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!

1356

Posts

  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    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.

    That was my thought. That's where things were done wrong. But if a guy is resisting arrest, regardless of how stupid the law behind the arrest is, the police can't just ask "pretty please stop resisting."

    Solomaxwell6 on
  • KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    The Mall does get beat up enough already. I don't want to see people doing random pointless acts on it as well. Would they dance at the Vietnam Memorial? Or the 9/11 Memorial at the Pentagon? Nobody is buried at either of those. Just because Jefferson is only one man and he has been dead longer doesn't mean you get to dance on a symbolic grave.

    I'm fine with them dispersing a flash mob with a stupid flimsy argument of why to be there. It isn't like he used the "right to dance" as an argument for the First Amendment.

    Kipling on
    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see it as a loophole. Rather, I don't see it as an unavoidable one. If your event exceeds the minimum size, you get broken up, because you don't have a permit to have an event that size, and you get fined because you didn't have the proper permits. Lack of anticipation isn't something I'd wager to be an affirmative defense against the permit code. Still, this is yet another reason why all sizes should be subject to the permit code, because people will try to exploit this loophole.

    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: »
    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.

    I don't see it as a loophole. Rather, I don't see it as an unavoidable one. If your event exceeds the minimum size, you get broken up, because you don't have a permit to have an event that size, and you get fined because you didn't have the proper permits. Lack of anticipation isn't something I'd wager to be an affirmative defense against the permit code. Still, this is yet another reason why all sizes should be subject to the permit code, because people will try to exploit this loophole.

    I think we agree on this one.

    Fencingsax on
  • agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Kipling wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    The Mall does get beat up enough already. I don't want to see people doing random pointless acts on it as well. Would they dance at the Vietnam Memorial? Or the 9/11 Memorial at the Pentagon? Nobody is buried at either of those. Just because Jefferson is only one man and he has been dead longer doesn't mean you get to dance on a symbolic grave.

    I'm fine with them dispersing a flash mob with a stupid flimsy argument of why to be there. It isn't like he used the "right to dance" as an argument for the First Amendment.

    The Jefferson memorial is actually not about death or tragedy like those others.

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The thing is, every group in the country wants to hold a protest in DC . And that's cool, since this is the nation's capital and petitioning the government for something is a pretty important right.

    But, you can't just throw a protest wherever you want at any time. There's a pretty good and reasonable system in place that requires you to get a permit to make sure your protest doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If the folks here wanted to have some sort of dancing protest on the Mall, they could have gotten a permit quite easily. That being said, not every site monument in DC is, or even should, be open to protestors.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing is, every group in the country wants to hold a protest in DC . And that's cool, since this is the nation's capital and petitioning the government for something is a pretty important right.

    But, you can't just throw a protest wherever you want at any time. There's a pretty good and reasonable system in place that requires you to get a permit to make sure your protest doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If the folks here wanted to have some sort of dancing protest on the Mall, they could have gotten a permit quite easily. That being said, not every site monument in DC is, or even should, be open to protestors.

    There is a system for protests or demonstrations, and all google-foo has shown that it only applies to groups larger than 25 people.

    The original group had less than 25 people, and the 5 man group had way less than 25 people. So in neither case were the protesters doing anything wrong aside from 'something somebody in a position of power doesn't like'.

    It's pretty reminiscent of free speech zones. You're allowed your free speech, as long as it's in a little box fifty miles away.

    zerg rush on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing is, every group in the country wants to hold a protest in DC . And that's cool, since this is the nation's capital and petitioning the government for something is a pretty important right.

    But, you can't just throw a protest wherever you want at any time. There's a pretty good and reasonable system in place that requires you to get a permit to make sure your protest doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If the folks here wanted to have some sort of dancing protest on the Mall, they could have gotten a permit quite easily. That being said, not every site monument in DC is, or even should, be open to protestors.

    There is a system for protests or demonstrations, and all google-foo has shown that it only applies to groups larger than 25 people.

    The original group had less than 25 people, and the 5 man group had way less than 25 people. So in neither case were the protesters doing anything wrong aside from 'something somebody in a position of power doesn't like'.

    It's pretty reminiscent of free speech zones. You're allowed your free speech, as long as it's in a little box fifty miles away.

    Yeah, but a major difference is that those were all about keeping any sight of protesters out of the news, by keeping them away from those that were being protested.

    These are about ensuring that people can enjoy our national parks and monuments without constantly having to deal with roving groups of 24 protesters doing stupid shit.

