Talk:Woman arrested for heckling Chinese President Hu at White House

Freedom?

I'm confused. Is there free speech in the USA or not? If not, how can the USA be spreading freedom half way around the world if they have no freedom themselves? I saw that old woman on TV and she was never a threat to anybody. Maybe we should add the USA's Bill of Rights to this article? Maybe Americans have forgotten what it says? Neutralizer 02:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just add the first amendment quote? Was yours a rhetorical question?

She could have been arrested for making threats or disturbing the peace.

The Bill of Rights quote might not really be a part of this story. It's certainly not a source. If you want it included, give more reason and list it as a reference, not a source. Karen 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I gave it some consideration and decided just to remove the quote and source because:

1. It doesn't seem to apply in this case - the charge was harassment. "She kept shouting for several minutes before Secret Service agents led her off the stand."
2. The Bill of Rights quote isn't a source, it's a reference.
3. The quote seems to be included only for "flag waving" purposes, which would be for "point of view" reasons?
4. You didn't wait long enough from the time you posted the question to the time you made the edit.

I certainly didn't wait long to decide to remove it, but after asking for others' opinions on the matter, all the opinions I received were to remove it. Karen 03:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is similar to including in an article about Iran's nuclear activities (as a "reference" or "source") sections of the nuclear treaties Iran signed. The Bill of Rights is a foundation stone of the US judicial system and is therefore relevant to an article about an arrest and misdeamenor law which may seem to ignore or circumvent that foundation stone. I saw this woman being shut up and it was a flagrant fascist subversion of free speech. Neutralizer 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Was it her turn to talk? If your reasons seem justified to you, and you've stated your position, feel free to add it back as a reference. It's not a source of this story, though. You'd have to argue extra-hard for me to believe that. Karen 21:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now it was put in as a reference and quickly removed by Brian without addressing my issues. Neutralizer 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just can't make the connection between the federal crime of "heckling" and freedom of speech, or I'd back you on this. The biggest problem I have with your reasons are they are stated as a series of rhetorical questions. Other than that, I'm trying to be receptive to the idea that the freedom of speech is extended to disturbing a White House appearance - isn't that a government function? I have to ask this question again: Was it her turn to talk? Karen 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My God, how sheepish citizens have become; waiting for their "turn to talk" to Hu or Bush; you'll be waiting a hellova long time. Freedom of speech and being forced to wait until a government person hands you a microphone are mutually exclusive; but I really can not work with anyone who does not already realize that simple and obvious truism. It's not you; it's me. I'm the oddball on Wikinews when it comes to perceptions of things like this. You just keep on waiting for your turn to talk to Presidents Hu and Bush. There's a plaque in the Skull and Bones tomb at Yale U. (which just became the only University to have direct investment opportunity in China [1]). I'm starting to understand more and more the logic behind the words on that plaque; "If God didn't want them fleeced; He wouldn't have made them sheep." Neutralizer 12:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions

It is so frustrating to see assumptions about "flag waving" motives which come out of nowhere and seem to influence some people's approach to a purely technical discussion. Neutralizer 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, as a purely technical discussion, was I right about your motivations? Am I influencing your approach so you think about how your edits might be influencing the point of view? Karen 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you were completely off with your specualtion. I will include the info as a reference. If someone was arrested in the USA and charged with these types of crimes (as also was Cindy Sheehan for wearing a T Shirt) it is important for the article to reference the factual overriding constitutional applications which is why in news articles we often see reference to "Roe vs Wade" even though that judgment may not be mentioned in the charges brought. To not reference the Bill of Rights in this situation is to POV the article by ommision as the inference would be left with the readers that such charges in this case are constitutionally allowed which I feel is patent nonsense. If noone understands my point I am wasting my and your time by my being here. Neutralizer 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I understood the point perfectly - or believe I did so. The point was to relate the story to an item enshrined in the western common set of beliefs and thus imply that those who arrested this woman were opposed to them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is not to imply anything especially not what anyone else's opinion is. The point is to mention there is preceding US law(Bill of Rights) on the books which, on its face, may indicate that the laying of these charges in this situation and the very existance of such laws is unconstitutional as the newer laws "abridge free speech". I also suggest anyone interested look up the definition of the word "abridge". Neutralizer 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just realise it was speculation - that's why I said it seemed like flag waving. The United States of America is very proud of its free speech rights. Canada doesn't have those rights - no 2nd or 5th ammendment regarding freedom of speech or freedom to keep quiet. I just think if it wasn't her turn to talk, she'd be free to step outside and speak without abridgment. In the correct venue, she's certainly free to U.S. rights, especally if she were a U.S. citizen. Karen 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Canadian Charter of Rights;[2]"Fundamental Freedoms;Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:..(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

First: what is "news"? Why is this news? Because it's been on TV? Is a small disturbance news just because Bush was present? Is a woman being charged with a misdemeanor newsworthy by itself?

