Cindy Sheehan once again captured headlines when she was arrested prior to President Bush's State of the Union Address this week.

Ostensibly, she was removed for "protesting" in the house chamber; a practice that has long been against the rules.

But, another woman was also removed for having a "support the troops" t-shirt on display which left the police with even more egg on their faces; she was the wife of Representative Young (R-FL).

The police have now apologized for both arrests.

T shirt arrest apologies

Politically, the police now look stupid in this fiasco and the left has again raised the spectre of a "police state where no dissent is allowed".

I have a few questions for debate:

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly. Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs? I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me. Should a dress code for these places be enforced?

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

Of course it is, no question about that.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly. Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs? I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me. Should a dress code for these places be enforced?

I don't think public institutions should have a dress code. In our parliament you see people wearing all kind of everyday clothing and that includes t-shirts, and nobody bats an eyelid, and I don't think it diminishes the value of the institution on iota. It just shows, that people are different, and that they have a right to express that difference by choosing what clothes they wear. Who decides what the dress code should be anyway? Maybe not everyone attending as specators can afford the approved clothing - should they then be excluded from participating in the democratic process?

I am also an opponent of dress codes in private clubs, but I do recognize they have a right to enforce one, if they so wish. I myself could never dream of wanting to be a member of such a club though, let alone play golf there (and I do play golf on occasion).

Regarding the Sheehan case I don't really see the problem. I think she is an opportunistic attentionwhore, but as long as all she was doing was wearing a t-shirt, and she was attending the speech legitimately, then where is the harm? Same with the other woman.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?
Absolutely. I believe it is well reasoned that the word "speech" in the amendment is not restricted to simply the words that come out of our mouths. The principle stands that we ought not to discourage the dissemination of a diversity of ideas.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? ...
No. It's our House.

Remember, our representatives are dressed up for the same reason anyone else would dress up for a job they want to be sure to keep. It's like a continuous job interview for them, with we the employers always ready to criticize them. We are the boss, we don't need to impress anybody. It speaks highly of our culture if we can gather together during important events, and still be able to tolerate each other when we be ourselves.

Yes. This does not preclude a “dress code “ restriction – something quite common.



Yes and it was at the state of the union address. In fact both Sheehan (IMO a far left nutcase) and a conservative wearing a tee shirt were pulled out.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?
Generally speaking, yes.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? ...
Here's my problem with Sheehan's episode. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I think the event was staged from the word go. Rep. Woolsey invites her, knowing or actually complicit in the knowledge that there will be a spectacle. Sheehan could have shown up in sensible attire, sans T-shirt, and she still would have gotten media attention and remarks from the peanut gallery of punditry. She knowingly wore a shirt that was sure to cause a spectacle and possible eviction. She became 'warm' after climbing the stairs, and unzipped the jacket. She was evicted and now claims she was roughly handled, and now is rumored to be looking into a civil lawsuit. Quite a convenient sequence of events.

For all people, especially on the left who are rallying around Sheehan, I have a hard time believing that if a similar event happened during the Clinton SOTU's, or during another upcoming Democrat President's term, the outrage would not be mirrored.

I don't think following a reasonable dress code for a formal event such as the SOTU is out of the bounds of respect and decency.

Maybe it's just me but I feel, these days, if you're speaking about freedom and liberty, implementing more rules and regulations and laws hardly seems to be the answer. And I'm sure many would take exception to being labelled a slob for wearing a shirt.
1. Yes of course why would anyone even question that? Try this: when you wake up tomorrow, get up, put on a t-shirt, then stop and see if you feel like you've broken any laws or did anything worthy of being tossed from a building representing "we the people".
2. No dress code. "a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues". That comment certainly makes it clear you see society as being entrenched into different camps. Rich and poor. I don't see how the word 'basic' can only be applied to the top 2% of the population To me, that's like saying you've got top-of-the-line Beverly Hills Kraft Dinner. Nothing separates society more than enforcing what people wear out of doors.

You are correct. In fact a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle said as much on FOX last night. This was a Woolsey set up from the start.

And let’s remember this “rule” was not a “Bush” rule but one created by the Congress and enforced by the Capital Police.

Obviously Sheehan is being used by the far left. It is truly disgusting.

I've exercised my little brain off and on for the past hour about how you can attribute the Sheehan circus to a matter of rich v. poor. Sheehan went out of her way to advertise her agenda, one that was sure to be brought up by the media just by virtue of her presence there. By your words, you seem to be saying that, for example: your ideal candidate gets elected. That candidate has detractors due to his/her policies/actions. Are you implying that you would have no problem whatsoever if those detractors used your candidates SOTU address to protest those policies/actions?
Is there no public venue where basic decency and decorum should be observed? Or is everything just a massive free for all?

