Subscribe: Comments on: Sheehan arrested for... protesting.
http://www.metafilter.com/45404/Sheehan-arrested-for-protesting/rss
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
arrested  cindy  civil disobedience  civil  don  free speech  free  law  people  protest  sheehan  son  speech  time  war 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Sheehan arrested for... protesting.

Comments on: Sheehan arrested for... protesting.



Comments on MetaFilter post Sheehan arrested for... protesting.



Published: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:19:45 -0800

Last Build Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:19:45 -0800

 



Sheehan arrested for... protesting.

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:15:28 -0800

Sheehan arrested for... protesting. Will the ACLU please, PLEASE take this case up to the highest courts in the land. Enough with the police intimidation and ritual abuse of power.



By: Faint of Butt

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:19:45 -0800

Good for Sheehan. That's what civil disobedience is all about. A high school teacher of mine used to be president of the Maryland chapter of the ACLU, and all of his best civil-rights-movement stories ended with "...and then the cops showed up and hauled us all off to jail." I wonder if Bush, Cheney and Rove have any beliefs they'd be willing to go to jail over?



By: jragon

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:20:54 -0800

Arrested for not moving along. It helps her cause when she is arrested, but don't chalk this up to a ritual abuse of power.



By: tiamat

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:21:08 -0800

damn hippies



By: Optimus Chyme

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:24:50 -0800

Arrested for not moving along. It helps her cause when she is arrested, but don't chalk this up to a ritual abuse of power. posted by jragon at 11:20 AM PST on September 26 Yeah seriously protesting in one place is old and busted; you should be arrested unless you just show up for thirty seconds and leave.



By: docpops

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:25:47 -0800

Christ what a shit post. Who cares? She...broke...the...law. No one said she couldn't protest. The police informed her several times she was in violation of a (presumably) accurate statute likely along the lines of obstucting a pedestrian thoroughfare or something similar, she ignored them, and they carted her ass off. Flagged. GYOB.



By: OmieWise

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:26:05 -0800

I hate to see this, and I do hope the ACLU takes it up, but can't we get more for an FPP than a half-page article? What's the history of this lately? Is there an online repository of stories of arrested protesters? What's the current thinking on "free speech zones" (sic), and the right to free congress? I'm serious, I'm completely behind the sentiment, but that doesn't make this a good FPP.



By: wheelieman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:26:47 -0800

Matt can u limit this thread to 50 comments? Less headaches then



By: OmieWise

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:27:14 -0800

I wasn't trying to pile on, docpops' comment wasn't there when I wrote mine.



By: Plutor

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:27:35 -0800

I'll bet the police had no idea who she was, just thought she was some protester. In fact, I'm certain I wouldn't be able to recognize her, and I consider myself pretty well informed. I'm with jragon.



By: Optimus Chyme

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:31:30 -0800

The police informed her several times she was in violation of a (presumably) accurate statute likely along the lines of obstucting a pedestrian thoroughfare or something similar So making sure everyone can use the sidewalk unimpeded is more important than peaceful protest? Glad our priorities are in order.



By: mediareport

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:32:04 -0800

"Police intimidation"? Come on, this is clearly an arrest for publicity. I'm not dissing the tactic; it's time-honored. But don't try telling me the protesters didn't know exactly what they were doing. And after the way the cops broke up her NYC speech, reportedly shoving her around while arresting the organizer for not having a loudspeaker permit, calling *this* a case of police intimidation is slightly ridiculous.



By: [insert clever name here]

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:32:32 -0800

I'll bet the police had no idea who she was, just thought she was some protester. In fact, I'm certain I wouldn't be able to recognize her, and I consider myself pretty well informed. I'm with jragon. Or possibly the cops were actually supports and knew full well that arresting her would blow up. Because I can't see any other reason for arresting her or any of these protestors. Yeah, perhaps what they were doing was illegal by some lame statute that is ONLY pulled out when they can't nail you for something else.



