Different Messages; Different Treatment
The message on Cindy Sheehan's t-shirt:
“
2245 Dead. How many more?”
The message on Beverly Young's t-shirt:
“
Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
Cindy Sheehan was arrested and roughly removed from the visitor's gallery immediately after she sat down--long before Bush's arrival at the Capitol. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs and charged with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia’s code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds.
Beverly Young was allowed remain in the visitor's gallery long after Bush's arrival. Young was not asked to leave until forty (40) minutes
after Bush began his speech. Did Mrs. Young leave politely? Not at all. She boisterously objected:
Quote:“They said I was protesting,” Young told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
Despite her boisterous objection, Beverly Young was NOT arrested for disruptive conduct. She was NOT taken away in handcuffs.
Why did the officers immediately remove from the gallery and arrest Sheehan long before Bush arrived, but allow Young to remain in the gallery for 40 minutes after Bush's speech began?
Obviously, Sheehan was ousted and arrested on the basis of the MESSAGE on her t-shirt. A criminal statute that penalizes speech must be CONTENT NEUTRAL on its face and application. A reasonable inference can be drawn from the circumstances that the officers realized, much belatedly, that if they ousted and arrested Sheehan--but allowed Young to remain--their arrest of Sheehan would not be viewed as the enforcement of a content neutral statute--but rather, the arrest would be viewed as the unconstitutional suppression of Sheehan's message.
It appears that the officers subsequently, and belatedly, asked Mrs. Young to leave in order to appear as though they were engaged in content-neutral enforcement of a statute and to cover their message-suppressing asses. But, the fact that Sheehan was arrested and taken away in handcuffs while Mrs. Young was simply allowed to leave despite her boisterous objection amply demonstrates differential treatment of individuals based on the content of their speech.
Perhaps now is a good time to review the United States Supreme Court case,
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971):
Quote:Appellant (Paul Robert Cohen) was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "**** the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/15.html
Similarly, absent a compelling reason, the District of Columbia may not criminalize the display of a political message on a t-shirt on any part of the Capitol grounds. The Capitol grounds of our government are the very heart of our constitutional republic and to criminalize the display of a political message in that setting is truly antithetical to our nation's very existence.
