No Dancing At The Jeffrerson Memorial!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm just glad the police got on top of this before someone got offended.

[Adios]

To the credit of the park service, it IS a memorial, and generally anything but solemnity in a memorial is considered in bad taste. For example, I would look down on any disruption at the Vietnam memorial or the Arizona memorial Pearl Harbor. But even in those cases it would be a matter of escorting the offenders away from the site, rather than arresting them.

However, I think that Jefferson would have approved of dancing.

Sure, if you were free, white, male, a landowner and over 25.

Oh, sure.  Let's judge every historical figure by the today's standards, rather than the times in which they lived.

Everyone in history sucked.   The end. 

Huh?

[Adios]

So I got all pissed off at the display of authority like everyone else.

Went and read some blog articles that actually look at the legal opinion, and it seems to break down to this:

"Demonstrating" _INSIDE_ the Jefferson Monument is illegal (and has formally been illegal since 1983 or something). You can hold all the events and specatcles and crowds of people you want _just outside_ the doorway, but it has legally been declared a "non-public forum", even tho it is a "space open to the public".

Dancing in the Jefferson Monument is a non-issue.

As soon as those people Organized to Dance (either the original troop, which was holding a small ritual to commemorate him near midnight, or the other schmucks who went and got arrested in the daylight), they were legally "Demonstrating".

Of course, the monkeys had to use violence and the threat of violence to prevent DANCING, which is bullshit, obviously.

But now I'm just pissed at the sorry state of our legal system, which is purposefully set up so that people like the ones arrested at the 2nd Demonstration (i.e. everyone who hears about this story) doesn't understand the difference, and just assumes that "they were arrested for Dancing".

Instead of realizing that if we let people organize a dance "demonstration" there, we have to let people like the KKK, etc, hold events there.

Yeah, that freedom of speech thing can really get out of hand pretty quickly if it isn't held in check. We all know the right to not be offended trumps freedom of speech anyway, right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that the law is a bit too widely interpretable. It sounds as if organizing to do ANYTHING at the Jefferson Monument, including simply meeting there for a picnic or a group photo, could be interpreted as "demonstrating" if it were expedient to do so...

[MMIX]

I think that the law is a bit too widely interpretable. It sounds as if organizing to do ANYTHING at the Jefferson Monument, including simply meeting there for a picnic or a group photo, could be interpreted as "demonstrating" if it were expedient to do so...

http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/oberwetter-v-hilliard.pdf


The definitions of what can constitute a "demonstration" in the precincts of the park areas of the National Capital Region do seem to allow a rather broad interpretation of the term.

The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, "[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . ." 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). "Demonstrations" include:
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
                                       6
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
Id.§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).2

Basically you can do anything from a private, individual silent prayer vigil to a full religious service or a political rally - SO LONG AS YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO DO IT.

ETA Just to clarify, that means that you can't do squat if you don't have permission, and if you don't have permission you can and will be assumed to be in breach of the law.

[Adios]

Before one can make sensible comments about a right such
as the right of peaceful assembly, one must make a number
of assumptions. One must do this because the right does not
exist in a vacuum and cannot be discussed in a vacuum.
The first and most obvious assumption that one has to
make is that the society in which the right is to be enjoyed
is a democratic society. One must next make assumptions
as to the basic nature of a democratic society. It is clearly
not good enough simply to say that it is a society where the
will of the majority prevails; presumably at the height of
Hitler's power, the majority of German citizens supported
the actions of their Nazi government. Nor is it good enough
to say that a society is democratic if its leaders are elected
in a democratic manner. No doubt a truly democratic
society cannot exist without a system of free elections, but
such a society could nonetheless establish what in fact is a
tyranny. A police state is nonetheless a tyranny because the
majority of citizens approve its actions.
A democratic society must be one where, in addition to the
procedure of free elections, the society recognizes certain
essential freedoms as basic. No doubt the right to personal
freedom is the most important, but after this freedom, the
freedom to express and disseminate whatever opinion one
has, and to join with others in the public expression of that
opinion, must be the most basic in a democratic society.
Like the right to personal freedom, these freedoms cannot
be unlimited. The right to personal freedom is necessarily
subject to the right of society to preserve the security of
itself and of its members, and the freedom of speech and of
assembly must likewise be subjected to some limitations.
Whatever may be the precise nature of those limitations,
they cannot simply be based on the fact that the views
expressed are those of a minority, or that a public assembly to express those views will create
a strong reaction in the majority. It has been said, and
rightly said, that a function of free speech under a
democratic system of government is to invite dispute, and
free speech may best serve its high purpose when it induces
a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions
as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Assuming the
general right, the nature of the justified limitations is an
important and difficult problem.
http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/Right%20of%20Peaceful%20Assembly.pdf

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that the law is a bit too widely interpretable. It sounds as if organizing to do ANYTHING at the Jefferson Monument, including simply meeting there for a picnic or a group photo, could be interpreted as "demonstrating" if it were expedient to do so...

http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/oberwetter-v-hilliard.pdf


The definitions of what can constitute a "demonstration" in the precincts of the park areas of the National Capital Region do seem to allow a rather broad interpretation of the term.