By: allen.spaulding

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:32:33 -0800

I have mixed feelings about this. As someone who has been repeatedly arrested at protests (including the infamous DC "pre-emptive arrest" in 2003) I feel that high-profile celebrity civil disobedience at a mega-rally is misguided. When the police are willing to repeatedly use force on non-violent protesters who are not commiting civil disobedience but are merely protesting, why bother to commit the classic sit down? A new movement needs new techniques and this form of civil disobedience comes from a different time.



By: NedKoppel

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:33:14 -0800

I think what everyone except Faint of Butt is missing is that, well, sometimes, protestors, you know, are actually TRYING to get arrested, you know, ON PURPOSE and stuff. And besides, this is, indeed, a shite MeFi post. Sorry. ::cough...newsfilter::



By: graymouser

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:36:09 -0800

mediareport is right. I know people who were planning to basically go out and get arrested today as a statement. I don't think it's a terribly effective tactic, but it is a badge of honor in some left circles to have been arrested in a protest. I'm mildly surprised that Sheehan decided to go through with this, but it's absolutely a purposeful act.



By: cerebus19

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:36:33 -0800

From what I've seen on real news sites, Sheehan was trying to get arrested. She and the other protestors sat down in the middle of the walkway, which is in violation of the law. They're allowed to protest, but there are statutes that spell out what they are and aren't allowed to do while protesting.



By: undule

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:38:59 -0800

Christ what a shit post. Who cares? She...broke...the...law. No one said she couldn't protest. What law? Every time I've been to DC there are always people staked out on Pennsylvania Ave, right in front of the White House. They aren't arrested. There is a woman there who is staked out 24/7, for 20 some odd years.



By: klangklangston

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:39:17 -0800

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



By: undule

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:40:05 -0800

From what I've seen on real news sites, The AP Wire isn't real news?



By: Faint of Butt

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:40:26 -0800

What kind of pinko liberal Commie book are you quoting, klangklangston?



By: Danf

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:43:17 -0800

I took part in one of the protests on Saturday. There was a fair turnout for the size of my town. But I kept thinking that I was not having an impact, and that possibly blocking traffic, turning over a few cars, maybe disrupting people arriving for a nearby football game would have been more effective than just standing there getting our cumbayayas out. But I just stood there, chanted a bit, had a minute of silence, hugged a few friends and went on with my day, as seemingly everyone did. There just seems to be insufficient anger towards the whole political situation today (if you are aghast at what this administriation has been up to for the past 5 years . . .if you like it, well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it).



By: DenOfSizer

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:44:15 -0800

Speaking of pet peeves: Matt can u limit this thread to 50 comments? Less headaches then I think you mean "fewer headaches then."



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:46:49 -0800

There is another mother stirring trouble for the war mongers - Mary Tillman, Pat Tillman's mom. It was interesting to see that uber-patriot Pat Tillman read Chomsky and thought that the Iraq was was illegal.



By: BlueWolf

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:47:04 -0800

Does docpops have any idea what civil disobedience is? Thoreau broke the law too. "Christ what a shit post. Who cares? She...broke...the...law." I suppose you think that we should not care if our countrymen are being detained thanks to an unjust and possibly unconstitutional law or through an institutionalized system promoting abuse of executive power whenever possible, i.e. whenever they won't get caught or the political cost is not too high. Ignorance like your's will one day strip us all of our most basic rights, such as the right to simply be in a public place.



By: nola

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:50:57 -0800

haha what faint of butt said.



By: docpops

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:51:09 -0800

you think that we should not care if our countrymen are being detained thanks to an unjust and possibly unconstitutional law or through an institutionalized system promoting abuse of executive power whenever possible, i.e. whenever they won't get caught or the political cost is not too high. Ignorance like your's will one day strip us all of our most basic rights, such as the right to simply be in a public place. - Bluewolf Wholeheartdly agree. This is nothing of the sort. It's bullshit and about as much a barometer of widespread civil rights abuse as a boil on your ass is an indicator of an incipient Staph epidemic.



By: S.C.

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:52:43 -0800

Ignorance like your's Oh heavens.



