Now let me begin with the observation that I defended Cindy Sheehan's arrest on Tuesday, a position that I believe to be consistent with what I am about to say. I believe the arrest -- and the eviction of the more cooperative Mrs. Young -- were both legally and constitutionally defensible. After all, courts have long recognized that the government may impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on speech without running afoul of the expansive language of the First Amendment. Try, for example, to engage in free speech about the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a courtroom during a trial -- you will find yourself in cuffs faster than you can say "contempt of court".

At the same time, I think the policy on political speech -- at least as regards t-shirts -- is absurd. So did someone on Capitol Hill -- the rule was changed, but no one told the cops.

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 policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

As a result, charges have been droppped against the Ditch Bitch and apologies have been issued to both her and Mrs. Young. But I think the policy was defensible, despite the claims by some folks that the Supreme Court decision in Cohens v. California some 3 1/2 decades ago should have settled the matter. In that case, the offending profanity ("Fuck the Draft") had only been visible in the hallway -- Mr. Cohens had folded the jacket so it could not be seen prior to entering the courtroom. The justices noted that the expansive right to free speech might not have protected that expression in the courtroom, where it was more likely to disrupt the proceedings -- and one could analogize that ruling (and others expressly permitting time, place, and manner restrictions on speech) to the case at hand, where a shirt permissible in the Rotunda might be inappropriate in the Gallery, especially during a televised address to the nation.

But I think such the arrest was a bad idea -- as was the removal of Mrs. Young and at least one other individual. Captain Ed puts it very well, and I want to echo his position.

I suspect that CQ readers will disagree with me on this one, but I concur with Gainer. Neither woman should have been arrested or made to leave the gallery on the basis of their t-shirts, especially at a public event like the SOTU speech. I don't think that the two women had equivalent standing, nor do I think that Mrs. Young's t-shirt would have been as potentially distracting as Mrs. Sheehan's. However, the point is that as long as both women behaved themselves, their t-shirts would have had no disruptive effect on the speech. Yes, I know that there is a tradition of restraint in the gallery, but politicians of both parties make extensive use of those guest passes for political purposes during SOTU speeches. Every president in the television age put people up there that they used to emphasize major points of their speech, and no one barks about that exploitation of the gallery.

When I first heard that Sheehan had been arrested, the reports said that she had attempted to unfurl a banner in the gallery. That kind of action certainly would have justified the removal of Sheehan from the gallery but hardly qualified as a criminal act, especially under the amorphous terms of "unlawful conduct." Having to face charges for wearing a t-shift with a slogan on it is flat-out ridiculous. What laws does that "conduct" break? And since when have we become so fragile that the wearing of a protest t-shirt become so unsettling?

Both women should have reconsidered their wardrobe for the speech. However, a fashion crime should not equate to police action, and arresting someone for wearing a dumb t-shirt should not happen in America.

This is exactly right. While the mode of dress of these individuals is indicative of the breakdown of decorum that exists in contemporary society, the conduct did not rise to the level of the criminal. And while I have no doubt that Mrs. Sheehan was going to engage in a disruption of the speech (frankly, I think the Secret Service should have objected to the loony lefty's presence in the Gallery given her rhetoric and conduct), she had done nothing meriting suspicion (though I suppose the arrest could possibly be justified on the grounds of her failure to cooperate with security).

Mark in Mexico notes this little detail about Mrs. Sheehan's missive to her fellow moonbats.

She says, "I am speechless with fury at what happened . . ." and then proceeds to speak for another 18 paragraphs, 57 sentences.

She says, "I did not wear it (a protest T-shirt under her jacket) to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech." She could not have unzipped it during the president's speech because she was arrested 45 minutes before the speech started.

She says that as she was being fingerprinted, "That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights." Her son Casey was killed April 4, 2004 in Iraq. Her activities, from the protests outside the Crawford ranch all last summer to last week's appearence with Hugo Chavez and his stooge Harry Belafonte where she called George Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and "10 times worse than bin Laden" have been well documented. But, she just then (last night) realized her loss?

My response to Mark is this -- the Ditch Bitch is a self-obsessed narcissist who never learned a basic lesson taught in every astronomy class (an understood by mentally healthy individuals) -- "the Earth revolves around the Sun, not around Uranus".

On the othe hand, maybe some time in jail would have allowed Mama Moonbat to get the psychological help she really needs. She is, after all, a rather sad, pathetic character who has clearly lost contact with realit following the death of her son. Folks on the Left should be ashamed to use her as they do.

UPDATE: My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey points out that Sheehan as much as admits that the purpose of the shirt WAS, in fact, to grab the cameras and thus engage in a political demonstration in the Gallery. He also asks a great question.

Well, it seems Cindy Sheehan wanted to make "a scene" at the State of the Union Address after all. In her latest Daily Kos entry, she admits as much, although some have zeroed in on the fact that she was "merely hot" and just wanted some relief (she thus exposed the "protest" T-shirt she had on). While the Kos entry does mention she "was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs" and hence unzipped her jacket, she goes on to note

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on.

The debate over free expression is a good one here. Some have argued that Sheehan's 1st Amendment rights were violated (she herself says she is filing a lawsuit ... hey, if she didn't it wouldn't be America after all, eh?) whereas others have stated that it wasn't the time and place to protest. If, for example, Sheehan was allowed to wear such a shirt for that event, why wouldn't she be "within her rights" to take the microphone from President Bush to rebut him after each point he made? Where is the line drawn? And is a dress code a violation of free speech rights in this case?

An interesting issue indeed.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1487 words, total size 10 kb.