(no subject)
Feb. 1st, 2006 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockIn case you missed it, Cindy Sheehan was arrested during the SOTU last night for the crime of wearing a t-shirt that read "2245 Dead. How many more?". That's right, she was arrested for wearing a t-shirt. She didn't disrupt anything, didn't yell fire in a crowded theater, didn't unfurl a huge banner...she wore a t-shirt.
Glenn Greenwald waxes eloquent on the event:
This is nothing more than a naked attempt to stifle dissent and to create a criticism-free bubble around George Bush. Presidents routinely use all sorts of propagandistic imagery at the State of the Union to decorate their speeches with an aura of regal patriotism. We always see weeping widows and military heroes and symbolic guests of all sorts who are used as props and visuals to bolster the President's message both emotionally and psychologically. The State of the Union speech is hardly free of visual messages and propaganda of that sort; quite the contrary.
But we apparently now have a country where the only ideas allowed to be expressed in our Nation's Capitol while the President is speaking are ones which glorify the Government and its Leader and where dissenting views are prohibited and will subject someone to arrest. Message cleansing of that sort belongs at a political rally in North Korea, not in Washington, DC.
This is plainly unhealthy and disgustingly contrary to every defining core American value. Our leaders aren't entitled to reverence and worship and aren't supposed to want it. Criticism, dissent and divergence of opinion are things which the founders did everything possible to foster, and the idea that someone is dragged out of a speech by the President for silently and peacefully wearing an anti-war t-shirt is disgraceful and embarrassing.
And these attacks on dissent are particularly ironic given that they occurred in the midst of a speech by a President who loves to lecture the world on the virtues of liberty and who holds himself out as the Chief Crusader for freedom and democracy.
In fact, as Cindy Sheehan was being dragged out of the Royal Speech, His Majesty was regaling us with the importance of respecting civil debate, the virtues of diversity and freedom, and the need to protect minority views. It's as if there was some universal force that wanted to provide the most compelling demonstration possible of how disingenuous his speech was, and came up with the idea of having Cindy Sheehan dragged out of the hall for doing nothing other than wearing a t-shirt politely expressing criticism of Bush's war.
UPDATE: The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.
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" (emphasis added).
Nothing Sheehan did could even be remotely construed to constitute a "demonstration." She was sitting quietly in her seat wearing a t-shirt, an activity which is expressly excluded from the activities prohibited by this statute and, in any event, could not possibly be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. We don't have a system of government -- at least we didn't used to -- where someone can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that expresses criticism of the President.
Isn't that just the most basic political value that we have? What kind of Americans sit idly and passively by while they watch a fellow citizen arrested and removed from the Capitol during a political speech for doing nothing other than wearing an anti-war t-shirt?
UPDATE II: If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers (h/t Mahablog) where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader.
And just think, if the new Patriot Act goes through she could be thrown in jail on a felony charge for up to 5 years for wearing that t-shirt.
Edit: Police have dropped all charges and are issuing an apology, damn straight they'd better. Sure it's mostly spin control, but it's nice to see an obvious miscarriage of justice righted before it went any further.
On a lighter note, check out Homer J. Simpson's response to the SOTU.
Glenn Greenwald waxes eloquent on the event:
This is nothing more than a naked attempt to stifle dissent and to create a criticism-free bubble around George Bush. Presidents routinely use all sorts of propagandistic imagery at the State of the Union to decorate their speeches with an aura of regal patriotism. We always see weeping widows and military heroes and symbolic guests of all sorts who are used as props and visuals to bolster the President's message both emotionally and psychologically. The State of the Union speech is hardly free of visual messages and propaganda of that sort; quite the contrary.
But we apparently now have a country where the only ideas allowed to be expressed in our Nation's Capitol while the President is speaking are ones which glorify the Government and its Leader and where dissenting views are prohibited and will subject someone to arrest. Message cleansing of that sort belongs at a political rally in North Korea, not in Washington, DC.
This is plainly unhealthy and disgustingly contrary to every defining core American value. Our leaders aren't entitled to reverence and worship and aren't supposed to want it. Criticism, dissent and divergence of opinion are things which the founders did everything possible to foster, and the idea that someone is dragged out of a speech by the President for silently and peacefully wearing an anti-war t-shirt is disgraceful and embarrassing.
And these attacks on dissent are particularly ironic given that they occurred in the midst of a speech by a President who loves to lecture the world on the virtues of liberty and who holds himself out as the Chief Crusader for freedom and democracy.
In fact, as Cindy Sheehan was being dragged out of the Royal Speech, His Majesty was regaling us with the importance of respecting civil debate, the virtues of diversity and freedom, and the need to protect minority views. It's as if there was some universal force that wanted to provide the most compelling demonstration possible of how disingenuous his speech was, and came up with the idea of having Cindy Sheehan dragged out of the hall for doing nothing other than wearing a t-shirt politely expressing criticism of Bush's war.
UPDATE: The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.
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" (emphasis added).
Nothing Sheehan did could even be remotely construed to constitute a "demonstration." She was sitting quietly in her seat wearing a t-shirt, an activity which is expressly excluded from the activities prohibited by this statute and, in any event, could not possibly be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment. We don't have a system of government -- at least we didn't used to -- where someone can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that expresses criticism of the President.
Isn't that just the most basic political value that we have? What kind of Americans sit idly and passively by while they watch a fellow citizen arrested and removed from the Capitol during a political speech for doing nothing other than wearing an anti-war t-shirt?
UPDATE II: If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers (h/t Mahablog) where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader.
And just think, if the new Patriot Act goes through she could be thrown in jail on a felony charge for up to 5 years for wearing that t-shirt.
Edit: Police have dropped all charges and are issuing an apology, damn straight they'd better. Sure it's mostly spin control, but it's nice to see an obvious miscarriage of justice righted before it went any further.
On a lighter note, check out Homer J. Simpson's response to the SOTU.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The US has a dress code, who knew?!
Date: 2006-02-01 06:22 pm (UTC)Re: The US has a dress code, who knew?!
Date: 2006-02-01 06:35 pm (UTC)Because he isn't finished wiping his ass on it just yet.
Re: The US has a dress code, who knew?!
Date: 2006-02-01 06:47 pm (UTC)http://judywatt.livejournal.com/595111.html?mode=reply
Re: The US has a dress code, who knew?!
Date: 2006-02-01 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 08:28 pm (UTC)