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:53:56 -0800

I think this is a lousy post. Man, I don't want to read this. Nor do I want to read the thread. BUT WAIT! I have nothing better to do! I don't think the law against loitering is that unfair. Nor does it seem as though it was unwarrented in it's use here. Sitting down on the sidewalk tends to get the cops attention (unless you're dressed in 4th hand clothes) . I'd agree that it seems she wanted to get arrested to get attention. I'd agree with the sentiment that she broke the law. I disagree with the "who cares?" part of that though. The commitment to this debate on the part of the American public needs to be raised. Some people's brothers, sisters, sons and daughters are dying. Whether you think it's for a good cause or for shitty reasons, the least you could do is give a damn.



By: NationalKato

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:54:04 -0800

So you're sayin' BlueWolf has staph o' the ass?



By: dhoyt

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:55:21 -0800

Spectacular post, trinarian. "Enough with the police intimidation and ritual abuse of power"? Enough with the drama queenery & ritual abuse of MeFi.



By: 23skidoo

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:56:55 -0800

I suppose you think that we should not care if our countrymen are being detained thanks to an unjust and possibly unconstitutional law or through an institutionalized system promoting abuse of executive power whenever possible Actually, I think that we should not care if people who want to be arrested actually end up getting arrested.



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:57:19 -0800

It was just a publicity stunt. Anything that gets the anti-war message into the media is a good think in my book. Go Cindy go.



By: cleardawn

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:58:42 -0800

If two million American heroes were willing to go out and get arrested to protest against America's descent into dictatorship, they'd double the jail population. It probably still wouldn't pose a substantial threat to the system. Three million might. I don't think getting arrested is a particularly good tactic for movement-building, because it makes middle-of-the-road people more afraid to go to demos. However, for an individual, it's cathartic. Once you've been hauled off to jail, beaten up, and let out a few hours, days, or weeks later, you know there's nothing more they can do to you, and a lot of fear evaporates. The less afraid you are, the more creative you become. Respect to Cindy Sheehan and all the other brave Americans who got arrested today.



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:04:41 -0800

Small point: she was charged with demonstrating without a permit. Most loitering laws have been struck down as unconstitutionally vague.



By: geoff.

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:05:12 -0800

I don't know if there's even a debate here. She clearly wanted to be arrested to get in the news. Mission accomplished. If they really want the war to end they need to work it from the inside with lobbyists and special interest groups. Fight fire with fire.



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:05:13 -0800

/further derail - seriously - why post anything if you don't care or if you think it sucks? Just ignore it. ...but of course, you can't masterbate at work (unless you're in the new FBI porn seeking program) /back on I think Sheehan's doing good work keeping the issue in folk's heads. If it was my kid, I'd probably have a few questions. I suspect the apathy (sometimes seen here) would piss me off more than anything else. Indeed, people shouted "we don't care" at her. This seems similar. Agressively not caring. I suspect people use that stance because they are too cowardly to commit themselves to some course of action that might entail sacrifice, of even the smallest bit of their free time or resources. God Forbid they'd have to actually enlist or anything in a cause they supposedly "believe" in. Sheehan is a painful reminder of that, just by remaining in public. I disagree with a few of the things she has said, but I respect her for keeping the sacrifice part of the war in people's face. No one wants to hear about it it seems.



By: iamck

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:06:24 -0800

The legitmacy of the arrest should not be in question - there is law regarding this act, and it is a very loosely interpreted. You could be minding your own business standing on the sidewalk, and you wont get arrested. But during a protest, you are now breaking the law. Anyone who has every been to a rally knows this, and this shouldn't come as a shock.



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:06:58 -0800

"she was charged with demonstrating without a permit." Ah. Well that is bullshit then. Constitution who?



By: fenriq

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:09:00 -0800

Its strange that they have outlawed protesting outside the White House in the name of security. Isn't this country still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Or is that just a nice slogan?



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:10:44 -0800

We have Free Speech Zones, not free speech.



