Cindy Sheehan is all About Free Speech … Except When its About her … Then its about Suing


“These people are using our tragedy for profit,” she charged. “They always accuse me of exploiting Casey’s death for profit, and what are they doing?” Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan

Did Cindy Sheehan just admit profiting from her son’s death in the above comment? What is most amazing is the hypocrisy of Ms Sheehan. She is allowed to circumnavigate the globe protesting a war, the Bush Administration and everything in-between. Sheehan meets with dictators and embraces Hugo Chavez, then denigrates the USA. All this is fine and falls under free speech.  However, when it comes to other practicing their free speech, she suddenly has a problem. What does anyone do he wants to prevent someone else’s free speech? Sue of course.


We’re gonna see them in court, and I hope they sell a bunch of their crappy books, because I’m gonna sue them for every nickel they have,” Sheehan said.

I would say amazing; however, these actions have become all too typical.   Read the following from CNS News, “Sheehan’s Legal Threat Led CNN to Censor Me, Author Says”

CNN restricted an on-air discussion about a new book dealing with the Iraq war because peace activist Cindy Sheehan threatened to sue over provocative claims about her in the book, one of its co-authors claims.

American Mourning” examines how the death of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq affected their families. One of the two is the Sheehan family.

Won’t this get interesting if any type of law suit is pursued? This looks to be a nasty mess. Let’s see if the actual law suit is carried out or if it is just a threat to have the media shy away from covering the book tour.

However, Kristen Schremp, a publicist for Morgan and Moy, told Cybercast News Service that the authors “thoroughly researched and documented each and every fact in this book. There are over 600 phone records, emails, instant messages and FEC documents that back up these facts.”

“We hope for the sake of Ms. Sheehan’s loved ones that we are not forced into litigation,” Morgan and Moy said Monday. “But, if the documents are subpoenaed, we will have no choice but to act in accordance with the court’s requests, therefore making the documents public.”

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Another Cindy Sheehan Anti-War Peace Mom Rally … Its all about tolerance & Peace with Cindy Supporters
  • Cindy Sheehan Arrested Again in Washington, DC … Her act is Getting Old
  • Its a Moonbat Smack Down: Cindy Sheehan to Take on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for CA Conressional Seat
  • A Battle Royal Democratic Rumble: Cindy Sheehan Vs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
  • Cindy Sheehan Sides with Hugo Chavez, Would Rather Live Under Chavaz… Please do

  • Comments

    51 Responses to “Cindy Sheehan is all About Free Speech … Except When its About her … Then its about Suing”

    1. Jon on October 25th, 2006 1:46 am

      It’s like an expression that asks (after a problem where you are injured) ‘do you call your lawyer first, or do you call for medical assistance?’

    2. blah on October 25th, 2006 6:45 am

      isnt it time for this piece of trash to go away yet?

    3. Miss-Underestimated on October 25th, 2006 9:04 am

      BTW Cindy and Hugo make a lovely couple.

      If I am reading this correctly, if Cindy persues the law suit, the publishing firm will have to: in order to defend the information in the book, make public all phone records, emails and instant messages, which could possibly hurt Cindy’s family.

      How much you wanna bet Cindy will sue anyway?

      It seems to me it’s always been about Cindy anyway, so I don’t think she cares too much about her family.

    4. Freebrid on October 25th, 2006 9:23 am

      She should go home! Her own family doesn’t even want her they left! Her husband said she was nuts! He said their son loved his job and had resigned for another 4 years whats she thinking! She is in it for the attention and money that’s all she wants! Notice how happy she is in that pic!!

    5. Nut44x4 on October 25th, 2006 9:57 am

      This woman is obviously severely–mentally disturbed, and my guess is…she was like this long before her Son died in Iraq. She does not deserve any air time and is not newsworthy, IMHO. She is sick……period.

    6. kw on October 25th, 2006 10:22 am

      I can’t stand that b{{edit}}.

      (pardon my French)

    7. linda on October 25th, 2006 10:51 am

      But shouldn’t we have respect for a mother who lost her we have for Beth..its a different situation..but still she lost her son..which is horrible for every parent..