Just a quick question here:
Do you consider wearing a t-shirt with a text you don't agree as a form of disruptive protest?

Personally I would certainly not have a problem with that, no matter who did it, as long as that was all a person were "doing". Its not disruptive in any way I can concieve, and the fact that the media goes amok over Sheenan, or that some consider her a extreme left-wing symbol, is really irrelevant. Should we disallow people that get a lot of media attention access to government institutions?

There was a similiar situation a couple of weeks ago here in Denmark. 8 youths spectators were arrested for singing in parliament against the the Iraq war during debates on the Danish troops there, and they were certainly disruptive, but they were certainly not arrested because their t-shirts read "Anti-war" (which they did). If they hadn't actively disrupted the politicians in their work and had just sat there in their less than noble clothes, what would have been the harm in that? Nobody would ever even had known, probably not even the politicians.

Absolutely love all of the left bashing in this thread so far, fabulous... are we channeling Ann Coulter here?

If some of you would actually look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on Sheehan (who very likely did this for publicity, but who cares that isn't the point) you might have cause for concern. It isn't a new thing for people to be ejected or even arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt or having the wrong bumper sticker on their car at various events involving the President. Have you forgotten about the orwellian named "free speech zones"?

There have been numerous instances in the past few years where people have been stopped at the door or ejected because they are known to be involved with democratic grassroots groups, they have a t-shirt on counter to the president's policy or they have the wrong bumber sticker on their car. This hasn't just happened at campaign events, it has happened at tax payer funded events like the social security townhall discussions last year.

The President's security team has absolutely no right to bar someone from entering an event just because their politics don't coincide with the President's. Until they actually start disrupting the event or making threats there simply isn't grounds for it.

You'd think that because the wife of a Republican congressman wearing a "support the troops" t-shirt got ejected too that those on the right might actually say "enough, this is going too far". What do we have instead? A healthy bunch of Sheehan and left bashing. That is just sickening party loyalty.

I wish Sheehan would just go away personally, she doesn't represent me, she doesn't represent liberals, she doesn't represent the Democratic party but that is what people see. There are some serious issues here and people are legitimately concerned about this. Try to look past Sheehan, open your eyes and take an objective look at the situation.

If you can't see the assault on our rights here and aren't concerned about it then perhaps you don't deserve those rights and I sure hope for your sake that we don't have a Democratic president in office that employs similar tactics.

Since there are exactly two posters so far that haven't had a problem with Sheehan's expulsion, and I am one of them, I'll take a stab.
It's nice that YOU think that YOU see the bigger picture, and others don't, but opinions are opinions........
I would gladly place a bet on the reaction of Democrats had somebody done the same thing during the Clinton years, or when another Democrat is elected to the Presidency. We won't ever know about Clinton, but I guess we'll be able to put it to the test in the future.
For all of the righteous talk of freedom of speech, during a State of The Union Address, where would the supposed stalwarts of free speech draw the line if any?
God forbid we actually act like decent people and come together in the hallowed halls of Congress once in awhile.

I agreed with Sheehan's expulsion and I agree with the expulsion of the Congressman's wife.
I certainly don't see any party loyalty there. Where also is the Sheehan bashing in this thread? She's been called no names, even by our republican posters. Talk about a contrived outrage.......

I guess it's game on to protest anytime, anywhere......hope the shoe fits as well on the other foot.

Right...those that don't see their rights being violated don't deserve those rights. Nice sentiments.

The truth of the matter is that there are rules in our society. In this case, the authorities got it wrong. What Mrs. Sheehan did was not against the House rules which is why the charges against her were dropped. link



The Capitol police also removed the wife of a Representative who wore a pro-military T-shirt demonstrating that this was not politically driven.

It's a simple mistake, nothing more.