By: allen.spaulding

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:11:21 -0800

I still have to dissent. Compare this picture with this one Don't be fooled into thinking that Cindy's arrest is in any way typical. Thousands of people have gone to jail for their beliefs while opposing this war, many of whom have been pepper sprayed, tasered, attacked by police dogs, beaten up, and detained for days without bail. There was an anti-war movement before Cindy Sheehan. She speaks for nobody but herself and while I respect her and want her to keep campaigning, let's not miss the forest for one tree. She's a lone voice among hundreds of thousands, all of this focus on her is distorting what's really going on.



By: shockingbluamp

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:11:58 -0800

More ink for Cindy at the expense of a son who chose to fight for his country. Too bad his blood is providing her with a very comfortable living.



By: Godbert

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:12:30 -0800

Danf : But I kept thinking that I was not having an impact, and that possibly blocking traffic, turning over a few cars, maybe disrupting people arriving for a nearby football game would have been more effective than just standing there getting our cumbayayas out. Depends on what you mean by "impact." Sure, you would probably make more people aware of why you were there, but you can also stir up a lot of resentment when you get in the way of people going about their business, especially since it seems that most people have already chosen sides in this, and aren't likely to change their minds based on being disrupted by a few protesters outside a football game. They might actually be less likely to consider the other side if they get the impression that the anti-war people are all crazy nutcases.



By: docpops

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:12:42 -0800

I have really started to wonder why I am developing an ambivalence to Cindy Sheehan. I am unabashedly opposed to the stupidity of Bush's grandiose exercise in proving himself to Daddy and his cronies. I have begun seeing the PTSD and amputee victims in my practice, even. And yet I can't help feeling that she is a wholly ineffectual emblem of protest. I can't muster the slightest dismay over her arrest. She's a distraction and too easy of a target for the right.



By: wakko

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:14:49 -0800

So... what about all the other "newsfilter" links posted even today alone? I've got it! Let's just start a MeTa thread for every other FPP.



By: clevershark

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:18:54 -0800

That sound you hear is Shrub flushing away the Bill of Rights after having had a complete and thorough wipe.



By: clevershark

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:20:57 -0800

shockingbluamp writes "Too bad his blood is providing her with a very comfortable living." It's so much more patriotic to spit on a dead soldier's mom!



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:21:45 -0800

She's a lone voice among hundreds of thousands, all of this focus on her is distorting what's really going on. Yeah, but people are actually listening to her.



By: rocket88

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:22:03 -0800

How could they arrest her after three warnings? Don't they know her son died in the war?!?! This was planned. Mission accomplished, indeed.



By: poweredbybeard

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:22:04 -0800

i agree it's not the best FPP, but it did give cleardawn a chance to write a very enlightening comment. well said. as for the arrests, on the one hand, it's a fair cop - they certainly knew they were going to be arrested. on the other hand, go sit down on the sidewalk for two hours today. see if you get arrested. you won't. it was obviously politically motivated. in my mind pretty much everyone involved was being silly. but the idea that the real threat to pedestrians is large groups of pedestrians as opposed to all the cars that are choking the city and crowding out walking spaces is a bit of a gigantic blind spot. authorities only ever seem to express concern for pedestrians when they're arresting people. the rest of the time they couldn't care less.



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:22:22 -0800

"...at the expense of a son who chose to fight for his country" That's the debate I mean shockingbluamp. Certainly there are pro-war folks and there is and was as allen.spaulding pointed out an anti-war movement long before she showed up. Sheehan is a bit of a pickle because her son did choose to serve. The bone of contention her is not simply opposition to 'war', but questioning the legitimacy of this particular conflict. It's too easy to write this off as so many people have done. I suspect many people are numb to it because the press has decided to portray her as some sort of touchy feely mom, while ignoring the large questions raised. Hate Bush or love him, this isn't a black and white issue. There are deep considerations of policy and government accountability raised here. I certainly would not want to be told "Son, you're fighting for freedom" then go off to, say, Venezuela or some place and watching my Colonel taking advice from some Exxon executive. Certainly it's not all like that, but these matters need to be investigated, discussed, considered...and they're not. But let's get back to the shouting of slogans at each other, shall we?



