As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Arrested for silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial? You better believe it bud!

2456

Posts

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Park police are like the flunkies of policedom which is saying a lot.

    Well they're less likely to shoot you in the face and then smear your name on the news

    After that marine thread I'm finding it hard to be upset about this, it seems so minor in comparison :(

    override367 on
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    kyleh613 wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    You're not helping.

    There are far more important things to protest over. This is a pretty huge waste of time. It's no wonder our government has such screwed up priorities, our own citizens are just as bad. Instead of protesting and demanding to fix our countries crippling debt, health care or ending our pointless wars, we decide its a better use of our time to get arrested? Really?

    Ending this sort of shit is the first thing on the road to solving our problems. It's iconic of what's crushing America. As a country, were constantly wasting our money banning harmless things. Or spending our money to combat 'harmful things' while not actually successfully combating them in any way. We constantly throw huge piles of money or force onto things then wonder why we're so inefficient.

    We'll spend 8.2 billion dollars this year on the TSA, to grope people and catch zero terrorists while also crippling our domestic flight efficiency.
    We spend at least 40 billion dollars a year on the drug war. Not counting cost of lost productivity of all the inmates who aren't contributing to taxes.
    We spent 65 billion on the F-22 so we could build 200 planes and scrap the project. Moved onto another project that is now, surprise, overbudget too.
    We pay over twice as much on healthcare per capita than the rest of the first world, and get less than half as much in return.


    Somebody, somewhere thought that a good use of the government's funds would be to have police keep people from dancing. If you think it's a good use of force to stop some peaceful protesters, why isn't it a good use of force to go half a world away and blow up some random countries?
    It's all this shit we're wasting our money on that keeps us from balancing our budget.

    zerg rush on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I wouldn't agree, and yes I think it is a slippery slope type thing. From the looks of it, some government type decided that memorials should be a place of silent contemplation and respectful remembrance, and as such banned dancing in these locations. What if they next decide that farting loudly in these echoy places is highly disrespectful and make that illegal. I don't want to get arrested for farting in public, I'm a really gassy guy and the last thing I need is to look like this when I travel to DC.

    You don't get to act absolutely however you want in a variety of public places. It's hardly a new thing. It's not a slippery slope of government oppression either. That it's public land doesn't render it free of any restrictions whatsoever.

    Quid on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Somebody, somewhere thought that a good use of the government's funds would be to have police keep people from dancing. If you think it's a good use of force to stop some peaceful protesters, why isn't it a good use of force to go half a world away and blow up some random countries?
    It's all this shit we're wasting our money on that keeps us from balancing our budget.

    Somebody, somewhere, thinking of doing something stupid doesn't render any of those things not stupid either. It's quite possible to find a number of different things wasteful/dumb.

    Quid on
  • RialeRiale I'm a little slow Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    on the list of 'disturbing actions in a public place' silently dancing in place without disturbing the people around you (except in that they will see you dancing, these people were not obstructing other people, or bumping into them, or making excessive noise that I could see) is pretty far down on the list. The fact that it has to be expressively banned says more about our anal retentive policing than it does about how one should or should not act in a public place.

    I could see the objection if they were being loud, or obnoxious, or doing pretty much anything else. It's the weirdest, most pointless restriction I've seen on public behavior, so good for these groups for challenging it.

    Gotta love the cop in that video choking the dude for it though. Watch out, he might endanger you with his sick moves!

    Riale on
    33c9nxz.gif
    Steam | XBL: Elazual | Last.fm
  • LearnedHandLearnedHand Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    Who wants to see drunk old hippies dancing? That should be banned everywhere. It's anti-social behaviour.

    Seriously, do you want to stand next to some people dancing? You'd move away if that was happening. Similar to people getting it on in public. I'm glad that you found love but I don't want to be around this. It's uncomfortable.

    Fighting, yelling, these are also things that should rightly be stopped. Nobody wants to be near that. Behave like a civilised human being in public or go to jail. That should be the rule everywhere not just at the Jefferson Memorial.