Saying something is only for the 'high status' people excludes over 90% of the population. I'm making no judgements about anyone in particular really. I'm just chuckling at basic illogical thoughts. Like a place being for the representatives of the people who aren't allowed into a building because of a t-shirt. I have a limit by the way. A t-shirt with vulgarities in the form of swear words isn't appropriate of course. Nor is attire meant for a prostitute or Oprah in a thong. But Sheehan's t-shirt wasn't an incitement nor was it live audible protest. Let's not play around here. You can think what you wish about why she wore that shirt. But that's what the Almighty US Planners want you to be doing. That's how they run with the ball. While people are looking at the winning coach being dumped with Gatorade, a guy like Rumsfeld is off shaking hands with Sadaam Hussein and then making nuclear deals with North Korea. Do the Planners a disservice people. Don't make up and/or find excuses to insult and be critical of Sheehan and any motivations she holds (dead son remember) leading to stalemate between the right and left (so-called). Instead, focus in on the fact that someone was rudely escorted out of the building in which she was cleared to enter moments before, and know that it resulted in serious erosion of the former America's social freedoms. This wasn't any Ron Kovic action here. Besides, the overall clincher as to how this is all seriously wrong is this:
If Sheehan wore a shirt with the number of GI's not killed in Iraq, let's say 137,789, she would never have been roughly escorted from the building. Overall, you all should remember something. The authorities did Bush a huge favor by ejecting her from the SOTU address. A huge one. Trust me when I say the police took no pleasure in doing such a thing. No doubt someone is up for a promotion with higher pay.

I'm with you a hundred percent on this. But I must point out, it was not the security, but the city police, because they were somehow under the impression that wearing a t-shirt counted as "unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds," a misdemeanor.

Now I'm curious...

Traditionally, they would just ask the person to cover up or change the shirt. Did they try this first? I would guess not because I can't imagine a congressman's wife refusing such a request. But I could be wrong.

Who gave the orders to escort such violators? What motive was behind handling these cases in this manner?

Why were the brochures not handed out? All the tourists get them.

If a Republican's wife was not involved, would the chief of police still make a public apology, and the representative suggest "sensitivity training?"

If a well-known activist was not involved, would this story get nearly as much attention and controversy?

Yes there are rules Amlord, the first amendment being one of them. I noticed you completely skirted the bigger issue, this is just another instance of it.

This kind of thing has been going on at townhalls, campaing events, major conferences for at least the last 2 or 3 years but the people effected are mostly liberals and Democrats. You don't believe me? Google is available, have at it. You are a Republican that supports Bush so what do you care, right? What if the shoe was on the other foot?

I also don't buy the "authorities got it wrong" line Amlord. If you are in a position of authority that means you have to know the rules in the first place. Would you say the same thing if the police arrested you in public (embarrassing you), detained you and then after several hours said oops, you were allowed to do that... our apologies.


Um, DTOM are we reading the same thread?

In the opening post it was implied by LordHelmet and is a core assumption behind this thread.




That is the track this debate was set in and the track it is taking. I can't say whether the pile on would have continued had I not posted but I'm pretty sure it would have.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Representative Young's wife wasn't grabbed up just to diffuse Sheehan's ejection. If Sheehan wasn't even there do you think Young would have still been ejected? I'd say that is doubtful. I haven't been able to find the timeline for the removals anywhere, would be interesting if someone had it.

CubeJockey,

The Capitol police have acknowledged they made a mistake. This is different from your cited "goon squad" examples of Bush giving speeches somewhere. The Capitol police thought they were enforcing House rules. They were mistaken, but they made their mistake in good faith and in a bi-partisan fashion.

There is no "bigger picture" here unless Sheehan gets prosecuted and Mrs. Young does not (which I guess is still a possibility, but a very remote one).

I would agree this was pretty stupid of the authorities to remove both women because while there shirts were making a statement it was not vulgar.

But just a note of clarification Sheehan was arrested the Representatives wive was not even though she was arguing with the police in the hall.

from lordhelmet's link
U.S. Capitol Police Drop Charge Against Sheehan



Police Remove Sheehan From Bush Speech



Funny thing is I can't find anywhere that they say sheehan was arrested cause she refused to leave the gallery which caused her arrest.

1. Absolutely.

2. Should? I don't know. Can they? Sure. There was no violation of Cindy Sheehan's free speech rights when she was kicked out for wearing the shirt (although her arrest is another story--but the charges have been dropped). I couldn't walk into the House of Reps that night. I did not have the right to be there and neither did she. She was a guest and if the host wants her gone, that's all there is to it. Cindy is free to wear her t-shirt in a public forum.

Wearing a tee-shirt with a message is free speech and should be acceptable as long as it covers a person adequately and it does not violate any obscenity or hate-speech laws. Hang the "dress code" stuff, especially in a country where men cover their greasy mullet cuts with baseball-type caps which they continue to wear indoors, and women wear short tops exposing their belly buttons even in mid-priced restaurants. Yes, I agree that a certain sense of decorum is desirable, but the way people dress (or don't) is largely a measure of upbringing and a sense of self-respect (or the lack of it).