By: justgary

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:31:27 -0800

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble I'm all for it, but how 'bout moving a little off the sidewalk so I can, you know, walk? All this rhetoric about free speech. Just move to the side. America's descent into dictatorship Again, another onion headline. In not too long, you'll be able to vote a dem into office cleardawn. No more dictatorship, homeless, or starving children. All will be right in your world.



By: drfu

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:38:43 -0800

Metafilter: unconstitutionally vague.



By: ParisParamus

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:40:01 -0800

Let her stew in prison ALAP.



By: cleardawn

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:43:30 -0800

Yes, it's a very comfortable living in jail, or living in a tent by the roadside, waking up every morning knowing your son has been killed. Man, she must be laughing. I noticed the CNN article described Cindy Sheehan as "the mother who has used her son's death to bolster the anti-war movement". That word "used" is so phoney and loaded here. Sheehan responded to her son's death by joining the anti-war movement, she didn't "use" it. The word "use" implies that her anti-war efforts are more important to her than her son, which somehow, I doubt. On the other hand, it would be completely honest and accurate to talk about George Bush, the unelected President (read the link, justgary) who has used the deaths of thousands, and caused the deaths of thousands more, including Cindy Sheehan's son, to promote his personal corporate agenda. But somehow I think we'll be waiting a while before we see that on supposedly "liberal" CNN.



By: wakko

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:58:22 -0800

ParisParamus: Thanks for yet another super-insightful post.



By: pardonyou?

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:59:29 -0800

There has never been an unrestricted "freedom of speech," and the First Amendment has never been interpreted that way. For decades, it has been the constitutional law of the United States that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions can be placed on speech. What cannot be restricted is the content of speech (with certain flagrant exceptions).



By: eatitlive

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:06:00 -0800

Surprised to hear you say that Paris, since the arrest can only garner her more press coverage. Those who argue over the legality of her arrest miss the point of her civil disobedience. She put herself at risk of arrest so that she could make a point: The war in Iraq is unjust. Isn't that message enough? Stop trying to add to this woman's martyrdom -- it just seems phony.



By: about_time

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:07:35 -0800

This is a crappy post. I can read the newspaper myself, thanks.



By: davy

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:08:00 -0800

This whole business of trying to get arrested still strikes me as stupid, regardless of who does it or why. It's especially stupid as an "anti-establishment protest" technique: you hate Big Brother so much that you invite it to exercise even more power over you than it was already? Oh brother. It's also offensive because most people who get arrested, whether they break any law or not, are poor people who can't afford good legal help, can't count on kid-glove treatment from the police and jailers, nor can they expect to be released on bail within a few hours to stand in front of TV cameras among dozens of similarly clean-cut middle-class supporters and brag about what a big and noble "sacrifice" they just made. "Civil disobedience" by "nice" white people is itself an example of their favored position in the class and race hierarchies: the rest of us look at them like they're nuts because since we don't have their "advantages" we try to NOT get arrested. When you're not already "Special" getting arrested and locked up is rather unpleasant. "Civil disobedience" was a brave and noble tactic when the blacks of the Civil Rights movement did it in the South 50 years ago; now it's a coopted sham, a mummery of privilege. In the past 50 years it's become clear that those who are really oppressed have to FIGHT the Power, not lay down in front of it.



By: sonofsamiam

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:09:44 -0800

In not too long, you'll be able to vote a dem into office cleardawn. No more dictatorship, homeless, or starving children. Like hawk-shill Clinton? Like any other Democrat who voted for USAPATRIOT, voted to cede their right and duty to declare war to the president? Failures with blood on their hands. Quislings who were in a position to stop this tailspin, but were too worried about their personal reps. The Democrats will NOT save us.



By: unreason

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:11:43 -0800

The Democrats will NOT save us. Well, there are these things called primaries, where you get to help choose your candidate...