The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, "[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . ." 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). "Demonstrations" include:
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
                                       6
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
Id.§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).2

Basically you can do anything from a private, individual silent prayer vigil to a full religious service or a political rally - SO LONG AS YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO DO IT.

ETA Just to clarify, that means that you can't do squat if you don't have permission, and if you don't have permission you can and will be assumed to be in breach of the law.

Read the bolded. AND THEN FUCK OFF AND DIE, IDIOT.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think that the law is a bit too widely interpretable. It sounds as if organizing to do ANYTHING at the Jefferson Monument, including simply meeting there for a picnic or a group photo, could be interpreted as "demonstrating" if it were expedient to do so...

http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/oberwetter-v-hilliard.pdf


The definitions of what can constitute a "demonstration" in the precincts of the park areas of the National Capital Region do seem to allow a rather broad interpretation of the term.

The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, "[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . ." 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). "Demonstrations" include:
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
                                       6
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
Id.§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).2

Basically you can do anything from a private, individual silent prayer vigil to a full religious service or a political rally - SO LONG AS YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO DO IT.

ETA Just to clarify, that means that you can't do squat if you don't have permission, and if you don't have permission you can and will be assumed to be in breach of the law.

So, what grievances or views are expressed by dancing, retard?

[Adios]

I think that the law is a bit too widely interpretable. It sounds as if organizing to do ANYTHING at the Jefferson Monument, including simply meeting there for a picnic or a group photo, could be interpreted as "demonstrating" if it were expedient to do so...

http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-3/oberwetter-v-hilliard.pdf


The definitions of what can constitute a "demonstration" in the precincts of the park areas of the National Capital Region do seem to allow a rather broad interpretation of the term.

The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, "[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . ." 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). "Demonstrations" include:
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
                                       6
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
Id.§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).2

Basically you can do anything from a private, individual silent prayer vigil to a full religious service or a political rally - SO LONG AS YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO DO IT.

ETA Just to clarify, that means that you can't do squat if you don't have permission, and if you don't have permission you can and will be assumed to be in breach of the law.

So, what grievances or views are expressed by dancing, retard?

It was obvious from the video. White people can't dance. At least I think that was the point.

[Kai]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

Future dancing could be perceived that way, but I am talking about the original instance, which did not seem to be in protest of anything.

[Kai]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

Future dancing could be perceived that way, but I am talking about the original instance, which did not seem to be in protest of anything.

I don't know enough about the earlier instance to make any sort of judgement on it.

[Adios]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

By all means we should always have to get a permit from the State in order to protest the State. What could possibly go wrong?

[Kai]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

By all means we should always have to get a permit from the State in order to protest the State. What could possibly go wrong?

Whatever I say is going to be an unpopular opinion so fuck it, I'm not apologetic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actually, the dancing can be taken as protest (expression of grievance), since it was done in protest of the earlier ruling about dancing. Not only that, but the comments that were made /during/ the video are clear expressions of grievance, intended to draw a crowd.

The only real problem with what happened is the way the officer's withheld the law in question, and the way they treated the protesters while arresting them. Which is yes, a huge problem, but not allowing demonstrations within a memorial without a permit is not. You wouldn't want Young Earth Creationists harassing you at the Grand Canyon lookout either. Which raises the point that both the Jefferson Memorial and the Grand Canyon are under control of the National Park Service, and they take their jobs very seriously as far as protecting the integrity of the parks /and/ making them accessable to the public. Yeah, those were not ordinary police officers there, they were park rangers, not agents of the department of justice.

What would have been interesting to see is, for these people to have gotten a permit, had it rejected, and THEN protested. But they didn't even attempt to.

Future dancing could be perceived that way, but I am talking about the original instance, which did not seem to be in protest of anything.

I don't know enough about the earlier instance to make any sort of judgement on it.

It was just a flashmob. So, about as much about protesting as when they do a musical number in a mall.