Wrong. Cindy Sheehan had to be invited by a dignitary and there was a Congressman who invited her. She was there legitimately as a guest.

I would also like to point out that had the Bush speech not been in the House Chamber but on the road somewhere, Sheehan would most certainly have not been invited. Those in attendance have to have tickets, the tickets being distributed by Republicans or organizations friendly to the Republican party. That's the way it was during the election campaign, so the idea of free speech around this president has been a joke for some time. (There was no ideological screening of any sort when Curmudgeon and I attended separate rallies for Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards when they were campaigning, by the way.)

Oh, and here's another slam for Cindy Sheehan from this thread, DTOM. Although Carlsen is not American, it still constitutes bashing:

Not to be confused with opportunistic attention whores on the other side of the political spectrum. They're called something else.

I'm just wondering who called the cops when Sheehan was already cleared to enter the gallery and sit down.

I think "goose stepping neo-nazis" is much more appropriate than "goon squad"

After all- let's see the facts:

1) GW has a real hate-on for free speech and privacy- he doesn't allow any dissension during his speeches when they are private affairs, and I am sure there is some "quid pro quo" here for the capital cops- I am willing to bet, there was a typical profanity strewn request to "take Sheehan down" by GW at first opportunity. Let's not forget the domestic spying of course- Remember- this is a guy that thinks the constitution is "just a piece of paper"

2) Cindy Sheehan was invited, and was not disruptive.

Yep, I am sure there was a "thanks for the help with that (insert GW style expletive here) Sheehan, and thanks for falling on your sword, I will see to it, when it all dies down, you will have a cushy job at Haliburton"

It IS just about that obvious.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

Sure.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code??

Yeah, but this won't stop people from expressing themselves. Why not put messages on the formal wear? Maybe in sequins on the back of a shirt or blouse, something you cover up with a wrap or jacket. Then all you do is stand up and take off your covering, turn around and express whatever it is.

This could also be done with high tech lights, maybe a scrolling display with more complex expressions. The T-shirt thing seems so 20th century. We ought to be able to come up with several elegant designs to allow people their expressions in various public and private places. I'm seeing virtual tatoos that work with your iPod.

Haha, I just got a great idea ... some sort of message made by lasers. You could shine it on Bushes forehead when he delivers his speech, something like :"Don't believe the hype"!

Cruisingram, I suggest you read the following classic work by William Shirer and learn what REAL "goose stepping nazis" were all about. Then, you'll learn that both yourself and the current president of the NAACP, with your false correllation, both dramatically downplay the true horrors of that regime and also denigrate their victims. Such comparisons are not only historically wrong; they are foolish.

With respect to "free speech", I suggest that it's the left, not the right, who are currently the most hostile to "free speech". It's become quite common for conservative speakers to be "shouted down" in venues including the pinnacle of civil liberties, the American university. I give you a few examples.

Coulter shouted down

Berkely thugs

Horowitz

Cal State

Michigan State

Dartmouth fascists



Thanks for not addressing the question that I posed. Sheehan was obviously invited for a reason. Her shirt was there for a reason.

Obviously, you think that Sheehan's shirt is free speech. But, do you think that a basic dress code should be enforced for a formal event like the State of the Union?

Sheehan would not be allowed on many of the golf courses in my area. She would not be allowed to eat dinner in many upscale restaurants. She would find herself standing outside all night at some clubs. I suggest that a basic dress code of, at minimum, business style clothing should be required in those type of government sessions. And, I think it should extend to the press who are typically seen swarming around with their cameras dressed in smelly old tennis shoes, dirty jeans, and God-awful t-shirts.

What WAS obvious was that Sheehan looked like a slob.

This is my first post --- my first time --- please be gentle.

Sheehan showing up at the SOTU in full-dress protest is the same as the clown hired for the children's B-day Party, wearing his own B-day suit.

Or like Ashley's exboyfriend who showed up and Tim and Ashley's wedding, carrying a "I Still Love Ashley" sign.

None of the three advanced the important events of the day,
and were hardly appropriate.
The fact that the clown might say, "But it felt so good",
or the boy friend might say, "I'm just expressing my emotions and I have the right to free-speech", doesn't make it the right way to behave,
And all three might bring the "activists" sanity into question.

