She should have not have done what she did.  The House Chamebers has a strict dress code and Tee Shirts are not allowed.  Basicly the code is where what you would wear to church, she was not the only one removed for wearing a tee shirt the wife of Florida congress man Clay Young was also removed for wearing a tee shirt.

So I guess there's still some civility and equal treatment. Young's wife was wearing a pro-Bush shirt and she got removed.

Yeah, the State of the Union in the United States Capitol is probably NOT a good time for a protest.

The other woman removed from the House was Beverly Young, the wife of C.W. "Bill" Young.  The initials stand for Charles William.  Clay Shaw is another Florida Republican House member.

Incidentally, Young is 75.  His wife, who is 50, is reported on Politics 1 as a possible candidate for his seat (presumably if health issues intrude).  No Democrat is running against him.  He is the subcommittee chairman who was "in charge" of Duke Cunningham and the Duke-stir's interests.

Young's reaction to the "protocol" is interesting as a reference.  He was "furious" according to the St. Pete Times and scheduled a meeting with the head of the guards, presumably to call him on the carpet.

I am wholeheartedly with teknofyl on this one. While Sunday-school-clothes-only may not seem to be an offensive rule, the banning of quiet, non-disruptive, political speech in the People's House is disturbing. This administration detains people in Guantanmo without hearing or counsel. It detains people in secret cells throughout Europe without hearing, counsel or even access by the Red Cross -- in violation of the Geneva Convention. They conduct warrantless wiretaps of phone calls from overseas -- "trust us, we only listen to calls to or from al Qaeda." And now, they arrest a woman for wearing a T-shirt bearing a political statement in the House Gallery. Yeah, equal treatment my patootie -- the Repub Congressman's wife was "removed" but she wasn't arrested even after calling one of the officers "an idiot." The Congressman's comments on the removal? "Shame, shame." Come on, folks, wake up. It's chip, chip, chip at our civil liberties. They don't bring in the Gestapo on the front end. Remember Martin Niemöller's famous quotation: "first they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist ...." We should be heartbroken and outraged at this President's cynical trampling of our civil liberties in the name of "protecting" them.

Sorry, it'd be fun to pretend that Sheehan was being single out but that just isn't true.  Because of bad experiences with people coming to the senate and house galleries and protesting all sorts of things both chambers have strict rules against any kind of protest or messaging in the gallery (t-shirts, signs, banners, etc.).

Sheehan was removed last night for wearing a war protest message t-shirt.  Conservative Republican Congressman Bill Young's wife was also removed last night for wearing a t-shirt that said, "I support the troops."

In January of 1999 a Pennsylvania teacher was removed for wearing an anti-Clinton t-shirt in the gallery during impeachment proceedings.

It's a rule and its just that simple.  If people don't like it it is perfectly fine to not like it and even to work to change it.  But to slip tinfoil on your head and claim that this is some conspiracy against Sheehan or our side is just asinine and goofy.

You know... I've tried to be supportive of Cindy Sheehan but she just keeps getting more and more annoying.  Almost as annoying as the blind sheep-like following of some of you who support her no-matter-what.  With each incident the right wing epithet of "media whore" seems to fit a bit more.

Does anyone here REALLY believe Sheehan's assertion that it was just an accident that she wore that t-shirt to the SOTU???!!!  Does anyone doubt that she just LOVES the attention?

Look, I've been against this war from the beginning.  When Cindy first came out I was a huge admirer.  But she is wearing thin.  And, worse than that:  she is not helping our cause.

Our cause is to end this war and take back control of our country.  We can only do that by WINNING elections (am I the only one on here who is tired of "moral" victories???  You know as in a LOSS.  As in, "Wow, Hackett only lost by 4 points so that's actually a victory."??).  Sheehan puts off many more people than she attracts.

You control government by winning elections and you win elections by presenting sound and reasonable leaders offering sound and reasonable solutions.  We are a proud party of intelligent thinkers with brilliant ideas.  Let's not let t-shirt wearing protestors who just love the atteniton be the face of our party.

Okay Sheehan Kool-Aid drinkers... start firing away!

And neither do you apologists for this administration's mocking of the Constitution.

The White House doesn't get to choose what expression is acceptable or not. My God, this was in the "people's house" - if the Constitution doesn't apply there, where in the hell does it apply? This was not one of his election campaign events on "private property".

Did they remove any and all individuals who had any symbolic expression on their person. A yellow ribbon pin, perhaps? What if Cindy Sheehan had worn a gold star? Would that painful reminder be acceptable? If so, why not a shirt? The White House isn't supposed to be able to choose what is acceptable or not.

The fear of disruption? Gee, whatever happened to "all we have to fear is fear itself?"

You'd think that if a school could deal with non-disruptive self expression then the White House could probably do the same.

The majority of this was first posted at Kos.

Subsequent discussion pointed to COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Stating that it's acceptable for the government to arrest people based on the content of their speech eviscerates the first amendment.  To allow the government discriminate based on content, means the first amendment is meaningless since any speech any where can be labeled a disruptive protest and banned.

It may be permissible to bar all political speech in gallery but that would mean even no lapel pins endorsed a political cause and purple fingers should certainly mean ejection.  Considering the blurring of religion and Republican politics, religious symbols should also be banned under such a restriction because they can be seen as a political message.