      SM: Please do not even reference Cindy Sheehan and Beth Twitty in the same sentence. Linda, that would be true if she didn’t politicize her son’s death. Cindy Sheehan has actually gone against her own son’s wishes. He was not anti-war.

      Other mothers of fallen soldiers cannot stand Cindy Sheehan as she pretends to speak for all parents of fallen soldiers.

      When Beth Twitty starts hanging around Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and a multitude of other dictators ,,, maybe you can incluse in the same sentence. Until then, no.

      Cindy Sheehan allowed herself to be recruited by the left wing of the Democratic party to be anti-war inspite of what her son’s wishes may have been.


    8. Nederlander on October 25th, 2006 11:03 am

      Linda, I couldn’t agree with you more. She has the same motivation and drive as Beth to deal with her horrible loss.


      SM: Not even close … Beth Twitty is not backed up by the Uber-left anti-war crowd. PLEASE … You may want to find some perspective.


    9. linda on October 25th, 2006 11:13 am

      Yes Nederlander..everybody deals with their loss in a different way..and then I’m also against the war!!!!
      Ben je van Aruba..of woon je in Nederland???

    10. Miss-Underestimated on October 25th, 2006 11:53 am

      If you know the history of Cindy you will see she was a pawn for several groups. They used her. It is great when parents who lose children become advocates for the childs rights. There in is the difference, Cindys son chose to enlist and then re-enlist, now given that fact, knowing your son loved what he did, Cindy could have used her abilities to uphold the memory of her son rather than a mockery. Nobody likes war, the issue with Cindy is not the war, it is her and her battle with George Bush.

      BTW why would a woman who claims to want to protect people will hitch herself up with a leader of a country like Hugo, poster boy for lack of human rights.

      What could be so telling in those emails and instant messages?

    11. Mike on October 25th, 2006 12:08 pm

      her 15 minutes should have been up a long time ago. maybe the reason her son re-enlisted was so he would not have to be around to put up with her. ship her to chavez and let him take care of her.

    12. chris on October 25th, 2006 12:38 pm

      Linda and Nederlander,until the day you show me a photo of Beth embracing Hugo Chavez, I will never put that nutcase on the same level with Beth.
      She can’t even respect the fact that her son chose to do what he did. In the end it is all about her……chris

    13. linda on October 25th, 2006 1:04 pm

      You know guys..maybe I reacted to fast..I really do not know much about this Cindy person.

    14. dennisintn on October 25th, 2006 1:09 pm

      there is absolutely no basis for comparing beth and sheehan.

    15. Amsterdamned on October 25th, 2006 1:14 pm

      #6 Icann’t stand that b{{edit}} either, sorry I mean {{{edit}}


      SM: Â  Cut the BS. now.


    16. vicki on October 25th, 2006 1:19 pm

      13# Well thats about the nicest thing you have said so far.
      I am with you dennis#14 none what so ever.

    17. Little Elvis on October 25th, 2006 1:34 pm

      she is a disgrace to the United States..she is also disgracing her sons honor as a fallen hero..PERIOD

    18. madmatt on October 25th, 2006 1:49 pm

      Last I heard neither sheehan or chavez was responsible for 600000 deaths so why don’t you go look at a real criminal like bush!

    19. Dean on October 25th, 2006 1:52 pm

      Here’s a 2005 article with with quotes from Casey Cheehan’s father, brother, and sisters.
      Feel free to skip the first few paragraphs of reporter-spin and zoom right in to quotes from the family.

      I empathize with their loss. That’s why I do not hate Cindy Sheehan. I read the news: I’m aware of what she has done and said. She lost her son: I, for one, am willing to give her some latitude in how she deals with that.

    20. Carny on October 25th, 2006 2:01 pm

      hey matt, 600000?? the ones in Iraq dont count. No one made those soldiers enlist. They died doing what they believed in

    21. SUPER DAVE on October 25th, 2006 2:12 pm


    22. iaintbacchus on October 25th, 2006 2:18 pm

      This isn’t the United Kingdom. In court, the burden of proof will be on Sheehan. In order for her even to have filed there’s got to be some kind of case that she was defamed, that the defamation was malicious, and that it wasn’t true. If not, it’s gonna get thrown out pretty quick.
      But if she wins, or even if the author and/or publisher settles, then some of the people on this site are going to have a lot of crow to eat.
      I think at this point Cindy Sheehan is down to doing what she’s doing largely for the attention and I really wish she’d shut up. But if you think somebody is publishing lies about you then you have a moral obligation to see that they don’t make any money at it. If only to discourage others from doing the same thing.
      This is not a freedom of speech issue. Malicious slander, which is what she has to prove, is not covered by the first ammendment.