I am not sure of your comparison works LH. Isn't Congress a public place? Night-clubs, golf-courses, retaurants are privately owned and therefor they have the right to enforce some dress codes. Congress is not privately owned, it is owned by all the U.S. citizens. Wouldn't it be strange if free choice of what you wear would not be tolerated in a place built on freedom of speech?

Don't worry. I think the opportunistic attentionwhores on the right like Ann Coulter are much much worse, actually that would probably be to mild a description for the likes of her. Im not sure I could write what I really think about the likes of her - I don't wanna break forum rules.

LH,

I think and heartily believe that people who actually work for a living should be exempted. Lugging around cameras and sound equipment is dangerous with a hunk of tough fabric wrapped around your neck like a noose. Wearing worker's clothing would also be a nice reminder to the pompous politicrats that they happen to work for us, not the other way around.

Hey, how did you get StinkyVision? I thought that technology was shelved decades ago due to terrible experiences during a Vern Saves Washington movie. Seems the stench of corruption was overwhelming.

I'll go with guests of politicrats dressing up and using iPod virtual tatoos or forehead laser toons, no Ts at all, dungarees if pressed and creased (no holes), and only nasal-neutral footwear. I guess cowboy boots would be okay. Hiking boots? Only if you're from a state that actually has hiking trails in wilderness areas. That would limit things.

I wonder how Old Hickory (Prez Jackson) would take to a dress code. I have a memory of him opening up Congress to guys in buckskins, the Ts and jeans of the day.

I'm baffled by your statement. A guest has no right to be anywhere where they are a guest. That's why they are a GUEST. Are you telling me that if you decide to throw a party and in inviting your friends tell them they can bring one person with them and then one of these friends of a friends shows up wearing something you deem offensive, you don't have the right to kick that person out? Of course you do.

The Chamber, while doing public service, is not a public forum that anyone can prance through. Cindy was a guest and guests have no right of occupancy.

Short answer. Yes.

QUOTE

2.  Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues,  have a dress code??  I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly.  Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs?  I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me.  Should a dress code for these places be enforced?

I'm sure the House of Representatives has a dress code. But it probably extends only to members of the House of Representatives.

And Cindy Sheehan was not dressed as a slob.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/0..._speech_sheehan

I read the list of prohibited items for visitors to the House of Representatives and t-shirts isn't on the list.

http://www.house.gov/house/tour_services.shtml

Now, she apparently had a t-shirt under her black suit, but that doesn't trouble me any more than the distinct possibility that some of those oh-so-distinguished senators, representatives, Cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices and Pentagon brass might have been wearing thong underwear or worse, go "commando."

Despite what King George might think, we don't have royalty in this country and you don't have to put on your Sunday-go-to-meeting duds to hear a speech from a politician. What some people seem to forget is every Representative, Senator and President are just politicians elected by the people to serve them, not the other way around. Drawing comparisons between private golf clubs and edifices in Washington paid for by the public is a weak analogy.

What is being lost in the hue and cry over Mrs. Sheehan's choice of how to assemble her wardrobe is the content of the message of her t-shirt:

"2245 Dead. How many more?"

All the obsessing over the messenger is obscuring the message. Or was that the point?

There is a specific area of the Chamber that is open to the public. Why? Because we have every right to be there.

Handing out gallery passes is a necessary formality in any situation where gallery space is limited.

It is too bad that we have this air of royalty about our REPRESENTITIVES- some kind of elevating a citizen ahead of any other citizen is very disturbing. GW and co should have no more rights than Cindy to be in that gallery- as was pointed out- there is a gallery for CITIZENS- not for nobles and lords of the nation.

I think it is too bad that there can't be about 1000 seats, passed out by legislaters and senators in equal numbers, to boo or shout down GW or any other president sitting there.

I think it would be very nice, instead of all that stupid clapping and standing up on one side of the aisle or the other, depending on what party is in office at the time.

Our system has been TOO insulated from up close and personal critisism- GW is a scared little girl, never having to fight a battle for himself in his entire life, it would be very good for the nation to see this, for him to have to go toe to toe with a widow.

This insulation is unhealthy and wrong.

And of course- LH- I believe you have outright lied about "Cindy Sheehan dressed like a slob"- she was dressed quite tastefully- I don't know where you even got that one- her pic was on the news with the story- where in the world did you get that?

Maybe GW should take a cue from Tony Blair, where they tell him what is what right there in his speeches on the floor of thier governing bodies.