    LearnedHand on
  • kyleh613kyleh613 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    kyleh613 wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    You're not helping.

    There are far more important things to protest over. This is a pretty huge waste of time. It's no wonder our government has such screwed up priorities, our own citizens are just as bad. Instead of protesting and demanding to fix our countries crippling debt, health care or ending our pointless wars, we decide its a better use of our time to get arrested? Really?

    Ending this sort of shit is the first thing on the road to solving our problems. It's iconic of what's crushing America. As a country, were constantly wasting our money banning harmless things. Or spending our money to combat 'harmful things' while not actually successfully combating them in any way. We constantly throw huge piles of money or force onto things then wonder why we're so inefficient.

    We'll spend 8.2 billion dollars this year on the TSA, to grope people and catch zero terrorists while also crippling our domestic flight efficiency.
    We spend at least 40 billion dollars a year on the drug war. Not counting cost of lost productivity of all the inmates who aren't contributing to taxes.
    We spent 65 billion on the F-22 so we could build 200 planes and scrap the project. Moved onto another project that is now, surprise, overbudget too.
    We pay over twice as much on healthcare per capita than the rest of the first world, and get less than half as much in return.


    Somebody, somewhere thought that a good use of the government's funds would be to have police keep people from dancing. If you think it's a good use of force to stop some peaceful protesters, why isn't it a good use of force to go half a world away and blow up some random countries?
    It's all this shit we're wasting our money on that keeps us from balancing our budget.

    I never thought of it like that to be honest. This is actually a really good response and pretty much spot on. Thanks. :)

    kyleh613 on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    It's a memorial, you're supposed to pay your respects in a solemn and dignified manner. Not potentially break dancing.

    Plus, it kinda feels like the next closest thing to "tap dancing on their grave," doesn't it?

    Delta Assault on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Likely someone's concern for maintaining a certain atmosphere. Most memorials can hold powerful feelings for others.

    That said, jail/fine seems extreme. Evicting them from the premises ought to be good enough.

    Quid on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr PEWPEWPEW!!! America's WangRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Blanket bans generally happen when it's hard to draw a line somewhere.

    If dancing in general wasn't banned, what types would? Would ballroom style dancing be okay but pole dancing not? What about break dancing or the kind of dancing done at a high school prom? It really has to be an all or nothing thing.

    This must have happened some time in the past because most government rules like this are a reaction to an incident. If there is one the thing government is not, it's proactive. I would bet there were some peacenik protests back during the Vietnam War when people were dancing in/on monuments in DC and thus the ban was established.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Who wants to see drunk old hippies dancing? That should be banned everywhere. It's anti-social behaviour.

    Seriously, do you want to stand next to some people dancing? You'd move away if that was happening. Similar to people getting it on in public. I'm glad that you found love but I don't want to be around this. It's uncomfortable.

    Fighting, yelling, these are also things that should rightly be stopped. Nobody wants to be near that. Behave like a civilised human being in public or go to jail. That should be the rule everywhere not just at the Jefferson Memorial.

    That's a little ridiculous. So, you're not allowed to argue loudly with your spouse in public or you might get sent to jail? Really? Not to go all Demolition Man on you, but you can't take away people's right to be assholes. That's not how a free society works. At best it's self-oppressive, and at worst it's authoritarian.
    Plus, it kinda feels like the next closest thing to "tap dancing on their grave," doesn't it?

    Not really, not at all. Dancing is celebratory. I mean, if they were dancing at the memorial on the anniversary of his death? Maybe, yeah, I could see that. They were celebrating his birthday, though, clearly that's not the same thing.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    Plus, it kinda feels like the next closest thing to "tap dancing on their grave," doesn't it?

    Not really, not at all. Dancing is celebratory. I mean, if they were dancing at the memorial on the anniversary of his death? Maybe, yeah, I could see that. They were celebrating his birthday, though, clearly that's not the same thing.

    So you want the regulation to depend on the intent of the dancers? Have the park police ask each and every dancing individual whether they were celebrating his life or celebrating his death? Really?