    23. anon on October 25th, 2006 2:22 pm

      But what are the claims she is suing over? Is it a disputation of a matter of fact? Libel is not protected speech.


      SM: Let’s just see whether it is libelous? Let’s see whether a publisher took the chance of distributing libelous material. In an industry (publishing) dominated by libs … hard to imagine they would take such a chance.

    24. linda on October 25th, 2006 2:24 pm

      Ohh vicky here we go again..because I do not agree with you, I’m not nice…

    25. Miss-Underestimated on October 25th, 2006 2:39 pm

      Dean there is no doubt the enormous pain this family and Cindy feels, but what good is Cindy doing for the war or her son? She has no support for those directly responsible for protecting us, the US Military, or parents of children lost in the war and all wars before this..

      I think she is lost touch with reality and is caught up in her own celebrity. Her son appeared to be an awesome soldier and I for one am proud of what he has done and am in debt to him for his sacrifice. Where would we be and our freedom be with out these soldiers, whether the war is fought here or in other countries. Think how sureal it would be to have a war on US ground….911 was a taste of what it could be here.

    26. Jack Flackett on October 25th, 2006 2:48 pm

      Here is a quote from the original CBS News article:

      “Sheehan stated during the interview that her anger was based on several statements in the book, including a claim that after her son’s death, “Cindy had become addicted to online chat rooms of a pornographic nature.”

      The book also asserts that Sheehan exchanged “hundreds of explicit emails and instant messages” with a married man.

      Sheehan in the radio interview called Moy and Morgan “hate-mongers” engaged in “yellow journalism.”"

      If these monstrous accusations do indeed appear in the book, and knowing the way the morally corrupt Karl Rove uses his slime machine against everyone who stands in his way, I hope she sues them into the poor house.

    27. Miss-Underestimated on October 25th, 2006 3:08 pm

      If we get back to the basis of this article, Cindy is po’d because of what is going to be said of her, but it ok for her to say what she wanted. Soooo…freedom of speech is a 2 way street.

    28. Robert on October 25th, 2006 3:21 pm

      Banish Cindy and the entire GOP (for being hypocrites)!!!!!

    29. Jack Flackett on October 25th, 2006 3:24 pm

      There are facts, there are opinions, and then there is slander and libel. Attempting to smear someone with outright, unsupportable lies is character assassination, and is an attempt to destroy her. It is not free speech.

      On the other hand, if I came out with a book that investigates Laura Bush’s (documented) killing of her high school boyfriend, who had just broken up with her, you’d defend that as free speech, right?

    30. Angryflower on October 25th, 2006 4:00 pm

      It’s funny to watch the right, on one hand pointing at the left and yelling “unhinged!” and “bush derangement syndrome!” while on the other working themselves into a frothy lather over Cindy Sheehan, who does not legislate, and has no power whatsoever except to make a sure-fire raise in hits for the next wingnut blogger who brings her up.

    31. brachiator on October 25th, 2006 6:04 pm

      Sheehan seems to be claiming libel, which is not only not protected speech but illegal speech (under civil law, not criminal). The fact Sheehan seems willing to sue and have all the supposed evidence exposed publicly indicates that she is not afraid of that evidence, i.e., it does not support what the authors claim.

      So why don’t you all just let it play out? One would think y’all’d be happy to see Sheehan get “her due,” not clucking around like Henny Penny instead of blaming the true censor here, CNN, which was under absolutely no obligation to cut down the author’s airtime.

      By the way, to the great moral philosopher who posted that the deaths of people in Iraq “don’t count,” including US soldiers because “No one made” them “enlist” and “they died doing what they believed in” — Shame on you! I suppose you’ll keep supporting the war for whatever reason you have, since apparently neither civilians nor American troops “count” and the war is therefore just going wonderfully.