Well since it was the Congress NOT GW that makes the rules perhaps you could write yours and ask for a rules change. I do agree it is a kind of side show but it is one that has deep historical roots.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

Without question, yes. Can you imagine a political campaign without catchy slogans on T-shirts? What are they going to do, make it so that you may only wear a plain t-shirt with no pictures or words appearing on it? That'd be a frighteningly restrictive law, the likes of which you find in theocratic governments, and I don't think, for obvious reasons, that it would be well received in the US.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? <snip>

I don't believe there should be. The gallery should be open to people regardless of what they're wearing. (Provided they're covered. Obviously allowing nudity would open up an entirely new debate. I'd likely pass on contributing to that thread. )

Should a dress code for these places be enforced?

If there must be a dress code, then I would say that ejection from the chamber would be more than adequate for enforcement purposes. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing improper attire. Fine, there's a dress code... Guess what. If I show up to my local country club in my rattiest blue jeans, a muscle shirt and flip-flops, I will not be arrested. I will be asked to leave. If I then refuse to leave, start fighting or acting disorderly, that is a different story altogether. But that isn't what happened here. They saw the t-shirt, slapped cuffs on her and threw her in a cell. That seems to be something that's been overlooked by those of you who argue in favor of the dress code.

Much has been made of her statement that she intends to file suit. SHE SHOULD file suit! You can pretty darn well bet your last nickel that if what happened to her were to happen to me, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer within seconds of being released. I don't care what Ms. Sheehan's politics are, or if this atrocity against justice occurred in a "bi-partisan" manner since someone with a pro-war t-shirt was also hauled out. There was absolutely no logical or legal reasoning behind her being placed under arrest and whoever gave the order to do this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for such a flagrant abuse of power.

Edited to correct slight grammatical error.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

Yes.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly. Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs? I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me. Should a dress code for these places be enforced?


Golf courses, restaurants and night clubs are private establishments which can certainly enforce a dress code. A dress code for a public building is ridiculous. I've seen the pictures of Cindy Sheehan at the SoTU and she didn't look like a slob to me. Cindy Sheehan was not just removed... she was arrested. She had every right to be there because she was invited. She did nothing wrong.

Questions for debate:

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

Emphatically yes!

If we had fashion police, I would be on the FBI's most wanted list, so I really need to fight this fight! (PE suggested that I print up a tee-shirt that says "This tee shirt is armed and dangerous." or "I am exercising my 2nd amendment right to bare arms.") The tee shirt I am currently wearing bears a picture I found on the net. George W. Bush was portrayed demonstrating how to use duct tape and plastic wrap to improve national security. The duct tape is shown holding the plastic wrap to his face.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly. Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs? I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me. Should a dress code for these places be enforced?

I am 60 years old. I recall clearly the two times that I was asked to meet a dress code.

We had left work and traveled four hours to a job related meeting. We stopped at a restaurant where reservations had been made, but they were unwilling to accept a purchase offer from a company they had never heard of. (Dow Chemical) The supervisors looked at each other, and no one had enough room on their credit card to cover meals for 16 hungry men. One man did, however have a membership in the Playboy Club. He called, explained the situation, and arranged for us to dine at The Playboy Club. We got there, a dozen or so of us in our work clothes, and we were told they had a dress code. We needed to be wearing ties. They were however, willing to rent us neckties. So, in a plaid flannel shirt, steel toed boots, and blue jeans; I was able to meet their dress code by wearing a rented necktie for an hour.

My first wife used to lobby lawmakers in the State Legislature, and I made numerous trips to the State Legislature wearing plaid flannel shirts, steel toed boots, and blue jeans. I was always greeted cordially, and I was never told that I was dressed inappropriately. I always left feeling that our points of view had been listened to.

I have served on jury duty without my clothing being challenged, although the last time I was called to jury duty, the judge's instructions were to arrive in a suit and tie. I wrote the judge a letter explaining that the investment would be a financial hardship, and that wearing such clothing would cause great personal discomfort that would make it difficult for me to pay attention to the trial. I was excused from jury duty.