    Delta Assault on
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    Plus, it kinda feels like the next closest thing to "tap dancing on their grave," doesn't it?

    Not really, not at all. Dancing is celebratory. I mean, if they were dancing at the memorial on the anniversary of his death? Maybe, yeah, I could see that. They were celebrating his birthday, though, clearly that's not the same thing.

    So you want the regulation to depend on the intent of the dancers? Have the park police ask each and every dancing individual whether they were celebrating his life or celebrating his death? Really?

    You can't legislate intent. I was saying that these particular people were clearly not celebrating his death, so it's clearly not close to "tap dancing on their grave" as you said. I was just arguing against your assertion, is all.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    No, I agree these particular people weren't. But people can certainly dance at a memorial with the intent of celebrating their death, which is clearly close to "tap dancing on their grave."

    Delta Assault on
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    Are police allowed to choke people? At 2:15 one of the police body slams a guy and after seems to be choking him, clenched fist around his throat.

    Wtf

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hmm...

    If one was to organize a dance flashmob at the Jefferson Memorial, would that initiate another civil war?

    Casually Hardcore on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MyDcmbr wrote: »
    Blanket bans generally happen when it's hard to draw a line somewhere.

    If dancing in general wasn't banned, what types would? Would ballroom style dancing be okay but pole dancing not? What about break dancing or the kind of dancing done at a high school prom? It really has to be an all or nothing thing.

    This must have happened some time in the past because most government rules like this are a reaction to an incident. If there is one the thing government is not, it's proactive. I would bet there were some peacenik protests back during the Vietnam War when people were dancing in/on monuments in DC and thus the ban was established.

    It wasn't far in the past. That's why these people were protesting; the law was just passed recently (and upheld by the courts). And yes, it was passed in response to somebody doing it (specifically a flash mob of stupid libertarians).

    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Because people did it. And we decided we didn't like that. And that it was Constitutional to prevent it in the future.
    Quid wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree, and yes I think it is a slippery slope type thing. From the looks of it, some government type decided that memorials should be a place of silent contemplation and respectful remembrance, and as such banned dancing in these locations. What if they next decide that farting loudly in these echoy places is highly disrespectful and make that illegal. I don't want to get arrested for farting in public, I'm a really gassy guy and the last thing I need is to look like this when I travel to DC.

    You don't get to act absolutely however you want in a variety of public places. It's hardly a new thing. It's not a slippery slope of government oppression either. That it's public land doesn't render it free of any restrictions whatsoever.

    Exactly. And while the memorial is a quasi-outdoor space, and public, that doesn't mean it can't be regulated in much the same way we regulate many indoor spaces. Like I said, are we going to head down to the Holocaust Museum and do the Achey Breakey? I don't fucking think so.

    Your ass would get kicked out, and rightly so.

    Same with the Jefferson Memorial. And sure, I might prefer that they merely be escorted out instead of arrested...but then, sometimes you need a stronger penalty to discourage the behavior. I'm assuming this is a misdemeanor, and these people aren't going to a supermax for the rest of their lives.
    Who wants to see drunk old hippies dancing? That should be banned everywhere. It's anti-social behaviour.

    Seriously, do you want to stand next to some people dancing? You'd move away if that was happening. Similar to people getting it on in public. I'm glad that you found love but I don't want to be around this. It's uncomfortable.

    Fighting, yelling, these are also things that should rightly be stopped. Nobody wants to be near that. Behave like a civilised human being in public or go to jail. That should be the rule everywhere not just at the Jefferson Memorial.

    This. So hard. Fighting and yelling in a controlled space (and again, the Jefferson Memorial isn't just any public street) should be grounds for being (at the least) removed. Asked to move along.

    And yes, dancing is incredibly disruptive, particularly if it's happening in a place where dancing isn't an appropriate activity. Silent or not.

    mcdermott on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Just guessing here, but it's probably to keep street performers out of the actual memorials.

    edit: i guess it was flashmobs being stupid.

