Quake3World

I guess it's comes down to whether she was asked to cover up and refused.

Since that's the difference between the 2 cases
And the point of contention
And possibly difficult to determine

Popcorn @ the ready.

she was never asked to cover up...

lol...this was the only good thing about the sotu last night...

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/T ... 0.mov.html

seriously, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in the USA, Im suprised people still have the idea there is...

true...but at least its not as bas as the british morons got it...those ppl r retarded for putting up with that...

Foo wrote:I guess it's comes down to whether she was asked to cover up and refused.

Since that's the difference between the 2 cases
And the point of contention
And possibly difficult to determine

Popcorn @ the ready.

I don't think it matters a bit whether she was or not, her arrest made a far larger stink than would have occurred had she been left alone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Bush is a penisfart and Pearl Harbor sucked.

Foo wrote:I guess it's comes down to whether she was asked to cover up and refused.

Since that's the difference between the 2 cases
And the point of contention
And possibly difficult to determine

Popcorn @ the ready.

That's irrelvant. She was on public property and the 1st ammendment applies. Legally, they can't even ask her to take it off or leave unless she is purposely distrupting the proceedings.

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.

If she was hooting and hollering, then yes, she can be asked, or even forced to leave. If all she was doing was watching while wearing her t-shirt then this is a blatent violation of her constitutional rights. As Dave has already said, both sides have an agenda to push and we'll probably never really know the entire story.

Nightshade wrote:Why wasn't congressman cuntface's wife arrested?

Foo wrote:I guess it's comes down to whether she was asked to cover up and refused.

To clarify, this was the point to which I was responding.

I think you are still missing the point. They shouldn't be able to ask her and she has every right to refuse if they do without any sort of repercussion. There may be "House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries." but that would not stand up to any sort of legal scrutiny, at least not someone quietly wearing a t-shirt. An active demonstration would distrupt the proceedings and would of course not be allowed.

diego wrote:Billy and I e-mail each other from time to time. jellus..?

no pussy on that .gif?

What if she instead brought a sign with the same slogan on it and held it in front of her?

What if she kept repeating the slogan aloud during the proceedings?

Would this be tolerated? Of course not. Why is a t-shirt any different?

This isn't about free speech. It's about a grieving mother trying to get revenge using subversive methods and getting called on it. She wanted a confrontation because she knew that it would propel her into the spotlight. Shame on her and shame them for falling for it.

What a dickhead.

About 10 minutes ago the headline on MSNBC said something like "We were wrong" and said in big bold letters that the police admitted they were wrong to arrest her yesterday.

Now it just says that the charges are being dropped...not the glaring 'mistake' bit anymore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

Still can't believe the arrester her and not the lady wearing the support our troops shirt (well I can believe it...sadly). Oh well, somehow Bush and the Republicans will come out of this fucking thing smelling like roses to the drones...

R00k wrote:What a dickhead.

l0g1c wrote:What if she instead brought a sign with the same slogan on it and held it in front of her?

What if she kept repeating the slogan aloud during the proceedings?

Would this be tolerated? Of course not. Why is a t-shirt any different?

This isn't about free speech. It's about a grieving mother trying to get revenge using subversive methods and getting called on it. She wanted a confrontation because she knew that it would propel her into the spotlight. Shame on her and shame them for falling for it.

moron alert???...

l0g1c wrote:What if she instead brought a sign with the same slogan on it and held it in front of her?

What if she kept repeating the slogan aloud during the proceedings?

Would this be tolerated? Of course not. Why is a t-shirt any different?

This isn't about free speech. It's about a grieving mother trying to get revenge using subversive methods and getting called on it. She wanted a confrontation because she knew that it would propel her into the spotlight. Shame on her and shame them for falling for it.

Are you fucking kidding me? You people that say that this woman is just riding her son's death to a big payday, book deals, and movie/miniseries make me puke.
That idiocy aside, there's a HUGE difference between sitting quietly while wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan and loudly chanting same slogan over and over.

l0g1c wrote:

R00k wrote:What a dickhead.