    Little different.
    Kipling wrote: »
    The Mall does get beat up enough already. I don't want to see people doing random pointless acts on it as well. Would they dance at the Vietnam Memorial? Or the 9/11 Memorial at the Pentagon? Nobody is buried at either of those. Just because Jefferson is only one man and he has been dead longer doesn't mean you get to dance on a symbolic grave.

    I'm fine with them dispersing a flash mob with a stupid flimsy argument of why to be there. It isn't like he used the "right to dance" as an argument for the First Amendment.

    Like I said, what's next? Achey Breakey at the Holocaust museum? Planking at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial? These aren't just any public place, and while they might be vaguely outdoor areas they are also controlled spaces (speaking of the memorials...obviously the museum is indoors and quite controlled).

    If the Jefferson Memorial were a clearly indoor location, with doors and guards (even if free access were permitted), would we see it the same way? Maybe some would, but I'd argue that many arguing "free speech!" would consider a building to be different. For no good reason, really.

    mcdermott on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing is, every group in the country wants to hold a protest in DC . And that's cool, since this is the nation's capital and petitioning the government for something is a pretty important right.

    But, you can't just throw a protest wherever you want at any time. There's a pretty good and reasonable system in place that requires you to get a permit to make sure your protest doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If the folks here wanted to have some sort of dancing protest on the Mall, they could have gotten a permit quite easily. That being said, not every site monument in DC is, or even should, be open to protestors.

    There is a system for protests or demonstrations, and all google-foo has shown that it only applies to groups larger than 25 people.

    The original group had less than 25 people, and the 5 man group had way less than 25 people. So in neither case were the protesters doing anything wrong aside from 'something somebody in a position of power doesn't like'.

    It's pretty reminiscent of free speech zones. You're allowed your free speech, as long as it's in a little box fifty miles away.
    The Jefferson Memorial (and other national monuments) is not a rule-free, anarchic zone where anything goes. You can't, for example, haul in a grill and cook up some burgers and hot dogs. You can't set up a soap box and try to get converts for your religion. And you can't engage in behaviors like dancing that can be disruptive to everyone else who is visiting the monument. The appropriate government agency has the legal power to pass reasonable rules to ensure that one person's behavior doesn't prevent another from enjoying the monument.

    Are you outraged that you can't breakdance on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

    Basically, these people seem upset that they can't do exactly what they want where and when they want it. Even though there are effectively an unlimited number of other places in DC where they could hold their little stunt without any restrictions.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • 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
    Also, it's Memorial Day weekend, which is one of the busiest weekends on the Mall period.

    Fencingsax on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Pi-r8 on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?

    mcdermott on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?
    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Pi-r8 on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?

    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Ah, I see the land was donated from public land, but is not any more.

    So any public property is fair game, then?

    mcdermott on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?

    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Ah, I see the land was donated from public land, but is not any more.

    So any public property is fair game, then?
    um, yes? I don't see the problem. Like if you sell your house to someone else, you give up your right to live in that house and someone else can use it instead.

    Pi-r8 on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?

    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Ah, I see the land was donated from public land, but is not any more.

    So any public property is fair game, then?

    um, yes? I don't see the problem. Like if you sell your house to someone else, you give up your right to live in that house and someone else can use it instead.

    I don't know, I think an unlimited right to protest on any public land is absurd. You've already just said, or at least logically implied, that the only reason we don't have an unlimited right to protest inside the Holocaust Museum is that it is no longer owned by the government. Which is to say that were it still government owned, we'd have every right to hold dancing protests, or even Neo-Nazi demonstrations, right up in there.

    So basically there is no legal way for the government to ever maintain limited access to a piece of property (such as to run a museum or memorial) without allowing full public protest at any time without any restriction.

    Well, color me outstandingly happy you are not on the Supreme Court, because I think "reasonable time, place, and manner" is a pretty spiffy idea. Perhaps abused from time to time, but we are a better society for it.

    mcdermott on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.
    You've already just said, or at least logically implied, that the only reason we don't have an unlimited right to protest inside the Holocaust Museum is that it is no longer owned by the government. Which is to say that were it still government owned, we'd have every right to hold dancing protests, or even Neo-Nazi demonstrations, right up in there.

