Protestor to be tried again for ***LAUGHING****

[Derec]

I wonder how people would feel about this prosecution if it was a white supremacist disrupting hearings for AG Holder or Lynch ...

 

[RavenSky]

I wonder how people would feel about this prosecution if it was a white supremacist disrupting hearings for AG Holder or Lynch ...

Given that this fuckwit got nothing worse than a "resolution of disapproval" (the mildest form of censure short of nothing at all) from the House of Representatives - no arrest, no prosecution - then I'd say Desiree Fairooz should not be prosecuted.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I wonder how people would feel about this prosecution if it was a white supremacist disrupting hearings for AG Holder or Lynch ...

Given that this fuckwit got nothing worse than a "resolution of disapproval" (the mildest form of censure short of nothing at all) from the House of Representatives - no arrest, no prosecution - then I'd say Desiree Fairooz should not be prosecuted.

View attachment 12371

Certainly not for a first event and certainly not for that incident, but definitely a polite form of the Bum's rush to escort her out would be in order.

 

[RavenSky]

Certainly not for a first event and certainly not for that incident, but definitely a polite form of the Bum's rush to escort her out would be in order.

For laughing?

Did didn't even laugh loud enough to be heard on the speakers mic, and the speaker didn't miss a beat - seemingly indicating he didn't even hear it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Certainly not for a first event and certainly not for that incident, but definitely a polite form of the Bum's rush to escort her out would be in order.

For laughing?

Did didn't even laugh loud enough to be heard on the speakers mic, and the speaker didn't miss a beat - seemingly indicating he didn't even hear it.

From what I saw the laugh was audible though not loud, but she was more audible when she was thrown out. However it seems unreasonable to prosecute here in this instance.

 

[RavenSky]

For laughing?

Did didn't even laugh loud enough to be heard on the speakers mic, and the speaker didn't miss a beat - seemingly indicating he didn't even hear it.

From what I saw the laugh was audible though not loud, but she was more audible when she was thrown out. However it seems unreasonable to prosecute here in this instance.

Yes, her laugh was audible - but not very far, and not from the stage.

I am fairly certain that everyone's laugh is audible... otherwise it is a smile.

And yes, she was far more audible as she was being thrown out... for laughing.

And yes, I agree that it is entirely unreasonable to prosecute her in this instance... especially for a second time. They've made their point - don't laugh at the head of the DOJ or the head of the DOJ will use his office to prosecute you - the amount of money they are wasting because Jeff Sessions is a special little snowflake is obscene.

 

[skepticalbip]

From what I saw the laugh was audible though not loud, but she was more audible when she was thrown out. However it seems unreasonable to prosecute here in this instance.

Yes, her laugh was audible - but not very far, and not from the stage.

I am fairly certain that everyone's laugh is audible... otherwise it is a smile.

And yes, she was far more audible as she was being thrown out... for laughing.

And yes, I agree that it is entirely unreasonable to prosecute her in this instance... especially for a second time. They've made their point - don't laugh at the head of the DOJ or the head of the DOJ will use his office to prosecute you - the amount of money they are wasting because Jeff Sessions is a special little snowflake is obscene.

It can't be determined how audible the laugh was, but for the speaker's microphone to pick it up, it had to be at a fairly high volume. If the speaker backs away from the microphone more than a foot, they are almost inaudible.

But the laugh wasn't an isolated incident. There were several interruptions before and I would suspect that the remaining demonstrators were warned to keep quite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The First Amendment is a bring-your-own-soapbox rule. You don't get to go into someone else's private space and protest.

She was not in someone else's private space - she was at a public Congressional hearing at the Capitol.

That's the space for the legislature. Her intent was to disrupt, she got punished for doing so.

 

[whichphilosophy]

From what I saw the laugh was audible though not loud, but she was more audible when she was thrown out. However it seems unreasonable to prosecute here in this instance.

Yes, her laugh was audible - but not very far, and not from the stage.

I am fairly certain that everyone's laugh is audible... otherwise it is a smile.

And yes, she was far more audible as she was being thrown out... for laughing.