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:11:53 -0800

"But let's get back to the shouting of slogans at each other, shall we?" "... All will be right in your world." "Let her stew in prison ALAP." Good Lord I'm a prophet! I'm slowly, but inexorably, sliding toward the conclusion that the only way to make people of one mind is to smash their heads together. But, in the sloganeering/kneejerk/ lack of reason vein - if you're so pro-war that you hate Sheehan, then pick up a weapon and stand a post you REMFing pussies. She has the guts to take the hits for her convictions, best the opposition can muster is to weep that her son was so brave. Uh huh. Where were you when your country needed you? Where are you now with enlistment figures down? Where the hell is the balls to consider this - in any reasoned way that affects you? Been to lots of pro-war rallies have you? ....yeah, that's what I thought.



By: Smedleyman

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:13:07 -0800

"This is a crappy post. posted by about_time " nice use of self-reference.



By: all-seeing eye dog

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:13:23 -0800

pardonyou: "There has never been an unrestricted "freedom of speech," and the First Amendment has never been interpreted that way. For decades..." wow--"for decades," you say. boy, that's a long time. almost as long as "never"--but not quite. by your reckoning, the idea that we don't have an unrestrained right to free speech seems to go way back to the last time the US government wanted to suppress dissent against an unpopular war...



By: all-seeing eye dog

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:16:09 -0800

Well, there are these things called primaries, where you get to help choose your candidate... Sure... If by "help" you mean getting to pick the least repulsive choice from among the five or six jackasses the party bosses picked out for us.



By: davy

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:19:33 -0800

I agree.



By: elpapacito

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:19:54 -0800

It's no use arguing with them. They simply don't get it : with righteous indignation they say "they should not be protesting but peacefully ! " and when they peacefully protest "they shouldn't be messing with others not willing to protest ! Go away from my block " and when they move around the city they say "You shouldn't stop the traffic of the whole city" and when they stand in still in their little corner "You shouldn't be loitering on the sidewalk as you obstruct my passage ! " So you see they yap a lot about their freedom and your obstruction of their freedom, yet they don't mind if your freedom is obstructed by their..but hey don't touch their freedom or they'll cry foul and ask police to arrest you, as they can't be inconvenienced. No wonder they're constantly bitch slapped by either govt or corporation, they're lazy bitches.



By: MikeKD

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:21:39 -0800

docpops: She's a distraction and too easy of a target for the right. Is that the criterion we're going to use? (Because Jesus Christ could come down on a cloud with a choir of angels and the Right would call him a bastard and his mom a whore if it suited thier purpose.)



By: gum

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:30:04 -0800

Would someone explain to me why "But Casey Sheehan chose to serve" is an argument to disrespect Cindy Sheehan's response to the loss of her son? I want brave, generous Americans to choose to serve their country in the military. And I want everyone whom they serve to get mad as hell when their lives are thrown away by morons and liars.



By: pardonyou?

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:41:10 -0800

Well, actually, if you wanted to trace the jurisprudence of the "time, place, and manner" restriction, you'd probably go back to Schneider v. State of New Jersey in 1939, which began the discussion of what constituted a "public forum." You'd also find that the 20th century saw a dramatic expansion of First Amendment rights (how "free" do you think speech was in the early 1800s?) But that would require, you know, knowledge and stuff.



By: pardonyou?

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:42:25 -0800

Whoops. My post was in response to this comment from all-seeing eye dog: by your reckoning, the idea that we don't have an unrestrained right to free speech seems to go way back to the last time the US government wanted to suppress dissent against an unpopular war...



By: five fresh fish

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:50:32 -0800

Sheenan will now be forgotten. Her arrest will be effective: ain't no ordinary Americans gonna risk getting themselves arrested in protest of the war, when they can just bitch about it online and over the water cooler. America is completely incapable of citizen action.



By: elpapacito

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:01:23 -0800

fivefish : wrong, indeed America is capable and one proof is Sheenan, even if it took the death of a son ; the other 50 arrested I guess are only the tip of the iceberg. Question is, rather, what is going to motivate the other ?