I think the attempt by either side to turn this circus event into a dress code issue is ridiculous. This is not about and has never been about the right to wear a T-shirt or flannel or Birkenstocks at an event. That argument and attempts to use that argument as a class issue is silly. For me the issue goes to the heart of defining the line between free speech and public decency. I don't agree with fenced off 'free speech zones', I believe they make a mockery of the first amendment. I also don't agree with the need to make a sign of protest at solemn events. That includes inaugurations, SOTU's, religious services, funerals (thanks Fred Phelps ) or similar events. That's my personal opinion. I do not possess the intellectual faculties to rule one way or the other on the role of the 1st Amendment in the above issues.
But it does raise a question in my mind. In light of the Sheehan/SOTU event and other situations such as speakers being heckled on campuses; Where is the boundary between the right to voice your opinion in protest and the right of others to hear someone speak. On one side you have extremists who would never hear a word of protest if they had their way. On the other, you have extremists are so selfish in their agenda, that they care nothing about the rights of others. Both sets of extremists can be found in both major parties.
The issue underlying this episode is dissent. Dissent is patriotic, but dissent simply for the sake of dissent is meaningless. Each side of the political spectrum claims to embrace dissent, but only dissent that they agree with.
I believe that the Capitol Police were within their rights to remove Sheehan as they did the Congressman's wife. But arresting her, even detaining her went too far. It was a cheap political stunt on her part, exacerbated by the authorities and propelled the spectacle beyond her original intent.

It's a shame that we as a society cannot come to agrements on common standards of public conduct and decency, but let ourselves become embroiled in side issues instead of the real problems that affect us.

Except for one thing, Goldblum: The Capitol Building is not a private residence, it belongs to all American citizens. Hell, we pay the taxes to keep it running!

Try this: What if, at your party, the butler goes to throw out one of your invited guests because he doesn't like what the guest is wearing? Isn't it YOUR right, not the butler's, to decide whether the guest stays or goes? The Capitol police were there to SERVE (like the butler) and protect--what was Sheehan going to do? Bludgeon the President with her tee shirt?

I get it now--the Capitol Police are the dreaded FASHION POLICE!!! No wonder!

The Capitol police were ignorant and heavy-handed the way they treated Ms. Sheehan. Their conduct, not Ms. Sheehan's clothing, was inappropriate. Further, there was, according to the news article, no dress code instruction given to guests invited to the SOTU address.

I agree. It seems that some of the same people who argue for private businesses being able to restrict freedom of speech, now want to make the analogy fit public institutions.

Last year, I made one of our conservative members angry by comparing the SOTU to a high school pep rally. This year’s edition did nothing to change my opinion. One side whooped it up, clapping at every available opportunity, jumping up like mindless jacks in the box whether the president said anything noteworthy or not. The other side sat—sometimes silent, at other times mocking and Hillary Clinton chewed gum. The SOTU has now become a Barnum and Bailey like three ring circus.

The best thing that ever happened to the SOTU was when Thomas Jefferson started the tradition that endured until Woodrow Wilson of sending the speech up in written form. Unfortunately, even presidents with little proficiency in public speaking continue to insist on making the occasion a media event.

I would suggest that the capitol police robbed Cindy Sheehan of her right to free speech and that the t-shirt was no more obnoxious than the behavior of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.



While I understand, lordhelmet, that you are put off by University of Connecticut students shouting Ann Coulter down, I would suggest that that the students, although they may have been rude, had as much right to shout Coulter down as she had to speak. As with Cindy Sheehan, it’s a matter of free speech vs. free speech.

I may have missed it but does anyone care to remember that, as far as I know anyways, there is no 'official' formal dress code for Sheehan to have broken. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd hate to think that this issue went off on a hypothetical tangent no short of being a red herring.

Someone sent me a link to the photo on my T-shirt so that I could share it. I stand corrected, there is no plastic wrap. The actual caption is: “Suggested use of duct tape as a means for increasing the level of Homeland Security.” A lot of the ink has faded from the T-shirt.

1. Is a t-shirt message free speech that should be protected by the first amendment?

I think too many thing are protected under the umbrella of "free speech". If a shirt is worn merely for the purpose of controversy I think that it certain situations this clothing should be taken off or the person that wears this clothing should be removed from the area. I am offended when I walk down the street and see someone in a shirt that says *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** You or something to that extend. The ONLY reason a person wears something like that is to get a rise out of those that view it and I think this is an example of disorderly conduct.

2. Shouldn't the house of representatives, a place of high status and one of our basic institutional venues, have a dress code?? I can't golf at many golf courses if I wear a "t-shirt" and people can be turned away from restaurants, clubs if they are not dressed properly. Isn't it reasonable to prevent people from entering places like the White House, Senate or House Chambers, or other places of honor if they are dressed like slobs? I know this would cause many in the media great consternation but it seems like a good idea to me. Should a dress code for these places be enforced?[/b] [/mod]


I think the safety of the President and those that came to hear to speech comes first and foremost. Cindy Sheehan has had many pulpits...this was neither the time or the place.
And I think that security in the Cap Hill buildings, white house, or any place of government OR work should have to right to ask someone to leave the building if what they wear is offensive.