    Deebaser on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Just guessing here, but it's probably to keep street performers out of the actual memorials.

    edit: i guess it was flashmobs being stupid.

    Hipster libertarians. Truly a fearsome beast, and we must keep our memorials safe from them.

    mcdermott on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr PEWPEWPEW!!! America's WangRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    Just guessing here, but it's probably to keep street performers out of the actual memorials.

    edit: i guess it was flashmobs being stupid.

    Hipster libertarians. Truly an ironically fearsome beast, and we must keep our memorials safe from them.

    :)

    If there is one thing that both hipsters and libertarians are good at, it's ruining things for everyone else. :(

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    In other news, apparently hipster libertarian flashmobs are now a thing. I guess they do stuff hoping to get in trouble for it, with the intention of the punishment being ironic (Getting kicked out of the Jefferson memorial for free expression, for instance).

    At least they appear to have a better grasp of irony than your average hipster, so there's that.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If people want to silently dance in the Jefferson Memorial, I have no real problem with it. They're easy enough to walk around, right? What's the problem?

    If the problem is that it's a memorial and so should be solemn, look at places like Gettysburg. It's nominally a memorial for the thousands that died there, but hell if I can't spend a ton of cash to get replica swords and flags and whatnot. If memorials are supposed to be solemn, why allow upbeat films like comedies to have the Lincoln Memorial? Cutting jokes while the stone avatar of Lincoln looks on isn't terribly solemn, either.

    Provided their dancing isn't really interrupting others in the memorial, there's no real problem. If it is, a park cop can ask them to stop and if they don't escort them off the premises. Tackling them to the ground, handcuffing them, and charging them is just plain stupid and a waste of time and money.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • acidlacedpenguinacidlacedpenguin Institutionalized Safe in jail.Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Indeed. Fornicate the constabulary.

    my question is what constitutes a dance on the site? Will a funny walk get your tackled? German suplex for sashaying? hit you with a spinning pile-driver for tripping but catching yourself gracefully? A leg sweep for having polio? What about that legless dude who walks on his hands, is hand walking liable to instigate a park police beat down?

    acidlacedpenguin on
    GT: Acidboogie PSNid: AcidLacedPenguiN
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The macarena isn't disruptive.

    SniperGuy on
    Twitch Streaming basically all week
    SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Alright, I just want to know one thing... why is it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial? That seems like such an arbitrary rule.

    You're not allowed to have any sort of protest or public assembly there, and they decided that dancing is a form of protest. Basically you have no 1st amendment rights there.

    Pi-r8 on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Quid on
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This. So hard. Fighting and yelling in a controlled space (and again, the Jefferson Memorial isn't just any public street) should be grounds for being (at the least) removed. Asked to move along.

    And yes, dancing is incredibly disruptive, particularly if it's happening in a place where dancing isn't an appropriate activity. Silent or not.

    Incredibly disruptive? Brawls and car accidents are disruptive, dancing is just a thing.

    Really, though, arresting protestors at the Jefferson Memorial rather misses the point. The best place to make a stand for powerful federal government regulating free speech is not the Jefferson Memorial. If we want to talk about dancing on someone's grave, well, cops who arrest silent political protestors are pissing on it.

    If the supernatural existed, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson himself would have appeared and told the government, not the protestors, to fuck off.

    Next up, DC established the Theodore Roosevelt Business Center, where leaders in various industries can meet with others in the same field and discuss business strategies and discuss cooperation in a private setting.

    programjunkie on
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Who wants to see drunk old hippies dancing? That should be banned everywhere. It's anti-social behaviour.

    Seriously, do you want to stand next to some people dancing? You'd move away if that was happening. Similar to people getting it on in public. I'm glad that you found love but I don't want to be around this. It's uncomfortable.

    Fighting, yelling, these are also things that should rightly be stopped. Nobody wants to be near that. Behave like a civilised human being in public or go to jail. That should be the rule everywhere not just at the Jefferson Memorial.

    Freedom of speech is nothing more or less than the right to tell people things they don't want to hear.