By: Secret Life of Gravy

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:07:09 -0800

They're allowed to protest, but there are statutes that spell out what they are and aren't allowed to do while protesting only in the way the government allows them to protest. The government continues to chip away at our freedoms and we argue amongst ourselves about whether what Sheehen did was legal or appropriate. Gosh was her sign the allowable size? Did she stay within her designated area? Did she use the government-approved language? Did she fill out the proper forms in triplicate so she could sit down? Fuck that noise. She has done the right thing and I am proud of her.



By: Witty

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:08:58 -0800

Would you like to buy a t-shirt to better voice that pride?



By: sonofsamiam

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:10:39 -0800

You can always count on the crypto-fascists to come up with some inane equivocation. If no one finds it insightful, it was a "joke".



By: HuronBob

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:11:03 -0800

FFF stated...."America is completely incapable of citizen action." People said Sheehan (not "Sheenan" as you noted), was done when she couldn't see Bush in Texas, and again when she protested and worked in NOLA, and look at this, she brought over 100,000 people to DC.... If anything this is growing. FFF...you're wrong... this country was founded on "citizen action", and we've taken that route a number of times, and it has made a difference. And, I believe it will make a difference again, otherwise I would be living next door to you! (which I wouldn't mind, I actually like you folks up there!)



By: madamjujujive

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:43:37 -0800

... many of whom have been pepper sprayed, tasered, attacked by police dogs, beaten up, and detained for days without bail. Well, she lost her son, so she's more than earned her stripes. I would guess that she would face the dogs and pepper spray too, but she has achieved a high enough profile that it's not likely. She's a distraction and too easy of a target for the right. She's got some pretty powerful medicine if she was able to disrupt the Bush vacation. And for weeks on end, she's managed to shift the national dialogue to the war and the war's casualties. Not too shabby. Figureheads, icons, symbols of a movement don't always choose the limelight, they are often thrust there by events - in her case, the loss of her son. And when real people are catapulted to the forefront, they are rarely focus-group perfect. I will take Cindy with her rough edges and unpolished message over the slick PR propaganda and orchestrated photo ops that are our daily fare any day. I think she's held up pretty well in the face of the rovian reputation shredders and the fox fascists. She's holding her own despite the fact that some of the most powerful forces and powerful people in the world are arrayed against her ... she's certainly doing a better job than most of the people I voted for.



By: klangklangston

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:03:56 -0800

"And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death."



By: Neologian

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:11:03 -0800

Cindy who?



By: ericb

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:22:50 -0800

Ah, Plato!



By: five fresh fish

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:29:12 -0800

I'll believe the citizens of America can get up and take back control of their country from the religionist and corporatist wingnuts when I see it happen. 'cause from my outsider's viewpoint, this shit has been coming down the line for a long, long time now and the citizens of America did sweet fuck all to bring it to a stop. I see no reason to believe that this time is any different.



By: oaf

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:40:17 -0800

America is completely incapable of citizen action. This is pretty amusing coming from a Canadian. Don't get me wrong—Canada's a great place. But John Q. Public isn't any more in control there than here.



By: five fresh fish

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:15 -0800

and a note: the Republican party has been hijacked by the extremists for how long now, twenty or thirty years? I'm pretty damn sure the original Republican party was a far different beast, judging by everything I've read about its past policies. It's a recent take-over by an ugly minority, and no one did anything about it.



By: Haruspex

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:39 -0800

Klangklangston is right on here, because this is about performing an allegory exposing the conflict between "perfect" rule and perfectable justice. Hence the whining, desperate, dehumanizing tone -- at least to me -- evident in the vituperative attacks on Sheehan by Administration apologists. A grief-stricken mother clearly has the more powerful metaphor on her side. Allegorical superiority, however, may not be sufficient to the task (c.f. The Republic, et al.).



By: 517

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:43:10 -0800

The Guardian says the UK is going to begin removing their troops from Iraq in May. At least someone is listening.



By: Rothko

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:02:19 -0800

Would you like to buy a t-shirt to better voice that pride? posted by Witty at 5:08 PM EST on September 26 [!] Ah, the desperate wit of the sad clown. (image)



By: jaysus chris

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:08:49 -0800

Surely pardonyou isn't the only one to have heard of the phrase "time, place, and manner"?