In my opinion, the answer to both those questions is "no". In my opinion, this is news only because of the light it sheds on two rather controversial issues:

• The ethics involved in the US working with these people that are, arguably, mass murderers.
• A woman facing up to 6 months in jail in the US for trying to bring some publicity to an atrocity in progress.

Perhaps not everyone will agree with me on why this is news, but assuming you do: Should the Real News part of the article not be explicitly mentioned? Should the concept of neutral reporting be taken so far as to obscuring what a news item is about? I don't think so. //Magnus

Magnus, we do not report the "real news" here. We could; but the community prefers not to. If you are looking for "real news" I suggest Wikipedia or the New York Times. Neutralizer 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Wikinews has the technological and sociological potential to develop into an invaluable resource. However, I can't see that happening if wikipedia merely rehashes mainstream news stories. Rehashes thoroughly cleansed of anything that may be construed as non neutral to boot. To my mind the greatest, so far potential, advantage to a non-commercial community-driven news site is the analysis and elaboration that can be added to the stripped-of-all-interesting-meat soundbites that you get out of mainstream media. Additionally, neutral? Just posting this article shows bias. The same goes for a great percentage of articles. How do I figure? Simple, unless one question the ethics of what is reported here it's Not News. Strip the article of the controversial politics and what do you have? "Woman heckled man, charged for it". Where's the news? Portraying a story such as this in a truly unbiasad way would make it cease to be news. To be perfecly honest, I consider stories such as this, that live in the tvilightzone between straight reporting of facts and propaganda, to border on being intellectually dishonest. They try to appear to be straight fact reporting but they are not.

For the record: I'm all for publishing stories of this type, I consider them to be one of the most vital parts of real journalism. But for crying out loud, be honest about what it is that you report and elaborate on the important issues involved! /Magnus

I couldn't agree more; one problem is that NPOV is being misapplied as a censoring devise. The really huge potential for wikinews is for original reporting from eyewitnesses but the few such articles that have come in with controversial aspects have been met with great resistance. I think that western governments must be very satisfied with the self-censorship that is going on right here. The other problem is the fact someone with little knowledge or thought capabilities can interfere with publication of an article; and with just 2 or 3 such contributors banding together on any article they can bury it or sanitize it to the point of uselessness; especially if 1 or more have administrative tools.

The solution is quite simple. Publish everything written but have 2 categories; Unreviewed and unedited; and Reviewed and edited. Neutralizer 17:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"after asking for others' opinions on the matter"

I've done it myself on IRC, but I have recently come to share Ed's opinion that IRC is not transparent and article decision making discussions should be done right here,imo. How can I address the arguments/opinions of these "others" you spoke to? Neutralizer 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can address your position here. Provide supporing ideas instead of rhetorical questions, and that will help your position. Karen 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

you do not address the concerns about transparency and leaving discussion history unavailable to anyone who wishes to review this discussion. This is not a non-transparent wiki and there is no requirement that anyone go into an IRC to participate in article construction. I personally find the discssions on IRC to be no better than a high school chat room so I resent you telling me you edited out my article edits based upon some discussions you had off-site. Please tell me,would it not be better to have had those discussions right here so everyone could form their own opinions about the extent of community will represented by what you chose to do? I'm not mad at you because as I said, I have also fallen into the "come to Irc" trap but this event shows me that Ed is correct when he simply said "Irc is not wikinews" and "Irc is not transparent". Neutralizer 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to address your concerns about IRC - I just wanted you to state your position here. Because you've done that, you now have a discussion here instead of me just scratching my head wondering what you meant and asking a few people around me. I'm not going to transcribe external dialog confirming my confusion with your (at the time) lack of discussion here. Karen 08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"harassment" now "heckling"