    V1m on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    People travel from across the country, even from other countries, to see our national monuments. Protests are great and all, but if you want to protest in an area like that, you should need a permit, to prevent the monuments like that being turned into year-round circuses.

    Regina Fong on
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If the supernatural existed, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson himself would have appeared and told the government, not the protestors, to fuck off.

    Let's be serious here. If the ghost of Thomas Jefferson himself appeared some of the first things he would say would be:

    "HOLY SHIT AIRPLANE(S)!"
    "HOLY SHIT, ELEVATORS!"
    "WTF are these tombs moving on the streets with people in them?!"
    "Wait wait wait....you mean, I can use your electronic device to see naked people whenever and however I want?"
    etc...

    There'd be a whole shit ton of things he'd get to before telling the government to fuck off.

    You want to protest and dance? Fine, you can do it near the memorial, but not on it. No rights have been offended, there is no iron fist clamping down on your rights.

    Mentioned earlier in the thread was this gem:
    Druk wrote: »
    We could always wait until this marine guy dies and then picket his funeral without worrying about being arrested.

    If you actually read what's up with that or bothered to care you'd know that these people aren't actually allowed anywhere near the actual funeral. They can picket and protest outside the funeral grounds but if they moved closer they'd be now classified as "disruptive" and arrested for disturbing the peace.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbing_the_peace
    "Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence."

    and this took me all of 1 minute to look up DC's law on disturbing the peace:
    http://www.inshaw.com/blog/2008/08/fun-with-dc-code-disturbing-peace.html
    Division IV. Criminal Law and Procedure and Prisoners.

    Title 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties. (Refs & Annos)

    Subtitle I. Criminal Offenses.
    Chapter 13. Disturbances of the Public Peace.
    § 22-1307. Unlawful assembly; profane and indecent language.



    It shall not be lawful for any person or persons within the District of Columbia to congregate and assemble in any street, avenue, alley, road, or highway, or in or around any public building or enclosure, or any park or reservation, or at the entrance of any private building or enclosure, and engage in loud and boisterous talking or other disorderly conduct, or to insult or make rude or obscene gestures or comments or observations on persons passing by, or in their hearing, or to crowd, obstruct, or incommode, the free use of any such street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or any of the foot pavements thereof, or the free entrance into any public or private building or enclosure; it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to curse, swear, or make use of any profane language or indecent or obscene words, or engage in any disorderly conduct in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or enclosure, public building, church, or assembly room, or in any other public place, or in any place where from the same may be heard in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, public park or enclosure, or other building, or in any premises other than those where the offense was committed, under a penalty of not more than $250 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both for each and every such offense.


    CREDIT(S)

    (July 29, 1892, 27 Stat. 323, ch. 320, § 6; July 8, 1898, 30 Stat. 723, ch. 638; June 29, 1953, 67 Stat. 97, ch. 159, § 210.)

    HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

    Prior Codifications

    1981 Ed., § 22-1107; 1973 Ed., § 22-1107.; DC CODE § 22-1307

    Did the guy deserved to be choke slammed to the ground? No, that's excessive and that needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Evigilant on
    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I don't get why anyone ever links to laws in these discussions.


    We know it was illegal. There was a court justice who decided that it's definitely illegal.


    The question is if it should be illegal.

    zerg rush on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    I don't get why anyone ever links to laws in these discussions.


    We know it was illegal. There was a court justice who decided that it's definitely illegal.


    The question is if it should be illegal.

    That's actually an important question, and I think there's a better answer than 'People are silly.'

    As a non-American, something I notice again and again when talking to Americans, not just here but in real life too, is that the difference between legality and ethics is comparatively blurred there. There are lots of potential reasons I can point to, but god knows which ones actually matter: the idealism behind the Constitution, huge cultural respect for the US Constitution, the multicultural history of the US forcing people to use legality rather than cultural mores to settle issues, the underlying ideology of trying to create a better newer state and so on.

