No Dancing At The Jeffrerson Memorial!

[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.

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.

Actually, much of the time what you say isn't all that unpopular, but you've been going out of your way to be abrasive and extreme about it lately so people tend to respond in kind.

[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.

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

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

[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.

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

1. Red herring, has nothing to do with whether dancing is a "protest".

2. Stores and malls are private property, dude.

[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.

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

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

1. Red herring, has nothing to do with whether dancing is a "protest".

2. Stores and malls are private property, dude.

So, what you're saying is, people should be allowed to be as disruptive as they like on national park lands, even inside of memorials?

[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.

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.

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

1. Red herring, has nothing to do with whether dancing is a "protest".

2. Stores and malls are private property, dude.

So, what you're saying is, people should be allowed to be as disruptive as they like on national park lands, even inside of memorials?

I wonder if i stood there and read quotes from Jefferson if it would be considered disruptive.

[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.

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

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

1. Red herring, has nothing to do with whether dancing is a "protest".

2. Stores and malls are private property, dude.

So, what you're saying is, people should be allowed to be as disruptive as they like on national park lands, even inside of memorials?

I wonder if i stood there and read quotes from Jefferson if it would be considered disruptive.

I would appreciate it if you just let me figure out where people stand on their arguments so I can go about keeping my opinions to myself and not step on peoples toes.

[Adios]

There I go, being all disruptive again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We have now taken PD to the point where any argument at all means instant butthurt.

Well done, well done.

[Adios]

We have now taken PD to the point where any argument at all means instant butthurt.

Well done, well done.

My butt is quite fine.

[Kai]

We have now taken PD to the point where any argument at all means instant butthurt.

Well done, well done.

No. I've learned over the years that keeping certain opinions to myself here makes as much sense as keeping things about my sexual orientation quiet around my family. When it comes to that bunch it's just better because I'd only alienate myself in the process. So too here. And it's making more and more sense every day.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No. I've learned over the years that keeping certain opinions to myself here makes as much sense as keeping things about my sexual orientation quiet around my family.

Wow.

[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.

And when that Saxaphone man starts playing Careless Whisper in public places, they still ask him to leave.

1. Red herring, has nothing to do with whether dancing is a "protest".

2. Stores and malls are private property, dude.

So, what you're saying is, people should be allowed to be as disruptive as they like on national park lands, even inside of memorials?

That's not what I'm saying at all. If you go a few posts back in this discussion you can read what I'm actually saying.

But I don't think you'll do that, because you're not here to discuss. You have a chip on your shoulder and you're out to pick a fight with the world.

I'm not playing.

[Adios]

Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? 

[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...

JUST FOR REMINDSIES OF MY ACTUAL POINT.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution?  

Since Kai decided to take his personal life frustrations out on the board.

Not that I, or anyone else here, is innocent of doing the same thing.