[Vision2020] Cindy was invited

[Phil Nisbet]

Sunil

The case of removal or lack of clothing is no different than the case of 
wearing a particular brand of clothing.  As I noted, political statement 
clothing is barred from the Gallery of the House of Represnetatives and has 
been for decades.  You are suggesting that bars to that sort of clothing are 
breeches of !st Amendment Right to Free Speech, to which I can prety clearly 
state, that lack of any clothing what so ever is just as much a statement as 
a slogan bearing T shirt.

I used the other examples because they show that free speech is restricted 
in any number of instances.  Thre are limits to where a person can excercise 
their free speech rights,

Sheehan chose to make a statement by wearing a particular item of clothing 
in an area where the wearing of that type of clothing is barred.  She was 
told to leave and refused and that got her arrested.  If she had come to the 
same location and taken off her jacket and been bare above the waste, she 
would have been similarly removed.  Both are political statements and both 
are restricted from the location in question.

Phil Nisbet


>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>To: pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Cindy was invited
>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 05:52:03 -0800
>
>Phil,
>
>You keep using inapplicable examples to set up your straw man arguments.  
>She wasn't on a military reservation.  She didn't barge into the Oval 
>Office.  She didn't take off all her clothes.   She may have broken rules 
>of decorum or taste, but that isn't the focus here.  Examples of different 
>acts that might occur in different places are pointless.
>
>She engaged in an act of free speech.  She was arrested for it.  That's a 
>violation of her First Amendment rights.
>
>Sunil
>
>
>
>>From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Cindy was invited
>>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:11:33 -0800
>>
>>Sunil
>>
>>A military reservation is definitely public property, yet if I chose to 
>>protest on military property, I can be asked to leave and charged with 
>>trespass if I fail to leave.  The actions we are discussing are not about 
>>1st Amendment rights.  Cindy, regardless of her anti-Semitic statements 
>>and affiliations, has free speech at her beck and call.  What she does not 
>>have is the right to enter places with restrictions for which her actions 
>>will be a trespass and claim that her trespass is not an illegal act 
>>because she is engaged in political speech.
>>
>>I do not have the right to barge into the Oval Office and disrupt the 
>>actions of government because I want to give Bush a piece of my mind.  I 
>>do not have the right to barge into a Congressman's office to do the same 
>>thing.  I can make my statement, but the place of my statement is 
>>restricted.
>>
>>If it were not, are you willing to defend me and give me a guarantee that 
>>I will not serve a day in Jail if I go into the council chamber on the 
>>next city council meeting and take off all my clothes?  You know what the 
>>result of that would be, I would be jailed for indecent exposure, even if 
>>my point was that the law requiring clothing was wrong and the act of 
>>taking off my clothing was an expression of my support for removal of the 
>>rule requiring clothing in public places.
>>
>>Not allowing me to take off my clothes as a matter of free speech is 
>>surely a restriction of my communication of ideas, but I do not think that 
>>the court is going to buy that that trumps the laws involving public 
>>conduct and required attire.
>>
>>Phil Nisbet
>>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/