why use the word "harassment" in the title? is that what she's been accused of/charged with? "heckling" or "disrupting" is the appropriate word, i think. Doldrums 07:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I saw the event/situation live. She was IMO heckling. Jason Safoutin 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, harrassment is overstating the known facts. Neutralizer 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But speech was far too mild and nondescript. :-) The title should make an effort to persuade readers to click the link and read the whole story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work discussing the headline. If you've still got it in you, what's the legal difference? Karen 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go to a dictionary to find the answer to that question; or you may think about the fact that Parliaments around the world typically consist of heckling among their members on a daily basis. Neutralizer 23:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, heckling occurs in government processes all the time - when officials open their mouths when it's not their turn to talk. Maybe that's what she did here - totally independent of U.S. 2nd ammendment rights. Heckling isn't listed as a U.S. federal crime anywhere I could access - no dictionary I could access states such. Karen 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This is pretty big news...And I know there is more than one source available...if I had time I would add some...but someone should find one or two more. Jason Safoutin 12:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I know there are more sources available...we really should not publish with just one source...IMO. Jason Safoutin 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right - in fact we haven't settled the issue Neutralizer raised. I think we're just not qualified to make the sorts of legal conclusions he'd like to make here. But we're just reporting the news, right? We're to report what we know, not speculate. But we should make an effort to find more information to report that is specific to this case. The two sorces are now AP and BBC. Karen 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It is POV to have this article give the impression that there are valid laws which abridge freedom of speech within the USA. There are still laws in some Georgia counties against inter-racial marriages and it would be highly POV and silly to report in a news article that someone had been charged under those laws without referencing the higher laws of the land which contradict the local laws. The reference to the Bill of Rights is appropriate and does no harm.Neutralizer 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• But they are valid laws that are in effect today. It would be POV to state that they aren't, but as of now, it is a fact that they are laws that people can be charged against. The reference to the Bill of Rights implies that these laws are invalid, and that people only made them up to charge this one person against them. That takes out the fact that they were passed before this case, and the fact that she was arrested for this proves that these laws are in effect today. It isn't Wikinews' job to rule whether they're fair or contradictary to the Bill of Rights. Never conclude for readers - that's their job. Wikinews don't allow editorial content here in the mainspace. If you wish to include it, copy the article and put your revisions on your userspace. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

mentioning the following, i think, would be relevant and address the concern raised. the section under which wenyi wang is charged, US Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 7, § 112 Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons[3] states