You heard me. You're dismissing everything she's done as some kind of scam for revenge and money.

l0g1c. how ironic.

btw, should i be peeling the "support our troops" ribbon off of my 4000 lb SUV?

Spare me the altruistic bullshit. In case you didn't read the article, the shirt said "2,245 Dead. How many more?" Am I wrong as interpreting that as a confrontational slogan?

In short, no, I don't think it's about money or fame. I think she's pushing for awareness. I fully support her right to protest the war and speak her peace, but do it in the proper forum. You've got to be pretty naive if you think she put on the shirt that morning expecting everything to be 100% breezy.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:l0g1c. how ironic.

btw, should i be peeling the "support our troops" ribbon off of my 4000 lb SUV?

Why would you do that? Proper "logic" would dictate that you should ask "Should I not wear the 'support our troops' ribbon on my forehead when I'm invited to attend the presidential state of the union address?"

And back to the point at hand. Yes, our freedoms are being whittled down day by day and it's a travesty. No, this is not an example of it.

On a side note, I think it's interesting how many enemies I've made by stating the obvious.

You believe it to be obvious. I and by the looks of it many others would disagree with you.

Anyway back to the question you yourself raise - had there been someone in the room wearing a t-shirt bearing a pro-war shirt I don't think they would have been removed. Do you think they would have been removed? If not, how do you justify the different treatment dependant on the message being shared?

That's the issue - free speech isn't free speech if it's has to follow the status quo.

I've got to take off for tonight, but I'll make sure to rebut soon. :icon14:

It actually very unclear what really happened. Some facts:

(1) She is a very well known activist and has followed Bush around on his vacations and had road blocking protests to get an appointment with him

(2) According to ABC Nightline, she believes her son Casey was killed by the US government in a conspiracy

(3) An example of her activism from the Wikipedia

"September 26, 2005: Sheehan and several dozen other protesters are arrested outside the White House after refusing to move when asked three times to do so by police. Organizers of the protest indicated prior to the incident that some participants intended to get arrested."

and more

"October 24, 2005: During a media interview[175], Sheehan expresses plans to speak at the White House and then tie herself to the fence. She states that if she is arrested, she will return to the fence as soon as she gets out of jail."

and those were just a few months ago!

As an outsider, I think she is very gutsy and "walks her talk"

I also think its really really obvious that she fully intended to cause a stir at the speech.

Any comments?

Foo wrote:You believe it to be obvious. I and by the looks of it many others would disagree with you.

Anyway back to the question you yourself raise - had there been someone in the room wearing a t-shirt bearing a pro-war shirt I don't think they would have been removed. Do you think they would have been removed? If not, how do you justify the different treatment dependant on the message being shared?

That's the issue - free speech isn't free speech if it's has to follow the status quo.

Well, hax has made a better argument than I could've hoped to have done myself, but I'll still answer the question posed by Foo.

Yes, I would hope that if someone were wearing a pro-war t-shirt, they'd be thrown out on their ear, although I can't remember ever seeing a pro-war slogan. "Support our troops" could be interpreted either way, and that lady was asked to leave as well. Hypocrisy abounds in the Bush administration, but again, I don't think this is an example.

For the record, I abhor Bush and his ideals, but I don't let that get in the way of common fucking sense.

Plus, people with slogans on their t-shirts really piss me off. :icon32:

Nightshade wrote:That idiocy aside, there's a HUGE difference between sitting quietly while wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan and loudly chanting same slogan over and over.

Care to explain what the difference is? Is it comparable to a radio ad and a billboard ad? People take in information primarily through the eyes and the ears. Would it be okay for me to wear an "I fucked your mom" t-shirt? Free speech and all. Anything's fair game, right?

l0g1c wrote:

Nightshade wrote:there's a HUGE difference between sitting quietly while wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan and loudly chanting same slogan over and over.

Care to explain what the difference is? ... Free speech and all. Anything's fair game, right?

Wow.

At best you're being facetious and ruining any chance of serious discussion here. At worst you really believe the 2 things to be indistinguishable.