A new one for the books...

[Cataholic]

I don't really follow. You are to appear naked?

The First Amendment argument or defense is frequently misunderstood. It concerns the interaction between a society and those that govern. Easy example, all pedestrians walking around the city must wear suits and ties. That would be an infringment, arguably, on somone's first amendment right of freedom of expression. BUT, my employer can tell me I have to wear a suit and a tie.

So- if this woman (a private citizen) is telling people what they can or can't wear...she can do that. Course, no one has to listen to her. BUT, the government can't say, "if you want to protest on the courthouse steps, you must wear black". They could say, "if you want to protest, you must wear clothes", as there is a genuine public interest to advance in requiring citizens to wear clothes on public property.

So, not sure exactly what your facts are, they were unclear. And, I do not practice in the area of (boring to me) First Amendment Rights.

[Catty1]

I think what Donna meant is that this woman said they cannot wear shirts with any kind of slogan on them, especially pertaining to this case.

Wear it on your trousers, Donna!

Perhaps it was just more of a warning that if someone DOES wear a shirt with slogans etc on it, then they will be arrested. SHE is not making the threat - she obviously knows this will happen!

If the point is to bring attention to the criminal, then this is a wise move. If you are arrested and go off kicking and screaming, that will deflect attention from him to you. And set an image for the other protesters.

Maybe you guys can carry signs?

[Cataholic]

Hmm....I must be in a fog today, I still don't get it.

But, if the person organising this event is asking that it go off in a certain way (no shirts with slogans) then, maybe she is doing it for a particular reason. If I were to participate in the event, I would tend to follow her lead. No point in anyone getting arrested, it kind of makes you look 'nutty', and wouldn't advance the cause, IMO.

But, again, not sure I follow it totally.