Quote

---

(d) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

also, if someone can dig up if she's planning to use this in her defence, it would be even better. Doldrums 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MrM's point. Why do we ever need to use the word "imply"? That always involves specualtion as to the intention of the editor. I am not implying the laws are invalid; I am simply providing the wording from the US constitution which may seem to a reasonable person to be inconsistent with these laws. I am simply adding some NPOV so that the article is not leaving readers with the assumption that the laws in question are definitely constitutional. Until these laws are challenged in the Supreme Court we can not assume (nor imply) they are either valid or invalid. I thought it was interesting that the charges agianst Sheehan were dropped for wearing her T-Shirt into congress and I have to wonder whether the charges against Wang will ever go to trial simply because if it does go to trial, these laws may be found to be unconstitutional. I am not "implying" that they are, I am saying that a high court may determine that they are. Neutralizer 21:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Doldrums point; I suppose that is why I have remained here so long. Occasionally someone actually does some work and brings some fresh and verifiable information into a discussion. In this case I think the new information is supporting for my insistence of including the Bill of Rights mention in this article. The fact that there is an attempt through denial; "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." to force the square peg of this law into the round hole of the constitution shows clearly that a reasonable person would be wondering about the constitutionality of these censorship laws. As I said above, I seriously doubt this case will ever find its way to trial as then the entire pandora's box of various US laws that abridge rights of speech,press,association and assembly would be exposed and possibly sent to the museum of civil rights' horrors alongside those committed by Hitler,Stalin,Saudi Arabia and Hu. Neutralizer 21:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disturbing the peace is not a law that the Congress made. It is a civil code, and that's what she violated. The first amendment would not apply here, unless you were trying to make a political statement. Please stop - that is a blatant violation of WN:NPOV. All of you are aware of this, so consider yourself warned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Read the article MrM, this lady was not charged with disturbing the peace. Please read the article. The other problem with your point is that the the Supreme Court decided long ago (and re-confirmed with their rulings overturning the rascist state segregation laws) that the amendment's correct interpretation is that all laws of the land must conform to the these limitations. Neither you nor I are able to say for sure what a higher court might say; but we can both agree that there is a Bill of Rights and we can agree on and report what it actually says in order not to give unnecessary credibility to the laws Wang is charged with breaking; which I believe is some kind of harrassment law rather than the disturbing the peace law you throw out I assume in error. Neutralizer 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That described is the situation. Wenyi's court appointed lawyer David Bos has challenged the charge specifically on free-speech grounds. He has said specifically in regard to the US Bill of Rights which includes the first amendment "It's making the First Amendment rights of all Americans just evaporate,". This is from the Reuters article here at this site. A new source to use in addition to other. Octavian 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article SAYS THAT SHE WAS CHARGED WITH DISTURBING THE PEACE. STOP ADDING IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TEXT - YOU ARE MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT THAT IS NOT WELCOMED HERE, ACCORDING TO WN:NPOV. This is your FINAL WARNING. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Before any further actions are done here. Did you read my comment user Mrmiscellanious? The contested material is precisely the basis of Wenyi's defense by Bos according to the Reuters article linked. Removal is not the correct course, supplement and reframe into comment and explanation of comment by Bos is the correct course here. Octavian 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Octavian, I don't care what Reuters says. I go by what Wikinews says. The Wikinews article said she was arrested for DISTURBING THE PEACE. I don't go by Reuters... so if there are factual inaccuracies, fix them - don't point to another source. Unfortunately, other editors only kept reverting edits and adding irrelevent text. I do not see why you are defending them here - you have information that would be great if added to this article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is as stated in comment to DF. I gave the source here as I still am not certain that I know the proper way to add into the articles myself yet. Octavian 01:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok :) You did what you were supposed to :) Thats how I learned as well. Good job on finding the source :) I wish other users would be a little more cooperative and do the same. Good job :) Jason Safoutin 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed MrM's personal attack and threat. Hopefully he will now be blocked. Neutralizer 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, He reverted before the source was added. I do not see a single reason why you Neutralizer cannot find this stuff yourself. Instead of tagging articles, mayboe you should actually look for sources instead of creating disputes. As for the personal attack, I do not see one anywhere. I would advise that you colllobarate a little more instead of creating problems. (IMO). Jason Safoutin 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

DF, my comment with the link was made here on this page before the last action. That is undoubtedly what was referred to in user Neutralizer's comment. I am still not certain of the proper ways to edit for articles, so I gave it here. Additionally, the considered comment by the user given by user MrMiscellanious has been removed already. Review differences to see it. Octavian 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I read it. It was not an attack. It was a fact. I saw that you placed the source here, but thats here. Not the article. Mrm was weell within his rights to revert. Neutralizer could have found this source with a few types and a click. But he didn't. I see no attacks. Jason Safoutin 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Octavian for finding the source and Doldrums as well for your research. Neutralizer 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting that the defense laywer claimed she was entitled to free speech under the First Amendment now gives a reason to mention the First Amendment in the story. If sources are covering the defence, are there any sources that can correctly state the charges so the headline can state it correctly? Karen 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Veracity of Dr. Wang's claim pertinent to her behavior

What's not being disputed is she broke the media protocol required by the media credential she sought from White House. But what about the point she was trying to make? Have you looked into the veracity of Dr. Wang's "concentration camp" allegation?

Dr. Wang is the lead researcher for Epoch Times NY's conveniently timed "Auschwitz" allegation that has since being discredited by US State Department:

Given Dr. Wang's profession as a pathologist, and New York's recent string of grisly illegal cadaver organ harvesting cases, it's not hard to see how she put two and two together and rehashed the 1970's era anti-communist tall tale of people sentenced to vivisection.

Dr. Wang's pathology background also links her to the grisly photos used by Epoch Times as evidence of torture and vivisection. A pathologist friend pointed out to me that the elaborate incisions around the neck area is for revealing the hyoid bone for signs of strangulation. This is only done for murder investigation. The Chinese government, if as charged, wouldn't bother.

Also there's no neck organ suitable for transplantation. The photo is in fact an autopsy photo.

--bobby fletcher 2:55, May 22 2006 (PST)

Category and link

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to [[:Category:White House]] and localize the link of the same name. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

addressed. --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)