This is is pretty farfetched. Cindy Sheehan probably went through elaborate security screening before being arrested. Cindy Sheehan was the invited guest of a member of Congress. How could she possibly be a threat to Bush?

By all means, let's protect the President from those threatening T-shirts!

And oh, yes, let us protect our patricians from the rabble that wears T-shirts. Why, who do they think they are, anyway? Citizens?

If you want, sure, let's have a dress code for those who tour and/or attend functions in our government buildings. We can even say that those who wear white after Labor Day are crass and should not be allowed in.

But let us be perfectly clear in all of our communications so that no mistake is made, that a certain level of presentability must be maintained. This needs to be printed on invitations to functions such as the State of the Union address.

There is just one problem: there are those citizens in our country who do not have and possibly cannot afford the type of clothing that might be required to visit our government buildings should a dress code be instituted. These people have work clothes, possibly uniforms that they wear every day, and it is enough of a hardship on them to keep their children in two changes of clothes so they don't have to wear the same outfit to school every day. But hey, if they can't be presentable enough to have dinner at a country club, they should be excluded from visiting the institutions that are open as a result of the taxes withheld from their meager wages, right? By Heaven, they deserve to be in the miserable plight they are in because they are somehow unworthy to merit the better circumstances enjoyed by their fellow citizens! Let them sell their used color television and their used computer and buy themselves some transportation, keep their noses to the grindstone, and maybe, if they prove themselves worthy, they can save up their pennies and take a trip to Washington to see our great government...but ONLY if they also buy themselves some threads to make them more presentable to people who care about what they are wearing and not about their circumstances!

But I digress...

Why don't we just be up front about this whole thing instead? The fact is that the women who wore T-shirts to the SOTU address did not do so because they couldn't afford better threads. They did it because they wanted to make a statement about things that they felt were important.

And the fact is that partisans here and elsewhere were offended by Cindy Sheehan having the audacity to try to make not a fashion statement, but a statement about how many Americans have died in this so-called War on Terror. She was supposed to be a good girl and shut up and sit down. But that wasn't enough--she had to conform to the type of clothing worn by others in the gallery, too. It is partisanship and not fashion decorum that offended their delicate sensibilities. How dare Cindy Sheehan wear something that some TV cameraperson might see, while she's sitting down mind you, and distract from our President's shining moment! Even more, how dare Cindy Sheehan be Cindy Sheehan and be there?!

We like to point out that the United States has a classless society--but it doesn't mean we don't have our share of elite wannabes. Even if the bulk of our society dressed as though we were all alumni of Ivy League or Christian Fundamentalist universities, we would still have a lot to learn about what true classiness is all about.

The issue here is Cindy Sheehan and the shirt that she chose to wear with a clear objection...to protest. We all know that she COULD certainly afford to wear something else. There was a purpose to her wearing that shirt and it was neither to time nor the place to lead a protest.

First, I think I addressed why Cindy Sheehan chose to wear the T-shirt.

Secondly, this thread also addresses the idea of a "dress code" for places and functions of that sort--and poverty might indeed dictate what a person wears; therefore it is pertinent.

Thirdly, who are you and who am I to dictate to someone else when and how to express themselves? Ms. Sheehan is clearly of age to assume responsibility for her own conduct.

Fourthly, Cindy Sheehan was going to sit down, not "lead a protest" in the gallery. She had already been cleared to go in, and there was no one else following her to stage a protest. I think you're making some assumptions here.

Finally, if what the Capitol Police did wasn't out of line, why did they apologize?

Although Cindy Sheehan does have an objection to the way the Bush administration has gone to war, her objective in wearing the t-shirt is irrelevant.

I would dare say that most of those in attendance had some objective or agenda, whether they popped up like jacks-in-the-box at every opportunity or just sat there.

How did we get from the nonsense about Sheehan possibly endangering Bush's safety to the obvious--she had a purpose in wearing the shirt.

The issue here is also that some, including Congressman Bill Young, believe that those who support the President should be exempt from this dress code. And that the police chief, according to Beverly Young, is an "idiot" because "They publicly humiliated me," and "They insulted our troops." The officer explained, and rightfully so, that since they did it to Sheehan, they had to do it to Young as well.

I am afraid I see some bias here. Shame, shame.

Interesting. A dress code system based on financial status. Would that poster like to be the first person to hand over his banking information while entering some event?