    Anyway, for me, as an Irish/English guy, legality is just the rights that the peasantry have been able to prise away from the leaders of society. The law is getting better and better, definitely, but its history is merely a codification of repression that has only the most tentative relationship to what's right.

    So, for Americans, the difference between 'what's right' and 'what's legal' is a bit closer than for most of the world. I'm not saying this is bad - just a cultural artifact.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Janitor of Technical Debt .Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hmm...

    If one was to organize a dance flashmob at the Jefferson Memorial, would that initiate another civil war?

    If my Internet-Fu is in-shape, and to be trusted. I believe this is what ultimately lead to the face-plant.

    Here's something of a rough time-line:

    11:55 p.m. on April 12, 2008: A flash-mob sets up a silent dance where people listen to music using head-phones and a personal music device. When the flash-mob declined to stop dancing at the demand of the security force, some where charged with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function.

    March, 2009: One of the organizers files civil suit against the arresting officer.

    January, 2010: Federal court judge dismisses the civil suit. Effectively giving the security force the nod to continue cracking down on 'dancers' at the memorial.

    May 29, 2011: Dude gets face impregnated with concrete.


    Basically, as has been discussed, this is a huge waste of time on both sides. However, since both sides of the issue are entrenching themselves; you likely won't see either one budging because of the fact that they've officially reverted to 3rd-grade level bullshit.

    I agree that the Jefferson Memorial is a place of great gravity, and that we want people that go there to reflect and contemplate. However, there are different ways of contemplating, reflecting, and ultimately celebrating this man's actions. It seems like to me that the original flash-mob was an expression of "Hey! Thanks for being awesome, and helping to create our country."; and the original security-force guy was probably tired and thought, "Hey something I don't quite like. Time to put a stop to it". Pure misunderstanding/misinterpretation blown-up into epic proportions because people refuse to acknowledge that someone might have a view-point opposite of their own; Also, because someone abused the power they were given, by the community, in trust.

    thatassemblyguy on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    On the other hand, it's kind of important to get a permit for the mall.

    Fencingsax on
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Wait, so the first amendment doesn't mean that I can say or do anything I want anywhere I want at any time I want?

    This issue is silly. Speech can be both free and restricted. It's restricted to time and place. As long as you do your best not to restrict the content of speech, I think that you're doing alright.

    Also, I think that a part of this discussion that is rarely had is just what qualifies as speech. Does dancing? If so, then what doesn't qualify? What isn't free speech?

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    On the other hand, it's kind of important to get a permit for the mall.

    Which sort of brings up back to the matter of "should." Specifically, should you be required to get a permit even for something as simple as dancing in a relatively small group?

    I look at the rallies last year, and I think, "Okay, yeah, a group of people that big, an event of that magnitude, absolutely, they should be required to get permits." Because there should be checklist they're required to prove they've gone through. Facilities, medical staff, water, that sort of thing. Those are important, and you should be required to demonstrate that you're meeting a certain level of need to provide for the scope of what you're doing.

    A protest, again, I understand. I remember hearing about a really major blunder that resulted in both the KKK and the NAACP having demonstrations, in the same city, on the same day, at the same time, in basically the same neighborhood. That was really, reallllly a bad idea, and requiring permits even for something like that, I definitely understand the need for.

    What I'm not sure about is if this event was on a relevant scale that it should fall under such a requirement. I mean, hypothetically, if a dozen or so conservative, religious people are visiting DC from, let's say Texas, and while they're at some random memorial, they come to the agreement that they need to have a group prayer. They all join hands, in a small circle, and start praying. Should they also be ousted for demonstrating without a permit? I'm not sure I think that's right.

    Similarly, I don't think the original group of "demonstrators" should necessarily fallen under the purview of requiring a permit, because of the scale.

    What I think the trick to that is, reaction/spectator considerations. Even a small group of people doing something as a coordinated matter can gather a crowd, which potentially brushes up against whatever reasonable "minimum scope" you would apply to the permit laws. Worse still, what if they drew an antagonistic response from the crowd, and a fight broke out? There again, I think I'd have to concede that the permit requirement exists to help prevent that sort of thing, and so therefore such a demonstration should require a permit.

