Well if this goes any further it will be land of the bound home of the chaind. Metaphoricly speaking that is.
If I understand correctly, the Cohen decision says that free speech trumps “offensive conduct”, which the California court defined as “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace.”
Cindy's blog asserts that she was arrested for “protesting,” not for offensive conduct or disturbing the peace. How might the administration justify the banning of protest, if not the above which has already been ruled on?
So what happens next? I assume charges were dropped and so there is nothing to appeal. I just got back from travelling and haven't kept up. It seems that there's been little outrage and no riots or such. Google news seems to show just as many stories against Cindy as for. In the absense of civil or uncivil action, I guess the bastards are just going to get a away with this assualt on liberty.
Comments must be approved before being published.
Want to get updates when someone comments on this story?
Click here to manage subscription




Oddly, there was a case on exactly this point in the Vietnam Period.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
_Cohen_ holds it is a protected First Amendment right to have “Fuck the Draft” on your t-shirt. I don't see how Sheehan's behavior is any different.