http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI&feature=share
A friend linked this on Facebook.
Fukin Baptists. :lulz:
So, now dancing is protesting. In the Empires Capitol.
:lulz:
Welcome to America, where freedom is just a buzzword.
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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.
You know what? You're right.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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 slamming them on the ground and choking them and arresting them.
However, I think that Jefferson would have approved of dancing.
Fixed.
Also, if bad taste is illegal can we pleeeeease have Lady Gaga locked up?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2011, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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 slamming them on the ground and choking them and arresting them.
However, I think that Jefferson would have approved of dancing.
Fixed.
Also, if bad taste is illegal can we pleeeeease have Lady Gaga locked up?
Saying something is "in bad taste" is not the same as saying someone HAS bad taste.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 30, 2011, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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 slamming them on the ground and choking them and arresting them.
However, I think that Jefferson would have approved of dancing.
Fixed.
Also, if bad taste is illegal can we pleeeeease have Lady Gaga locked up?
I volunteer my house as the prison facility.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Socrates sucks.
Humans suck.
Therefore Socrates is a human.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 04:56:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Socrates sucks.
Humans suck.
Therefore Socrates is a human.
Oki doke. So we dump on people who took postive steps to make things better, because they didn't go from 0 to enlightenment in one step.
I'm actually okay with this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 05:07:47 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 04:56:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Socrates sucks.
Humans suck.
Therefore Socrates is a human.
Oki doke. So we dump on people who took postive steps to make things better, because they didn't go from 0 to enlightenment in one step.
I'm actually okay with this.
It was a joke, Roger.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 05:10:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 05:07:47 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 04:56:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Socrates sucks.
Humans suck.
Therefore Socrates is a human.
Oki doke. So we dump on people who took postive steps to make things better, because they didn't go from 0 to enlightenment in one step.
I'm actually okay with this.
It was a joke, Roger.
It's so hard to tell, these days. :lulz:
But I stand by my comment, which was mostly aimed at Charley's post.
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.
I'm just glad the police got on top of this before someone got offended.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Huh?
Quote from: Telarus on May 30, 2011, 05:36:22 AM
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?
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...
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 05:57:00 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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?
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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?
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:14:53 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
There I go, being all disruptive again.
We have now taken PD to the point where any argument at all means instant butthurt.
Well done, well done.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:28:29 PM
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.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 06:53:03 PM
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.
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:39:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
Since Kai decided to take his personal life frustrations out on the board.
I like Kai and am more than a little confused at what is going on.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
It's easy.
1. Post argument.
2. When argument has to be defended, make comments about how it's better to not post opinions.
3. Compare a garden variety argument to a potentially life-changing one, with overtones of persecution, etc.
Sure, you may make your friends feel like shit, but isn't that a small price to pay for the ability to post an argument without having to support it?
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:39:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
Since Kai decided to take his personal life frustrations out on the board.
I like Kai and am more than a little confused at what is going on.
I think that just about everybody likes Kai. But Kai is going out of his way to make himself unlikable right now. As far as I can tell he's working on building a world-class persecution complex, and it won't be complete unless he feels his friends and allies are taking part.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:39:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
Since Kai decided to take his personal life frustrations out on the board.
I like Kai and am more than a little confused at what is going on.
I think that just about everybody likes Kai. But Kai is going out of his way to make himself unlikable right now. As far as I can tell he's working on building a world-class persecution complex, and it won't be complete unless he feels his friends and allies are taking part.
Then it will never be complete, I will not be forced into doing that.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 07:39:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
Since when did having a differing opinion equate with persecution? :?
Since Kai decided to take his personal life frustrations out on the board.
I like Kai and am more than a little confused at what is going on.
I think that just about everybody likes Kai. But Kai is going out of his way to make himself unlikable right now. As far as I can tell he's working on building a world-class persecution complex, and it won't be complete unless he feels his friends and allies are taking part.
Then it will never be complete, I will not be forced into doing that.
I agree.
Clearly, the best solution is for the government to sell all historic landmarks to some hotdog and apple pie conglomerate who will then be able to restrict people's behavior on their private property.
Everybody wins!
I know that cop's face, BTW. The one from the beginning of the film.
Every police department in every town in America has one just like him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 07:47:37 PM
I know that cop's face, BTW. The one from the beginning of the film.
Every police department in every town in America has one just like him.
The bike cop?
"YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. GET IN THE BASKET."
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:48:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 30, 2011, 07:47:37 PM
I know that cop's face, BTW. The one from the beginning of the film.
Every police department in every town in America has one just like him.
The bike cop?
"YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. GET IN THE BASKET."
:lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 07:14:53 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 30, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
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.