    32. gil on October 25th, 2006 6:41 pm

      I know that Cindy can be a perfect target for Right Wingers when trying to forget…..

      Forget the mess they made in Iraq.
      Forget they will loose Congress.
      Forget that the Democrats will enjoy now a big majority in State Governors (Remember Tom Delay’s re-distriting fight and the Supremes desicion? … Pay backs are hell).
      Forget that the Senate can also be lost in November
      Forget that Bush will be the most unpopular lame duck President since Hoover.
      Forget that you lost the best chance in a generation to “take” the Supreme Court to the Right.
      Forget that you still have two more years of a “Leader” that has a strategy (If you can call spin a strategy) in Iraq that changes from “We are turnning the Corner”, to “We will Stand down when they stand up”, to “We will stay until Victory is achieved” , to ” We will not cut and run” , to “We will stay the course” to now ” We will adjust and have benchmarks”…… Hey, if the trend of “talking” the war to victory, continues maibe we can send our spinners to Iraq and have them win the war by covering Bagdhad with Bull Shit.

      So, Cindy you are the goat.

    33. Maggie on October 25th, 2006 7:21 pm

      Let her go back to singing.. Me and Hugo, down by the schoolyard.

    34. Sharon Chicago on October 25th, 2006 7:50 pm

      SHAME ON HER….poor thing she has let bitterness take over her soul…She may feel more at home in another country…can I help her pack!!

    35. John Gillnitz on October 25th, 2006 9:49 pm

      Are ya’ll really so dumb that you don’t know the difference between free speech and libel?

    36. Houston on October 25th, 2006 10:25 pm

      Sheehan will probably to to North Korea next. She does not seem to have any pride.

    37. gil on October 25th, 2006 11:03 pm

      Sharon Chicago.

      You disagree with Cindy therefore she sholud go to another Country, how original…. I kind of like Cindy’s stile. Stay in this Country, and give people like you hell…. You can of course pack your bags and go live to …. Oh I don’t know, I can come up with a single Country that will take your kind… can you?

      Please try to convince some other country that is OK to invade on our “impresive” intelligence, mess everithing up, stay there forever, loose billions of dollars a year, and get nothing but dead in return and a promise of “Stay the Course” and the course is “We will not cut and run”. Go ahead see if there are any takers..

      Bush and the Republicans are the clowns of the world ever since the U.N. presentation of “evidence” for WMD’s compounded by all the “predictions” after the war. You have no credibility….. Hell, I bet you can’t even point to Venezuela on a map, and never heard of the Sunni and the Shiite in your life before we went to “save them from eveil”.

      Don’t say America…. Right Wingers are about to become a bad dream in November you are back in the swamps with Rush as your companion.

    38. Reagan Repub on October 25th, 2006 11:34 pm

      Get a job!

    39. dubiousraves on October 26th, 2006 1:20 am

      It’s not a freedom-of-speech issue. if this book slanders her, which it seems to be doing, she has every right to sue the authors and the publishers.

      As for the publishers’ statement, that’s what they all say.

    40. Waterboy on October 26th, 2006 3:15 am


      Rush for President!

    41. legaleagle on October 26th, 2006 3:41 am

      God, watching Republican half-wits frothing at the mouth over Cindy Sheehan is one of the great spectator sports in America today. She’s like a dog whistle, making Republicans beg for Liva-Snaps and lick their nuts as they get caught up in a full-blown case of S.I.D. (Sheehan Insanity Disease). As soon as I read the title of this post, I couldn’t wait to see the shape of the turd castle the half-wits were building as they wallowed in the toilet of Republican propaganda. On the one hand, we get a nice specific description of the Sheehan activities at issue: Protesting the Simpering Imbecile, embracing Chavez, denigrasting the U.S. So far, so good. Then we get NOTHING describing the other side of the equation, except that Sheehan has a problem with other people practicing their free speech. It took until Comment #26 for Jack to explain what this is all about.

      Are Republicans capable of wiping their own a{{edit}} and exhaling without private lessons?


      SM: Some times at SMÂ  we use free speech as an example to show just what is out there as a reminder of what will occur if you give liberals power in the government. Think voting isn’t important?