By: iamck

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:44:19 -0800

"Civil disobedience" was a brave and noble tactic when the blacks of the Civil Rights movement did it in the South 50 years ago; now it's a coopted sham, a mummery of privilege. Ah, bullshit. If we went out TODAY and blockaded the freeways, ports, and other means of transportation, and economically shutdown this country, you'd see civil disobedience in action.



By: klangklangston

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:02:00 -0800

Heh. The next set of course readings that I'm tackling is on Russian transitionary politics, so don't expect as many classic quotes...



By: Oyéah

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:06:02 -0800

Bush, Cheney and Rove have any beliefs they'd be willing to go to jail over? Oh yes indeed they do, such as believing that it is okay to invade foreign nations for any reason they choose, or failing to secure residents of a largely African-American city, because they could not defeat their own bigotry in time to think things through in any moral or legal sense. Though these beliefs and acts are illegal, they are in no danger of going to jail for their criminal acts or beliefs, not just yet, anyway.



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:08:41 -0800

. . . and oil, do not forget the oil Oyéah.



By: canucklehead

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:23:22 -0800

Funny how so many people have an issue with this FPP, but you may have noticed that it has generated more MeFi community feedback than any other post today. Hmmm...



By: kaemaril

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:26:56 -0800

This is a crappy post. I can read the newspaper myself, thanks. posted by about_time at 9:07 PM GMT on September 26 [!] Metafilter : We read the news so you don't have to. :)



By: all-seeing eye dog

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:27:43 -0800

now it's a coopted sham, a mummery of privilege. I'd like to suggest that the phrase "mummery of privilege" is a mummery of privilege... pardonyou wrote: But that would require, you know, knowledge and stuff. But before that, pardonyou also wrote: There has never been an unrestricted "freedom of speech," and the First Amendment has never been interpreted that way. For decades, it has been the constitutional law of the United States that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions can be placed on speech. Sorry if I'm mistaken, pardonyou, but wasn't it you who originally said that the notion of limits on protected speech has been around "for decades" (as in the second quoted passage above)? I'm pretty sure I only quoted you directly in my comments, without embellishing, so I'm not really sure whose lack of knowledge you're grousing about here... But anyway, the point still stands: 1939 was not "forever" ago. That's all I said. If you don't have a quarrel with that, I suggest you back off (and you know what? I'd suggest it anyway). My personal sense is that free-speech zones and many of the other trappings of the modern "kinder, gentler" variety of free speech mark us as a weak, degenerate culture, nearing its decline--these kinds of de factor legal restrictions (and the bizarre contortions of common sense used to justify them) on the right to free assembly are wholly inconsistent with the ribald, rabble-rousing spirit of the American revol[...]



By: all-seeing eye dog

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:29:21 -0800

um, strike "de factor"; insert "de facto"...



By: all-seeing eye dog

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:31:26 -0800

all-seeing eye dog wrote: And if we aren't the land of the free any more, just what the hell are we? (And before you pounce, I'm painfully aware we've never actually lived up to the "Land of the Free" ideal--but at least we all used to agree it was the ideal...)



By: caddis

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:34:59 -0800

Funny how so many people have an issue with this FPP, but you may have noticed that it has generated more MeFi community feedback than any other post today. Unlike all the "this post sucks" chuckleheads, I liked it, and I liked it because it would lead to good discussion. No place discusses important political issues better than MeFi. Unlike the left and right wing echo-chambers this place has balance. It tilts way left, but has balance. I would hope for a more intelligent spokesperson than Cindy Sheehan. However, all of the so-called intelligent anti-war people have fallen flat with the public. Cindy has a message that resonates with the average person, and amazingly it seems to resonate even with people who initially supported the war. I love it. Her message is simple, real, and from the heart. Despite the best efforts of many high powered pro-war thugs, the public still listens. She is not in this for personal glory, so the traditional Rovian tactics don't work as well. They are mostly used to make you disbelieve the messenger due to the messenger's bias. Cindy's bias is that her son is dead. Work with that one Karl.