An authorised demonstration can be disruptive, that isn't the issue
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Actually I
have read the bolded part,[
you idiot], since I was the one who linked the extract - which I will point out is from the judgement in the case of the first dance " demonstration " which was held in March in celebration of Jefferson's birthday.
If you had taken the time to consider what I was saying rather than just blow off hot air because you THINK you know where I am coming from [NB where I come from this process is called "Prejudice"] you would possibly have realised that the issue I was trying to raise was that anything from silent prayer to a marching band can be permitted inside the Jefferson Memorial but also that
anything can be defined as a "demonstration". Just in case you misinterpreted my take on this:
THIS IS PROBABLY A BAD IDEA, however it is the law.
cc TGRR & Charley Brown
Why did you cc me in? I wasn't even involved in the quote.
I wonder what they would do if an obvious cross-dresser walked up and just started silently ogling Jefferson's crotch.
Or if someone in a burka just stood there softly ticking.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on May 30, 2011, 08:09:39 PM
I wonder what they would do if an obvious cross-dresser walked up and just started silently ogling Jefferson's crotch.
Or if someone in a burka just stood there softly ticking.
They would have to get in the basket too.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Why did you cc me in? I wasn't even involved in the quote.
It was to avoid having to include a specific reference to your snide comment trying to smear me with the racist brush. Sorry I was not clearer about it.
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Why did you cc me in? I wasn't even involved in the quote.
It was to avoid having to include a specific reference to your snide comment trying to smear me with the racist brush. Sorry I was not clearer about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you off your meds?
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
12, same here, it must be our age. And yes I'm laughing now, thank you.
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
12, same here, it must be our age. And yes I'm laughing now, thank you.
You're welcome.
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:02:44 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 30, 2011, 03:41:00 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Actually I have read the bolded part,[you idiot], since I was the one who linked the extract - which I will point out is from the judgement in the case of the first dance " demonstration " which was held in March in celebration of Jefferson's birthday.
If you had taken the time to consider what I was saying rather than just blow off hot air because you THINK you know where I am coming from [NB where I come from this process is called "Prejudice"] you would possibly have realised that the issue I was trying to raise was that anything from silent prayer to a marching band can be permitted inside the Jefferson Memorial but also that anything can be defined as a "demonstration". Just in case you misinterpreted my take on this:
THIS IS PROBABLY A BAD IDEA, however it is the law.
cc TGRR & Charley Brown
It isn't the law according to what you quoted. Your reading comprehension is utter fail. Also, you are stupid and your mother smells funny.
Quoteforms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances
When the cop said "We're going to hold you for two days because blah blah blah", that was the clearest admission of "We're going to shake you up for no reason and little rationalization" I ever heard.
And Rog, you really shouldn't Judge people based on how they look (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvPkRw52FO4) :D
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
12, same here, it must be our age. And yes I'm laughing now, thank you.
Side question for MMIX and Charley-
When should I expect to be at a stage where I have to take 12 pills a day?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 31, 2011, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
12, same here, it must be our age. And yes I'm laughing now, thank you.
Side question for MMIX and Charley-
When should I expect to be at a stage where I have to take 12 pills a day?
When 11 just doesn't do it for you any more /tongueincheek
But then I'm older than Charley and I've been in serious training since I was younger than you
Mind you, if I need painkillers too then all bets are off :wink:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 31, 2011, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:26:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 30, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 30, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
White men can't dance - if it wasn't intended to be a slur then I apologise.
And nope I'm still on my meds. You?
It was a fucking joke. Everybody else got it. Feel left out?
I am currently taking 12 pills a day, so yes.
12, same here, it must be our age. And yes I'm laughing now, thank you.
Side question for MMIX and Charley-
When should I expect to be at a stage where I have to take 12 pills a day?
When your forehead has been bleeding for a decade from constantly running into a brick wall.
Nigel, I think I irritated one of your friends on FB.
I am a bad monkey. :monkeydance:
Nobody puts baby in the corner.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 31, 2011, 04:08:41 PM
Nigel, I think I irritated one of your friends on FB.
I am a bad monkey. :monkeydance:
I appreciated the hell out of that! Laughed my ass off at her flounce post, too. She's a fucking moron.
Quote from: Your Mom on May 31, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 31, 2011, 04:08:41 PM
Nigel, I think I irritated one of your friends on FB.
I am a bad monkey. :monkeydance:
I appreciated the hell out of that! Laughed my ass off at her flounce post, too. She's a fucking moron.
She's on the list for the Discordian warnings. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 08:59:58 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on May 31, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 31, 2011, 04:08:41 PM
Nigel, I think I irritated one of your friends on FB.
I am a bad monkey. :monkeydance:
I appreciated the hell out of that! Laughed my ass off at her flounce post, too. She's a fucking moron.
She's on the list for the Discordian warnings. :lulz:
:lulz: SWEET!