The discussion centers around the arrest of Cindy Sheehan during a protest outside the White House, focusing on issues of free speech, the requirement for permits for demonstrations, and the implications of such regulations on civil liberties. Participants explore the legality and morality of the arrest, as well as the broader context of anti-war protests.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of permits for protests, with some advocating for their requirement and others vehemently opposing it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the legality and justification of Sheehan's arrest.
Participants express varying interpretations of the legal requirements for protests, highlighting a lack of clarity regarding the definitions of obstruction and the conditions under which permits are required. The discussion reflects differing views on the balance between civil liberties and public order.
WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son’s death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.
Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”
If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?Others who were arrested also cooperated with police. Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.
I would like to say to Mitzy, the unthinking lemming that she is, that ending the war would give Americans hope and take away a reason for the enemy to exist....On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.
“I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, ‘Don’t be a group of unthinking lemmings.’ It’s not pretty,” said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. The anti-war demonstrations “can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope.”
That's the part that really disturbed me. As best I can tell from the news stories, it was a peaceful protest, so no reason to arrest anyone. To require a permit to protest on public property, in front of the White House no less, sounds like a clear first amendment violation to me!Informal Logic said:If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?
I don't know about the US but this would have been unconstitutional in Canada.Pengwuino said:I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...
She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.Pengwuino said:I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...
MaxS said:No where in the constitution does it say you need a permit to assemble for anything. What a prepostorous idea, and one that absolutely tramples over civil liberties.
Moonbear said:She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.
Pengwuino said:You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.
MaxS said:BULL..
There is NO justification for requiring a permit, NO justification for impeding my 1st ammendment rights.
I'm no legal expert, buy my understanding is that in Canada as long as you're not on private property, you're protesting peacefully and your not obstructing someone's movement you have every right to protest there. You only need a permit for special instances.Pengwuino said:You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.
Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...Pengwuino said:So you wouldn't mind me and a few of my friends putting up a protest infront of your driveway? Maybe on a major highway that you need to use to get to work?
Smurf said:Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...
Smurf said:Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...
Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
MaxS said:What trash!
Pengwuino said:So i guess when your against President Bush, laws mean nothing. Figures.
Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.Pengwuino said:Yes, obstructing movement.
And protesting is disturbing hte peace if you haven't realized that. Thus you give out permits so that the "peace" can be given a little detour so no problems arise.
MaxS said:Uh no? Where did I mention president bush? I was talking about the fact that a permit is required to protest...
When a law is unjust you should fight it, regardless of politics...
Smurf said:Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.
Smurf said:Also, I know she was warned, but was she informed. You have to actually inform her of the details, not just tell her she's breaking the law. When you arrest someone you read them all their rights, not just mention that they might have a few.
Pengwuino said:It has been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and everyone, every political activist organization, the KKK, abortion this abortion that groups, everyone has understood that they need to take a few hours out of their day to get a simple permit that is almost never denied. We all must make small insignificant sacrifices to make a society of almost 300,000,000 work correctly and this is one of them.
How small are sidewalks in Washington DC, anyways? The main road in my area has a sidewalk big enough for two fully grown humans to lay down across.Pengwuino said:Well what I'm imagining here is that there all sitting on the sidewalk while people are trying to walk by the White House. How are you going to get by? there's a gate on 1 side, the road with cars traveling on the other side. You don't want people to be walking into traffic just to get around them. If that gate isn't there, then it does make sense for people to just wlak around the non-road side. But as far as i can tell, it was infront of the whitehouse which means there was a gate on the other side of the sidewalk making it dangerous to walk around.
I don't disagree that at times demonstrations should be denied (otherwise people could just use it as an excuse to disturb the peace). What I dislike is that you have to take a couple hours out of your day to do it. You shouldn't need a permit, but cops should be able to (with a warrant) arrest you if they think the demonstration is just silly.MaxS said:Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.
Comprende??!??
Okay then, there we go then. It wasn't obstructing movement unless they were going out of their way to take up a lot of space. IN THAT CASE it would have been justified PROVIDED she was informed that she had to stop (not because she probably didn't know, but because it's her right).MaxS said:I've been to the white house there is plenty of room to step around people (there was a protest going on while i was there - and no I wasn't part of it, I don't even know what it was for).
MaxS said:Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.
Comprende??!??
Pengwuino said:Incorrect. The courts have already decided that you are wrong.