And yes, I agree that it is entirely unreasonable to prosecute her in this instance... especially for a second time. They've made their point - don't laugh at the head of the DOJ or the head of the DOJ will use his office to prosecute you - the amount of money they are wasting because Jeff Sessions is a special little snowflake is obscene.

They made their point during the election and the party they didn't like won. Trying to disrupt an elected government (per the US electoral process) is disrespectful to the democratic process.

They can protest in the streets of course and prepare for the next election. However I don't think the Democrats are too keen on support from the ultra-left. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would probably tell them, "Stay off our side."

From this article 12 August 2012 (assuming it to be true and not a right wing whack job) I could see why Nancy would say that.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/10/codepink-feminists-to-send-vaginas-to-republican-party/

CodePink Feminists to Send “Vaginas” to Republican Party[/I]

Can’t make it to Tampa to protest at the Republican National Convention? No worries, you can still send your vagina to the RNC!

CODEPINK is asking activists and artists across the nation to submit artistic representations of vaginas for us to deliver to the Republican Headquarters in Tampa.

Draw out a message that the Republicans need to see bright and bold! We suggest you create vagina artwork on 8 1/2″ x 11″ fabric or paper. We will quilt the art together to carry in the March on the RNC on August 27th.

We are also calling for vagina costumes that we can wear in the streets. Is sewing your passion? Do you love repurposing thrift store finds? We’d love to wear your costume!

 

[RavenSky]

She was not in someone else's private space - she was at a public Congressional hearing at the Capitol.

That's the space for the legislature. Her intent was to disrupt, she got punished for doing so.

There you are pretending to be a mind-reader again

She laughed. THAT is what she was thrown out for, and THAT is what she was prosecuted for.

- - - Updated - - -

<snip>

You were doing so well, being so reasonable. What happened? Change of shift?

 

[laughing dog]

She was not in someone else's private space - she was at a public Congressional hearing at the Capitol.

That's the space for the legislature.

The Capitol is not a private space. The legislature was not in closed session - the hearing was open to the public.

Her intent was to disrupt, she got punished for doing so.

As Ravensky pointed out, you would need to be a mind-reader to know that. And even if she intended to disrupt a hearing by LAUGHING, a simple escort out of the hearing is sufficient. It is truly disturbing to see this type of authoritarian nonsense defended, especially by self-proclaimed "libertarians".

 

[laughing dog]

I wonder how people would feel about this prosecution if it was a white supremacist disrupting hearings for AG Holder or Lynch ...

Laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

 

[fast]

I wonder how people would feel about this prosecution if it was a white supremacist disrupting hearings for AG Holder or Lynch ...

Laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

When a creditor calls a debtor on the telephone to collect a debt, the creditor has made a phone call, but just because the 4th call made in the same day is still a phone call, it's no longer just a phone call, as there's more to it than merely that--as the repetitive action constitutes harassment.

The problem with the phone call isn't that it's a phone call. That shouldn't be any more unlawful than should (oh say) laughing. The problem is the harassment, not the form that the harassment takes. What that distinction exemplifies lies at the heart of many confusions.

Can't you hear an accused trespasser now? "I was just walking." Momma says, "he was just walking!" News reports, "boy arrested for walking." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Walking, yes, but not just walking. He wasn't arrested for walking. The creditor wasn't just making a phone call, so I ask, was she laughing?

Obviously, she was laughing. But, was she just laughing? Now, if I call him up and laugh, how many times can I laugh before you quit my defense team?

I think we should find cartoons about this. Student cries, "all I did was turn in my homework" as he walks into plagiarism anonymous, ha ha.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's the space for the legislature. Her intent was to disrupt, she got punished for doing so.

There you are pretending to be a mind-reader again

She laughed. THAT is what she was thrown out for, and THAT is what she was prosecuted for.

- - - Updated - - -

<snip>

You were doing so well, being so reasonable. What happened? Change of shift?

I am reasonable. I don't see making laughing itself and the disruption afterwards should waste the courts time. If this was repeated by the same person but in a much more disruptive manner my own view is that they could be ejected.

A charge would require a lot more, such as disrupting those around her an perhaps resisting a reasonable way in which an ejection is applied. The objection in itself should not be a reason for spending money in the courts.