    So, what reasons does the government actually have to tell people they can't express themselves that these folks would fall into?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Basically, I would argue that because public property is owned by all of us, including everybody who is not you, there is every reasonable right for the people to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on your protests there. Protesting, particularly even marginally disruptive protests, unreasonably exclude others from using that public resource.

    mcdermott 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
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Yeah, do you have any idea what that would do to the mall? Unregulated protests are an extremely bad idea.

    Fencingsax on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Um, didn't the Supreme Court uphold reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the Westboro Baptist Church protests, in that states and localities are able to restrict you from protesting within specified limits of the site?

    I thought the only pro-Phelps ruling was that a family couldn't claim damages simply from having seen the protests.

    mcdermott on
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    This is a bad Eighties movie just waiting to happen.

    They said he couldn't dance...

    They said he couldn't dream...

    They were wrong.


    MEMORIAL

    Coming soon.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Um, didn't the Supreme Court uphold reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the Westboro Baptist Church protests, in that states and localities are able to restrict you from protesting within specified limits of the site?

    I thought the only pro-Phelps ruling was that a family couldn't claim damages simply from having seen the protests.

    Well right, because what phelps et al actually wanted to do was scream in people's ears. I am asking what in your view actually causes these activities to rise to the level of "unreasonable."

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't know, I think an unlimited right to protest on any public land is absurd. You've already just said, or at least logically implied, that the only reason we don't have an unlimited right to protest inside the Holocaust Museum is that it is no longer owned by the government. Which is to say that were it still government owned, we'd have every right to hold dancing protests, or even Neo-Nazi demonstrations, right up in there.

    So basically there is no legal way for the government to ever maintain limited access to a piece of property (such as to run a museum or memorial) without allowing full public protest at any time without any restriction.

    Well, color me outstandingly happy you are not on the Supreme Court, because I think "reasonable time, place, and manner" is a pretty spiffy idea. Perhaps abused from time to time, but we are a better society for it.
    Well I'm certainly not a legal expert. But there is a difference between government property and public land, right? I certainly wouldn't support an unlimited right to protest inside the oval office, for example. If the government wants to reserve a certain space for a certain purpose, I think that's fine. B

    ut if something is really public land, then yeah people should be allowed to protest there as much as they want without applying for permission. It sucks if it interferes with the nice sightseeing trip you planned to the capital, but the ability to protest is worth sacrificing some convenience for it.

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

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?
    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Public land is any land held by the government for the public. Each piece of public land is governed by its own rules and laws. That it is public land does not mean you can do whatever you want on it. For instance, it's not uncommon for parks, provided for the public, to be off limits during certain hours. Something being public land does not grant you free and completely unbridled constitutional rights. It being public land means the government's supposed to be using it to provide the public something. That something is not necessarily a soap box.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Um, didn't the Supreme Court uphold reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the Westboro Baptist Church protests, in that states and localities are able to restrict you from protesting within specified limits of the site?

    I thought the only pro-Phelps ruling was that a family couldn't claim damages simply from having seen the protests.

    Well right, because what phelps et al actually wanted to do was scream in people's ears. I am asking what in your view actually causes these activities to rise to the level of "unreasonable."

    Oh, so we simply disagree that a bunch of people dancing around a public memorial is disruptive. I can accept that. But you'd agree that, accepting for a moment (for sake of argument) that it is disruptive, it can be restricted?

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't know, I think an unlimited right to protest on any public land is absurd. You've already just said, or at least logically implied, that the only reason we don't have an unlimited right to protest inside the Holocaust Museum is that it is no longer owned by the government. Which is to say that were it still government owned, we'd have every right to hold dancing protests, or even Neo-Nazi demonstrations, right up in there.

    So basically there is no legal way for the government to ever maintain limited access to a piece of property (such as to run a museum or memorial) without allowing full public protest at any time without any restriction.

    Well, color me outstandingly happy you are not on the Supreme Court, because I think "reasonable time, place, and manner" is a pretty spiffy idea. Perhaps abused from time to time, but we are a better society for it.
    Well I'm certainly not a legal expert. But there is a difference between government property and public land, right? I certainly wouldn't support an unlimited right to protest inside the oval office, for example. If the government wants to reserve a certain space for a certain purpose, I think that's fine. B

    ut if something is really public land, then yeah people should be allowed to protest there as much as they want without applying for permission. It sucks if it interferes with the nice sightseeing trip you planned to the capital, but the ability to protest is worth sacrificing some convenience for it.

    The Jefferson Memorial is reserved for "not dancing."

