroyed place in New Orleans, the brief attempt to actually use the national guard to prevent media from entering new orleans...
A) I can't count on the President to hold himself to the truth. Not only does he shamelessly mess with statistics to mislead but he has been caught more than once in outright lies. HUGE ONES. Ones that lead to war.
B) I can't count on the press to hold the president accountable for what he says. For some reason the media establishment is terrified to confront this administration on simple matters of acuracy. And all major news networks as well the NYTimes and the Washington Post have serious journalism ethics issues on their recent records. (Plame/J.Miller/B.Woodward)
C) At no time more than now, when all three branches of Government as well as the Fourth Estate are more or less controlled by the Republican Party, we have to rely on independent citizens and public discourse to provide the checks and balances that are crucial to our democracy.
For those reasons and others, I do NOT support the idea of arresting anyone for simply wearing a t-shirt to a speech. Unless the demonstration is actually literally impeding the presidents consitutional duty to report on the state of the union, i.e. shouting or causing chaos, I think it's not only fine, but necessary.
Okay robert quick post some revealing story about your ex or current boyfriends so we can get off this topic
i personally feel like he's making "uh-mur-ka" more like the killing fields or america in the early 1800s, but i'm not one to split hairs. also, did anyone not hear the part where he mentioned human-animal hybrids? i wouldn't have believed it if i had not heard it for myself.
Post a Comment
<< Home