Whatever views we have on disrupting a government ceremonies and pomposity, prosecutions should be rare and related to any extreme behaviour. If such persons can be ejected without conflict then the matter would end there. The lady in question was not a problem to remove.

There are also some good points Code Pink makes regarding the needless wars the US has conducted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And nothing for the guy (elected Representative) who shouted "Baby Killer" to Obama during his address.

- - - Updated - - -

Laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

When a creditor calls a debtor on the telephone to collect a debt, the creditor has made a phone call, but just because the 4th call made in the same day is still a phone call, it's no longer just a phone call, as there's more to it than merely that--as the repetitive action constitutes harassment.

The problem with the phone call isn't that it's a phone call. That shouldn't be any more unlawful than should (oh say) laughing. The problem is the harassment, not the form that the harassment takes. What that distinction exemplifies lies at the heart of many confusions.

Can't you hear an accused trespasser now? "I was just walking." Momma says, "he was just walking!" News reports, "boy arrested for walking." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Walking, yes, but not just walking. He wasn't arrested for walking. The creditor wasn't just making a phone call, so I ask, was she laughing?

Obviously, she was laughing. But, was she just laughing? Now, if I call him up and laugh, how many times can I laugh before you quit my defense team?

I think we should find cartoons about this. Student cries, "all I did was turn in my homework" as he walks into plagiarism anonymous, ha ha.

We are talking about prosecuting a person for breaking decorum rules. You break a rule like that, and you get tossed out of the venue... not prosecuted as if you committed a crime.

 

[laughing dog]

Laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

When a creditor calls a debtor on the telephone to collect a debt, the creditor has made a phone call, but just because the 4th call made in the same day is still a phone call, it's no longer just a phone call, as there's more to it than merely that--as the repetitive action constitutes harassment.

The problem with the phone call isn't that it's a phone call. That shouldn't be any more unlawful than should (oh say) laughing. The problem is the harassment, not the form that the harassment takes. What that distinction exemplifies lies at the heart of many confusions.

Can't you hear an accused trespasser now? "I was just walking." Momma says, "he was just walking!" News reports, "boy arrested for walking." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Walking, yes, but not just walking. He wasn't arrested for walking. The creditor wasn't just making a phone call, so I ask, was she laughing?

Obviously, she was laughing. But, was she just laughing? Now, if I call him up and laugh, how many times can I laugh before you quit my defense team?

I think we should find cartoons about this. Student cries, "all I did was turn in my homework" as he walks into plagiarism anonymous, ha ha.

If this woman had been arrested for harassment, your argument would at least be relevant even though it is ridiculous to equate laughing at public legislative hearing with harassment. However, she was not ARRESTED for harassment but disruption.

I stand by my observation that laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

 

[whichphilosophy]

When a creditor calls a debtor on the telephone to collect a debt, the creditor has made a phone call, but just because the 4th call made in the same day is still a phone call, it's no longer just a phone call, as there's more to it than merely that--as the repetitive action constitutes harassment.

The problem with the phone call isn't that it's a phone call. That shouldn't be any more unlawful than should (oh say) laughing. The problem is the harassment, not the form that the harassment takes. What that distinction exemplifies lies at the heart of many confusions.

Can't you hear an accused trespasser now? "I was just walking." Momma says, "he was just walking!" News reports, "boy arrested for walking." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Walking, yes, but not just walking. He wasn't arrested for walking. The creditor wasn't just making a phone call, so I ask, was she laughing?

Obviously, she was laughing. But, was she just laughing? Now, if I call him up and laugh, how many times can I laugh before you quit my defense team?

I think we should find cartoons about this. Student cries, "all I did was turn in my homework" as he walks into plagiarism anonymous, ha ha.

If this woman had been arrested for harassment, your argument would at least be relevant even though it is ridiculous to equate laughing at public legislative hearing with harassment. However, she was not ARRESTED for harassment but disruption.

I stand by my observation that laughing at a legislator should never be considered a criminal act.

Nonetheless the norm is to just discreetly as possible give them the Bum's Rush without charging them.