[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Interestingly further down the article it says this...

Attorney and community activist Kim Akins said she is worried about what happened.

“No one wearing an American flag button, no one wearing a crucifix or a Star of David would be removed, so why this particular statement bothered him so much is bothersome,” she said.

The judge said his ruling is based on Supreme Court case law in which a judge can prohibit symbolic political expression in courtrooms, even if it’s not disruptive.

“There’s a difference between a flag, a pin from your church or the Eagles and having a pin that’s on a political issue,” Milich said.

So a patriotic or religious pin for example would have been fine. I don't see the point in needing her to remove it, personally.

What do you think the badge refers to?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

What do you think the badge refers to?

It refers to Black Lives Matter, obviously

If there's no set rule (which there isn't) then that's why I think it shouldn't have been an issue. If the US justice system wants to implement a rule that says BLM badges can't be worn, or no badges can be worn, then that's a different scenario.
She was jailed without breaking the law and there's also questions over whether her civil rights have been violated. It's all a bit much over a badge.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

It refers to Black Lives Matter, obviously

If there's no set rule (which there isn't) then that's why I think it shouldn't have been an issue. If the US justice system wants to implement a rule that says BLM badges can't be worn, or no badges can be worn, then that's a different scenario.
She was jailed without breaking the law and there's also questions over whether her civil rights have been violated. It's all a bit much over a badge.

It assumes that police target and murder people based on colour and its a lie, they dont

Its a disgusting "badge" for any lawyer to wear and in the court the judge rules and he rightly told her to do one

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

It refers to Black Lives Matter, obviously

If there's no set rule (which there isn't) then that's why I think it shouldn't have been an issue. If the US justice system wants to implement a rule that says BLM badges can't be worn, or no badges can be worn, then that's a different scenario.
She was jailed without breaking the law and there's also questions over whether her civil rights have been violated. It's all a bit much over a badge.

She was found to be in contempt of court. Of course she broke the law. I think the judge would know...

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Livia

She was found to be in contempt of court. Of course she broke the law. I think the judge would know...

The contempt of court was for not removing the badge when asked, she wasn't breaking any rules or laws by wearing it in the first place. And the judge asked her to remove it based on what he wanted personally, rather than it being because a rule or law was broken. That's why her civil rights have been brought into question. I know you've said in UK courts political symbols simply aren't allowed but according to this article, that's not the case here.