Cindy Sheehan: Endorsing Chavez?

[Black Dog]

"Vocalizing" is not permitted in the House Gallery -- not even applause.

There's no indication if she was being vocal in an attempt to dirsupt the speech or being vocal in response to being arrested. The former would justify her removal, yet even the Capitol Police didn't use that as their hook. That tells me you're reading this wrong.

And think of the inverse -- imagine if Paula Jones wore a low-cut red top with "RAPIST!" printed in bright white letters across her chest and shouted abuse at President Clinton for "sexually abusing" her during a SOTU address. Are you telling me it would be wrong for her to be escorted out before she could disrupt the State of the Union address? A violation of her free speech rights?

That would be a violation of the House rules, something the Capitol Cops now concede didn't hapen this week.

[YankAbroad]

I agree she shouldn't have been arrested. I do believe they were entirely appropriate in ejecting her from the gallery.

That would be a violation of the House rules, something the Capitol Cops now concede didn't hapen this week.

No it wouldn't, it would be identical to what Sheehan was doing, just with a different issue and different president.

[Black Dog]

No it wouldn't, it would be identical to what Sheehan was doing, just with a different issue and different president.

Actually, it's not:

imagine if Paula Jones wore a low-cut red top with "RAPIST!" printed in bright white letters across her chest and shouted abuse at President Clinton for "sexually abusing" her during a SOTU address.

There's no indication beyond the singular reference to "she was vocal" (a phrase wide open to interpretation) that Sheehan was yelling abuse at Bush, or indeed yelling anything at all. So while your Paula Jones example would fall under House rules prohibitions against "loud, threatening, or abusive language" and "disorderly or disruptive conduct...with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress...", it's Sheehan's stunt is not in the same ballpark.

[YankAbroad]

So while your Paula Jones example would fall under House rules prohibitions against "loud, threatening, or abusive language" and "disorderly or disruptive conduct...with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress...", it's Sheehan's stunt is not in the same ballpark.

No it wouldn't. Jones's activity would be the same as Sheehan's -- only the content would be different.

[moderateamericain]

Well, take the world's smallest political quiz and see where you fall! It takes literally 10 seconds.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I score well within the Libertarian quadrant.

i scored a 70 percent personal and 90 percent ecomonmic. which put me in the libertarian category

[Black Dog]

Well, YA, I rather than go around and around, let me just say this: my beef isn't so much with the existence of rules of conduct (the arrest was a bit much), as it is with the hypocricy inherent in disallowing public displays during a "dignified affair", even while casting a blind eye to such displays on the floor itself (see, again, purple fingers, weeping widows etc.)

[YankAbroad]

Well, the guy making the speech everyone's there to see gets a bit more leeway. It's part of the reward of winning the election.

[Argus]

Well, YA, I rather than go around and around, let me just say this: my beef isn't so much with the existence of rules of conduct (the arrest was a bit much), as it is with the hypocricy inherent in disallowing public displays during a "dignified affair", even while casting a blind eye to such displays on the floor itself (see, again, purple fingers, weeping widows etc.)

You've never been in the gallery of the House of Commons, have you? I have, and let me tell you that you are there as a guest to observe, not take part, and you are very sternly instructed that if you do much speaking above a whisper, if you demonstrate in any way, applaud, or do anything else to draw attention to yourself, you will be evicted. No T-shirts are allowed, nor signs, nor any kind of expression of political opinion. You are there to observe political opinion being expressed, not to take part.