February 01, 2006

Wearing a T-Shirt is Unlawful Conduct

Cindy Sheehan was arrested for refusing to cover up a t-shirt which read: "2245 Dead. How many more?"

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

I'm not interested in whether what she did was inappropriate, rude, disprespectful, savvy, clever, patriotic, stupid, brilliant or ridiculous. I really don't care.

Since when is wearing a t-shirt with a political message, written in polite language, defined as "unlawful conduct?"

The administration is counting on negative opinion of Sheehan, and tsk-tsking over disprespecting the sanctity of the SOTU to outweigh the cowardice of the arrest, and the disrespect they have shown to the Constitution.

Maybe Cindy Sheehan is an asshole. However this is the greatest country in the world because we have the protected right to be just that in our political speech.

And with maneuvers like the arrest last night, it almost looks George Bush hates America because of our freedom.

Posted by binky at February 1, 2006 11:14 AM | TrackBack | Posted to The Ever Shrinking Constitution


Comments

In fairness, they did at least pretend to be evenhanded -- they apparently ejected a congresscritter's wife for wearing a "Support the Troops Defending our Freedom" shirt, too.

Posted by: jacflash at February 1, 2006 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

I propose a new slogan for us:

"Why Does George Bush Hate Our Freedom?"

Posted by: Armand at February 1, 2006 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

i only wish the congresswoman who'd invited sheehan made some political hay out of this, and asked why someone escorted by a congresswoman was found to run afoul of the SoTU dress code.

fine, bush wants to control expression at his campaign rallies, let him do it. but i don't think he should have the same right at the SoTU, which is a direct resonsibility attached to his office.

Posted by: Moon at February 1, 2006 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

re fairness, they didn't arrest and detain the congresscritter's wife. doesn't sound fair to me.

Posted by: Moon at February 1, 2006 01:29 PM | PERMALINK

I bet they would have arrested the congresscritter's wife if she'd insisted on it, and I bet Cindy insisted (or otherwise forced their hand). Wouldn't you, in Cindy's shoes? In fact, I am quite certain that Cindy planned to get arrested and/or bodily thrown out. Why else would she want to go in the first place?

Posted by: jacflash at February 1, 2006 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

And read the words of the congresscritter (a label I love, btw):

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

Young, an 18-term congressman, held up his wife's shirt during his remarks, speaking with anger and emotion about her treatment.

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said.

"And most members in this House know that, but because she had on a shirt, that someone didn't like, that said, 'Support Our Troops,' she was kicked out of this gallery while the president was speaking and encouraging Americans to support our troops. Shame. Shame."

Evidently asking annoying questions about bringing them home is not one of the many ways to show passion for the troops.

p.s. FWIW I don't think either one should have been evicted.

Posted by: binky at February 1, 2006 02:10 PM | PERMALINK

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said.

Uh - good to know that Young is ok with that. :)

Posted by: Armand at February 1, 2006 02:19 PM | PERMALINK

You have a dirty mind.

And I love you for it.

Posted by: binky at February 1, 2006 02:24 PM | PERMALINK

a propos, here's sheehan's column on the incident.

Posted by: Moon at February 3, 2006 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I've gotta go with Jacflash on this, it's pretty questionable that she just "happened" to wait until after she was in the gallery to unzip her jacket because she was hot. I don't have any trouble believing she's got these T-shirts in every color, but if you're going to the Capitol, do you really wear a T-Shirt? And if you want to change this rule, what about the rules in courtrooms where judges can throw out observers if they're not dressed up enough?
Honestly, I do wonder how the gifted posters on this blog may respond in the same fashion when the shoe's on the other foot. For instance, what if someone shows up during a Democrat's state of the union address with a t-shirt that says, "25 million dead...how many more?" with a picture of an aborted fetus on it? Is that beyond the pale?

Posted by: Morris at February 3, 2006 01:42 PM | PERMALINK

Did you even read my post?

Posted by: binky at February 4, 2006 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Binky,
Yes, actually, I did read your post. And I'm still a little confused as to whether you're going to be as comfortable with this "right to be an @sshole" when the @sshole's on the other foot, so to speak.

Posted by: Morris at February 4, 2006 05:51 PM | PERMALINK

Your choice.

Posted by: binky at February 4, 2006 06:04 PM | PERMALINK

morris, you really underestimate us, or at least me. at my campaign rallies, feel free to show up dressed however you want. if you are actively being disruptive, things may be different, but simply wearing something that makes a statement that's uncomfortable to me is no disruption, it's free speech.

don't forget, SCOTUS upheld the right to wear a jacket in the capitol (i believe -- i'm certain it was in a government building somewhere) that read "f*&k the draft."

if i'm so scared of the counterpoint to my views and positions that i can't bear to be reminded of them, and if i'm in such denial of the consequences of my actions in office that i can't bear to be reminded of them, please feel free to call attention to what i say here: i'll have no business running for office in the first place.

cindy's shirt didn't say, "hey, f*&kwad, since when is an inability to admit and ameliorate mistakes worth 2000 american lives" (although would probably be protected by the first amendment). she just reminded bush of something i truly hope he thinks about every second of every day -- all the lives that have been lost due to his reckless war on [everything except] terrorism.

Posted by: moon at February 5, 2006 12:07 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?