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    You don't have zero 1st amendment rights there. You have limited 1st amendment rights there. Much like you do almost anywhere else.

    Sort of like how I have a limited right to kill people? If you can do something only after asking the government for a permit to make sure it's OK, it's not really a right.

    Should you be able to hold a dancing protest inside the Holocaust Museum?

    If not, why not?

    Is it simply the fact that it's indoors?
    I would say it depends on whether it's public land or not. I don't think the Holocaust Museum is public land.

    Public land is any land held by the government for the public. Each piece of public land is governed by its own rules and laws. That it is public land does not mean you can do whatever you want on it. For instance, it's not uncommon for parks, provided for the public, to be off limits during certain hours. Something being public land does not grant you free and completely unbridled constitutional rights. It being public land means the government's supposed to be using it to provide the public something. That something is not necessarily a soap box.

    This. I have no fucking idea why this is so hard to understand.

    mcdermott on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Um, didn't the Supreme Court uphold reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the Westboro Baptist Church protests, in that states and localities are able to restrict you from protesting within specified limits of the site?

    I thought the only pro-Phelps ruling was that a family couldn't claim damages simply from having seen the protests.

    Well right, because what phelps et al actually wanted to do was scream in people's ears. I am asking what in your view actually causes these activities to rise to the level of "unreasonable."

    Oh, so we simply disagree that a bunch of people dancing around a public memorial is disruptive. I can accept that. But you'd agree that, accepting for a moment (for sake of argument) that it is disruptive, it can be restricted?

    Well, right, obviously not all expression is absolutely protected, everywhere.

    But the argument that this particular expression was disruptive seems to boil down to "because I say so," which isn't even close to being good enough.

    ed: I mean this
    The Jefferson Memorial is reserved for "not dancing."

    is cute and all, but it's not much of an actual answer.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Defending the law here (and for that matter the enforcement) is ridiculous. They weren't damaging anything or restricting access to the site. The limiting factor on first amendment rights in this case is apparently "the police officer thinks you're being dumb."

    If the highest court in the land can rule (and quite rightly) that fred phelps et al can protest a soldier's funeral, certainly this is protected expression.

    Um, didn't the Supreme Court uphold reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the Westboro Baptist Church protests, in that states and localities are able to restrict you from protesting within specified limits of the site?

    I thought the only pro-Phelps ruling was that a family couldn't claim damages simply from having seen the protests.

    Well right, because what phelps et al actually wanted to do was scream in people's ears. I am asking what in your view actually causes these activities to rise to the level of "unreasonable."

    Oh, so we simply disagree that a bunch of people dancing around a public memorial is disruptive. I can accept that. But you'd agree that, accepting for a moment (for sake of argument) that it is disruptive, it can be restricted?

    Well, right, obviously not all expression is absolutely protected, everywhere.

    But the argument that this particular expression was disruptive seems to boil down to "because I say so," which isn't even close to being good enough.

    ed: I mean this
    The Jefferson Memorial is reserved for "not dancing."

    is cute and all, but it's not much of an actual answer.

    I believe multiple people in this thread have stated that they'd find it disruptive. Obviously the officials who restricted it thought it was disruptive. I mean, if it wouldn't disrupt you that's super awesome and all, but it's everybody's memorial and it seems like more than a few people would find it disruptive, so.....

    mcdermott on
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Can't there be a middle ground? Some nuance? Obviously if you're at the memorial hardcore dancing, being inches away from punching people in the face, you should be thrown out. If you're embracing your partner and rocking from side to side, like the people in the video, though? How the hell is that disruptive?

    His Corkiness on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Can't there be a middle ground? Some nuance? Obviously if you're at the memorial hardcore dancing, being inches away from punching people in the face, you should be thrown out. If you're embracing your partner and rocking from side to side, like the people in the video, though? How the hell is that disruptive?

    It's not a fucking prom.

    If you wouldn't be disrupted by it, awesome for you. Most people would find hanging out at a memorial while a couple people slow dance for no good fucking reason to be awkward. Making my memorial experience awkward is disruptive to me. And since it's public property, set aside for everybody as a memorial (and not a fucking dance floor) then you don't get to do that.

    Maybe you're a better person than me, because you wouldn't find it at all bothersome. But you don't get to make the rules, and the people that do get to make the rules decided that mine was the more reasonable position. And then the people who decide whether the rules are allowed to be the rules decided that yup, that was reasonable. So perhaps you might consider for a moment that you are being the unreasonable one, by applying your own comfort zone to everybody else in the country.