    I'm kind of on the fence on the whole thing. I don't like that the permits are required, but I think I can understand the need for them, and I think I can appreciate that this particular place (DC mall area) is significant and "special" enough that, for better or worse, the permits ultimately aim to do more good than harm, and if followed aren't going to be a real problem, in the long run.

    Obviously, if the original group of dancers had simply filed a permit, none of this would have happened, though. Which, to my reasoning, almost immediately makes this an instance of civil disobedience, which becomes an entirely other point of discussion, I suppose.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Wait, so the first amendment doesn't mean that I can say or do anything I want anywhere I want at any time I want?

    This issue is silly. Speech can be both free and restricted. It's restricted to time and place. As long as you do your best not to restrict the content of speech, I think that you're doing alright.

    Also, I think that a part of this discussion that is rarely had is just what qualifies as speech. Does dancing? If so, then what doesn't qualify? What isn't free speech?

    Speaking, not speaking, spending money, voting, anything written, and pornography. Those are just a few examples of things that have, legally, been placed under the purview of "free speech/expression" in US courts.

    Tox on
    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    On the other hand, it's kind of important to get a permit for the mall.

    Which sort of brings up back to the matter of "should." Specifically, should you be required to get a permit even for something as simple as dancing in a relatively small group?

    I look at the rallies last year, and I think, "Okay, yeah, a group of people that big, an event of that magnitude, absolutely, they should be required to get permits." Because there should be checklist they're required to prove they've gone through. Facilities, medical staff, water, that sort of thing. Those are important, and you should be required to demonstrate that you're meeting a certain level of need to provide for the scope of what you're doing.

    A protest, again, I understand. I remember hearing about a really major blunder that resulted in both the KKK and the NAACP having demonstrations, in the same city, on the same day, at the same time, in basically the same neighborhood. That was really, reallllly a bad idea, and requiring permits even for something like that, I definitely understand the need for.

    What I'm not sure about is if this event was on a relevant scale that it should fall under such a requirement. I mean, hypothetically, if a dozen or so conservative, religious people are visiting DC from, let's say Texas, and while they're at some random memorial, they come to the agreement that they need to have a group prayer. They all join hands, in a small circle, and start praying. Should they also be ousted for demonstrating without a permit? I'm not sure I think that's right.

    Similarly, I don't think the original group of "demonstrators" should necessarily fallen under the purview of requiring a permit, because of the scale.

    What I think the trick to that is, reaction/spectator considerations. Even a small group of people doing something as a coordinated matter can gather a crowd, which potentially brushes up against whatever reasonable "minimum scope" you would apply to the permit laws. Worse still, what if they drew an antagonistic response from the crowd, and a fight broke out? There again, I think I'd have to concede that the permit requirement exists to help prevent that sort of thing, and so therefore such a demonstration should require a permit.

    I'm kind of on the fence on the whole thing. I don't like that the permits are required, but I think I can understand the need for them, and I think I can appreciate that this particular place (DC mall area) is significant and "special" enough that, for better or worse, the permits ultimately aim to do more good than harm, and if followed aren't going to be a real problem, in the long run.

    Obviously, if the original group of dancers had simply filed a permit, none of this would have happened, though. Which, to my reasoning, almost immediately makes this an instance of civil disobedience, which becomes an entirely other point of discussion, I suppose.

    If you're organizing an event of any size, you need a permit. Otherwise, people would just say "Oh, we didn't expect it to be this big!" and they would skip out on all the costs associated with events of that size. Maybe it's because I am from the area and worked on the mall, but I don't want it to be a shithole because of some permit loophole.

    Fencingsax on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Did the guy deserved to be choke slammed to the ground? No, that's excessive and that needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Maybe he shouldn't have been resisting arrest. Now the guy at 1:25 who was complying with the officer but someone else grabbed his arms to pull him away. I feel bad for him getting slammed into the ground.

    DeShadowC on
Sign In or Register to comment.