      You have to love libs and their idea of free speech … defined as what they say is correct   100% of the time and what everyone who opposes them are stupid. Then there is the typical insults of people who have a differing opinion to some how make themselves fee superior by calling people “half-wits”. What liberal comment would not be complete without the insult telling others they disagree with that they are stupid? They act as if there is not liberal, democratic propaganda as well. This commenter talks of the reaction to Cindy Sheehan by Republicans. Maybe they would also like to comment on the reaction of libs to Anne Coulter or the Minute Men at Columbia Univ? That certainly was sane.

      The truth of the matter is that libs love their free speech when its ok to attack others. Its quite the other story when a Republican tries to express their or the rebuttal they receive from the right. When that occurs they make every opportunity to prevent it and go mental. This has happened time after time.

      Also, what a sad commentary of hate that exists on the left. What is most amazing is that an educated liberal would actually use an acronym, SID, that actually exists in real life for a medical syndrome called “sudden infant death” in their rantings. Brilliant.   There is some liberal compassion and sensitivity for you.


    42. edward on October 26th, 2006 5:20 am

      What a sad bunch {{{edited}}


      SM: edward … what writing skills  … maybe next time you can formulate a thought that does not have profanity and ridiculous and stereotypical liberal insults toward people. If you cannot intelligently add to the conversation … don’t. Please go back to DU where you would be welcomed.


    43. Rightsideofthebird. on October 26th, 2006 8:29 am


      Is it true Hugo said he smelled sulfur when you were in the room with him? Please educate yourself: libel, slander, and freedom of speech.

      Have a great day

    44. Scared Monkeys on October 26th, 2006 9:44 am

      I would like to thank Hillary Clinton’s on-line czar … Peter Daou of The Daou Report for using SM for one half of the side about Cindy Sheehan, the side being “right” about her of course.

      Nice to know Hillary’s people are watching.

      Clinton Hires Chief Blogger, Peter Daou

    45. Lex on October 26th, 2006 10:52 am

      [[Did Cindy Sheehan just admit profiting from her son's death in the above comment?]]

      No, in fact, she did not. She said her accusers were doing the same thing they were ACCUSING her of doing. That’s a small but very important distinction, and as a Republican who has dealt with libel issues for a quarter century, I find that it calls your judgment on this whole issue into question.


      SM: But we all know that Cindy hasn’t though, right? It does not call anyone’s judgement into play. Because your judgement is not clouded at all now is it?

      My question is … if her son could speak from the grave … “what would he say”? Think he would be proud? He is the one who joined the military and re-enlisted.

    46. dennisintn on October 26th, 2006 2:49 pm

      #45, roflmao, of course he’s a republican, and quite possibly has dealt with libel issues for quarter of a century. right, just like i believe all the americans who aren’t from aruba. oh, yes. roflmao, tell cindy “hi” for us whenever she gets home from whatever trip she’s not making any money on.

    47. Mike Toreno on October 26th, 2006 3:18 pm

      There’s one way to show Cindy Sheehan what we think of her antiwar activities. One of the most pernicious effects of her behavior is the possibility that she might discourage people from joining the military to fight the very important war in Iraq. We can show her just how little we think of her opinions by defying her. I urge everyone of military age who posts or comments on this blog to go to your local recruiting office TOMORROW, and SHOW Cindy Sheehan that you DO believe in the war!

    48. Scared Monkeys on October 27th, 2006 3:26 pm

      [...] What were we just discussing earlier this week regarding Cindy Sheehan and her followers not providing the respect of  free speech for others? The “peace rally” shows up again … this time in Fresno, CA for a “Peace Mom” book signing. [...]

    49. Deb on October 29th, 2006 10:20 pm

      Could someone please tell me how Cindy Sheehan supports herself? She obviously does not have to work for a living so she has plenty of time to throw herself in front of the media!

    50. dennisintn on October 30th, 2006 5:40 pm

      probably living off her son’s gi insurance.

    51. Lex on October 31st, 2006 10:29 am

      #46: #45, roflmao, of course he’s a republican, and quite possibly has dealt with libel issues for quarter of a century. right, just like i believe all the americans who aren’t from aruba.

      Welcome to reality:

      Anything else you’d like to accuse me of lying about, son?

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It