On Cindy Sheehan and SOTU (Updated)
---
It's quite simple really: There is no such thing as "First Amendment rights" at an invitation-only event.
The fact that the event was a government function is irrelevant. A perfectly reasonable dress code at a restricted (and solemn) government ceremony is not "censorship."
The fact that the event took place on government property is irrelevant. Not all public property is a public forum.
Look at it this way: Can 270 million American citizens simultaneously exercise their "absolute First Amendment right" to even attend, let alone to misbehave at, the State of the Union Address, live in the House Gallery?
No? Then there is no such "absolute First Amendment right" in the first place.
I will grant Sheehan this much: it was probably not necessary to arrest her. Mere expulsion from the event and from the Capitol Building would probably have been sufficient, and would have reduced the media circus. On the other hand, if this account is accurate, then she was arrested for far more than her attire.
And, of course, anyone who doubts that the whole incident was very carefully orchestrated (if not by Sheehan herself then by the puppetmasters who have so shamelessly manipulated her) is hopelessly naive. The Sheehan circus played out exactly the way she and her overlords wanted it to.
Her threat to file a First Amendment lawsuit is the pinnacle of frivolity and grandstanding. She has become no different than the politicians she is so eager to condemn. As is so often the case with activists, the medium overtakes the message.
UPDATE: I'm going to revise and extend my remarks a bit. Having read some other blogs, I think it's important to distinguish between what the law is and what the law could properly be.
Congress has indeed prohibited "demonstrations" everywhere in the Capitol Building, 40 U.S.C. 193f(b)(7). Lower courts have confirmed my view that the Capitol is not a public forum and that viewpoint-neutral time/place/manner restrictions on expressive conduct are permissible if they are reasonable, Bynum v. Capitol Police Board, Civil Action No. 97-1337 (D.D.C., 1997).
On the other hand, there has never been an explicit dress code for the SOTU. Capitol Police and congressional leaders have relied on "tradition and common sense." Um, no, they can't do that. The burden is of course on the government to provide proper notice of what is expected at the SOTU. It appears that they failed. In which case Sheehan and Beverly Young could not have been lawfully expelled, and Sheehan certainly couldn't have been be lawfully arrested.
Capitol Police have meanwhile stated that their arrest of Sheehan was improper and have apologized to her. It would therefore appear that she does in fact have a lawsuit, but for wrongful arrest (i.e., for violating her Fourth Amendment rights), not for violating her First Amendment rights. Mike at Crime & Federalism tackles that question better than I can.
The fact that the event was a government function is irrelevant. A perfectly reasonable dress code at a restricted (and solemn) government ceremony is not "censorship."
The fact that the event took place on government property is irrelevant. Not all public property is a public forum.
Look at it this way: Can 270 million American citizens simultaneously exercise their "absolute First Amendment right" to even attend, let alone to misbehave at, the State of the Union Address, live in the House Gallery?
No? Then there is no such "absolute First Amendment right" in the first place.
I will grant Sheehan this much: it was probably not necessary to arrest her. Mere expulsion from the event and from the Capitol Building would probably have been sufficient, and would have reduced the media circus. On the other hand, if this account is accurate, then she was arrested for far more than her attire.
And, of course, anyone who doubts that the whole incident was very carefully orchestrated (if not by Sheehan herself then by the puppetmasters who have so shamelessly manipulated her) is hopelessly naive. The Sheehan circus played out exactly the way she and her overlords wanted it to.
Her threat to file a First Amendment lawsuit is the pinnacle of frivolity and grandstanding. She has become no different than the politicians she is so eager to condemn. As is so often the case with activists, the medium overtakes the message.
UPDATE: I'm going to revise and extend my remarks a bit. Having read some other blogs, I think it's important to distinguish between what the law is and what the law could properly be.
Congress has indeed prohibited "demonstrations" everywhere in the Capitol Building, 40 U.S.C. 193f(b)(7). Lower courts have confirmed my view that the Capitol is not a public forum and that viewpoint-neutral time/place/manner restrictions on expressive conduct are permissible if they are reasonable, Bynum v. Capitol Police Board, Civil Action No. 97-1337 (D.D.C., 1997).
On the other hand, there has never been an explicit dress code for the SOTU. Capitol Police and congressional leaders have relied on "tradition and common sense." Um, no, they can't do that. The burden is of course on the government to provide proper notice of what is expected at the SOTU. It appears that they failed. In which case Sheehan and Beverly Young could not have been lawfully expelled, and Sheehan certainly couldn't have been be lawfully arrested.
Capitol Police have meanwhile stated that their arrest of Sheehan was improper and have apologized to her. It would therefore appear that she does in fact have a lawsuit, but for wrongful arrest (i.e., for violating her Fourth Amendment rights), not for violating her First Amendment rights. Mike at Crime & Federalism tackles that question better than I can.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
1 February 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
