Quake3World

Foo wrote:

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.

Et tu, Foo?

I'm no wordsmith, but I thought the metaphor was accurate. Meh...

I replied to your question. Everyone else has been name calling and putting words in my mouth. I lost hope for serious discourse a few posts ago.

l0g1c wrote:

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?

The simple act of wearing a t-shirt is in no way a disruptive act. Yelling slogans and interrupting someone making a speech is. You can very easily ignore a shirt, not so easy when someone's screaming over the top of you.

lots of facists round here...

theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Turns out the Senator's wife was also removed. However, she was not arrested.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/02 ... ogiz.shtml

Police Apologize to Cindy Sheehan

When Cindy Sheehan was arrested at the State of the Union address Tuesday night, there was some confusion about the charges, with some reports saying she had merely worn an antiwar T-shirt and others declaring she had intended to break Capitol rules by unfurling a sign. In case you're wondering which it was: She wore a T-shirt. And in case you're wondering whether there's a law against that: No, there isn't.

AP reports:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

The ejected wife was Beverly Young, spouse of Florida Republican Bill Young. She was expelled but not arrested for wearing a shirt that said "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."

MKJ wrote:theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

l0g1c wrote:

MKJ wrote:theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

How is an idea disruptive?

If you silence debate, ideas don't have to stand on their own merit.

l0g1c wrote:

MKJ wrote:theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, she did nothing illegal and she got arrested. Another woman committing the same act did not get arrested.

This obviously isn't any kind of conspiracy against her or anything , but just the fact that an officer in the Gallery thinks he can arrest someone for wearing a t-shirt is pretty damn sad.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

l0g1c wrote:

MKJ wrote:theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

How is an idea disruptive?

If you silence debate, ideas don't have to stand on their own merit.

I'm perfectly fine with her wearing her "Idea" on the Oprah Winfrey show, walking down the street, at a football game.

This wasn't a debate that she was attending. She was not asked for her opinion.

Do you know what a martyr is?

R00k wrote:

l0g1c wrote:

MKJ wrote:theres quite the difference between passive and active demonstration innit

Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, she did nothing illegal and she got arrested. Another woman committing the same act did not get arrested.

This obviously isn't any kind of conspiracy against her or anything , but just the fact that an officer in the Gallery thinks he can arrest someone for wearing a t-shirt is pretty damn sad.

Yes, I completely agree with you on principal. She could be removed and not arrested, or simply asked to put her jacket back on.

Freakaloin wrote:lots of facists round here...

"Fascists"

l0g1c wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

l0g1c wrote: Do you believe the state of the union address is the appropriate place for either?

They're both disruptive. Argue to me that the t-shirt was not disruptive. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary.

How is an idea disruptive?

If you silence debate, ideas don't have to stand on their own merit.

I'm perfectly fine with her wearing her "Idea" on the Oprah Winfrey show, walking down the street, at a football game.

This wasn't a debate that she was attending. She was not asked for her opinion.

Do you know what a martyr is?

Right. And protesters at rallies are fine, as long as they're behind big fences several blocks away.

Nightshade wrote: Right. And protesters at rallies are fine, as long as they're behind big fences several blocks away.

I don't see the relevance here. Are you trying to change the subject? It's okay big fella, I appreciate the effort anyways.

Of course you don't see the relevance. You also think that wearing a t-shirt is a protest.

Nightshade wrote:Of course you don't see the relevance. You also think that wearing a t-shirt is a protest.

I feel that a woman wore a t-shirt with an confrontational and inflammatory slogan on it.

I feel that she did this intentionally, knowing it would create a disturbance, make it into the press, and get her name in the paper and her face on TV.

I feel her motive is to garner support for her anti-war campaign driven by the loss of her son.

I do not fault her for her efforts, only her methods.

Crystal clear yet?

What damn disturbance would it have caused? Raised eyebrows? OOOO!!! NO!! I think she did it to get a message across too, maybe because oh, I don't know, HER SON GOT BLOWN AWAY IN IRAQ? Why the hell does someone that keeps after a cause suddenly have to be self-aggrandizing? Ever think she wants the US out of Iraq so other mothers don't have to bury their sons?
You're not making much sense here. If she's pushing a noble cause, then why are you characterizing her actions to gain publicity for her cause in a negative light?
Oh and guess what? Fucking politicians are the reasons why we have to deal with 99% of the shit we have to, so why not stick an "inflammatory slogan" where they can see it? If they don't like it, they don't have to look. That's the extent of that protest.

She wore to get arrested, obviously.

Once they finally figured that out they dropped the charges.

Tit for tat. It's a moron chess game.

She is only a pawn in game of life!

And the winnar is: ShatenJager.

Nightshade wrote:What damn disturbance would it have caused? Raised eyebrows? OOOO!!! NO!! I think she did it to get a message across too, maybe because oh, I don't know, HER SON GOT BLOWN AWAY IN IRAQ?

It caused a disturbance, maybe you read about it.

Nightshade wrote:Why the hell does someone that keeps after a cause suddenly have to be self-aggrandizing? Ever think she wants the US out of Iraq so other mothers don't have to bury their sons?

You know, it occurred to me.

Nightshade wrote: You're not making much sense here. If she's pushing a noble cause, then why are you characterizing her actions to gain publicity for her cause in a negative light?

Because she's going about it the wrong way. Simple as that.

Nightshade wrote:Oh and guess what? Fucking politicians are the reasons why we have to deal with 99% of the shit we have to, so why not stick an "inflammatory slogan" where they can see it? If they don't like it, they don't have to look. That's the extent of that protest.

If it can be deemed offensive, it should be removed. Not arrested for chrissakes, but removed. Nobody should have to look at the thing in the first place.

l0g1c wrote:If it can be deemed offensive, it should be removed. Not arrested for chrissakes, but removed. Nobody should have to look at the thing in the first place.

a mere factual statement on a shirt is not offensive to me, what do you think is so offensive about the text?

it's an annoyance at most and she was in a public place where it's legal to wear it. so how could she be removed let alone get arrested.

bikkeldesnikkel wrote:

l0g1c wrote:If it can be deemed offensive, it should be removed. Not arrested for chrissakes, but removed. Nobody should have to look at the thing in the first place.

a mere factual statement on a shirt is not offensive to me, what do you think is so offensive about the text?

it's an annoyance at most and she was in a public place where it's legal to wear it. so how could she be removed let alone get arrested.

I'm not American so perhaps the American congress chamber works differently.

(1) My impression is that you needed a special invitation to be there. It was not like a public park where anyone can drop in.

(2) There are actually dress rules for most congress or parliament chambers in the Western world. A representative example for the Australian congress chambers is

"Certain dress rules also apply to the galleries of both Chambers. "

For the US Congress there is an explicit rule that prohibits messages on clothing.

(3) According to the original article cited by Fender:

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.,

So, she went to an invitation only place where dress rules are enforced (the wife of a member of congress was also ejected from the chamber), she was asked to cover the t-shirt up with the jacket which she had worn into the chamber; she refused; she was removed from the chamber.

I don't think it was appropriate to arrest her, but removing her from the chamber seems reasonable especially since they were clearly enforcing the dress rules on other people too.

There is still disagreement over whether she was asked to cover it up or not, and that's a material point. Obviously there is no reason she should have been arrested - nothing illegal happened, so that is beyond argument.

So we have Sheehan saying she wasn't asked to cover it up - she could have a possible motive for claiming as much, in order to draw attention to the event.

On the other hand we have a police officer who says she was asked to cover it up - he could have a possible motive for claiming as much, in order to cover his own ass for not doing his job correctly.

At this point the argument is a complete matter of opinion - a statement about who you personally believe is more likely to lie. My personal opinion is that the cop is probably lying to cover his own ass, but that is only my opinion.

Without objective witnesses coming forward to testify about the way things happened, this issue isn't going to go anywhere but into rhetorical arguments over whose opinion is better.

This whole thing should just be dropped anyway, IMHO. She's got an apology from the police for being arrested, which is the best she is going to get. It's water under the bridge and it's completely unimportant, all things relative.

in agreement with the last 2 posts.

I'm still a little sore about being called a dickhead.

no apologies. you know the rules.