    EDIT: And if you want nuance, I'm not saying anything that makes anybody uncomfortable can't happen there. Want to check out the memorial, but you have a bunch of stupid facial piercings and liberty spikes? Super. Wearing a stupid "Obama with a Hitler Moustache?" Whatever. But I think that declaring the Jefferson Memorial, forevermore, to not be a dance floor is a perfectly reasonable line to draw.

    mcdermott on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I believe multiple people in this thread have stated that they'd find it disruptive. Obviously the officials who restricted it thought it was disruptive. I mean, if it wouldn't disrupt you that's super awesome and all, but it's everybody's memorial and it seems like more than a few people would find it disruptive, so.....

    This still isn't an answer. I think street musicians are obnoxious and if my observation is accurate so do a lot of other people, but me thinking they're fucking dumb doesn't create a justification for restricting their expression.

    The places we actually do restrict expression are places where it's likely to cause direct harm (true threats, libel, "fire in a crowded theater," etc), restrict other people's legitimate activities (say, wanting to use a public street for some purpose other than protest marching) or cause acute emotional distress (harassment, phelps and co.) "A few people doing something I think is dumb" is not enough of a tort that we want to limit first amendment rights for the sake of it.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • 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
    I believe multiple people in this thread have stated that they'd find it disruptive. Obviously the officials who restricted it thought it was disruptive. I mean, if it wouldn't disrupt you that's super awesome and all, but it's everybody's memorial and it seems like more than a few people would find it disruptive, so.....

    This still isn't an answer. I think street musicians are obnoxious and if my observation is accurate so do a lot of other people, but me thinking they're fucking dumb doesn't create a justification for restricting their expression.

    The places we actually do restrict expression are places where it's likely to cause direct harm (true threats, libel, "fire in a crowded theater," etc), restrict other people's legitimate activities (say, wanting to use a public street for some purpose other than protest marching) or cause acute emotional distress (harassment, phelps and co.) "A few people doing something I think is dumb" is not enough of a tort that we want to limit first amendment rights for the sake of it.

    Street Musicians are not allowed in the memorials. So yes, we do restrict their freedom in exactly the same way.

    Fencingsax on
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Okay, dude, calm down. I don't really know why you're getting so worked up over this. If their actions frustrate you that much, I think we're at opposite ends of the spectrum here.

    His Corkiness on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I believe multiple people in this thread have stated that they'd find it disruptive. Obviously the officials who restricted it thought it was disruptive. I mean, if it wouldn't disrupt you that's super awesome and all, but it's everybody's memorial and it seems like more than a few people would find it disruptive, so.....

    This still isn't an answer. I think street musicians are obnoxious and if my observation is accurate so do a lot of other people, but me thinking they're fucking dumb doesn't create a justification for restricting their expression.

    In a public thoroughfare where people are simply expected to be able to pass by?

    Nope.

    At the Jefferson Memorial?

    Yup.

    Are street musicians allowed at national memorials?
    The places we actually do restrict expression are places where it's likely to cause direct harm (true threats, libel, "fire in a crowded theater," etc), restrict other people's legitimate activities (say, wanting to use a public street for some purpose other than protest marching) or cause acute emotional distress (harassment, phelps and co.) "A few people doing something I think is dumb" is not enough of a tort that we want to limit first amendment rights for the sake of it.

    Skipped Quid's post, eh? Public parks are lands set aside for everybody's enjoyment. If your behavior falls far outside the social norm to infringe on the legitimate use of others, (which turning it into a dance floor does), we can restrict that. We can also restrict protests in general (as long as it's entirely content/message neutral), because otherwise nobody would ever be able to enjoy national memorial sites or the bulk of D.C., ever, forever.

    Which people have tried to explain, but you don't want to listen.

    mcdermott 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
    They are allowed outside of the Museums, along Constitution and Independence.

    Fencingsax on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Okay, dude, calm down. I don't really know why you're getting so worked up over this. If their actions frustrate you that much, I think we're at opposite ends of the spectrum here.

    Don't tell me to calm down. And it's not these stupid dancers that frustrate me. It's stupid people who have no idea why we might need to restrict both behavior and protests in national fucking parks that frustrate me that much. How stupid do you have to be to not get this?

    Well, these dancing idiots are in the same camp, so maybe they do frustrate me that much indirectly. But their dancing in and of itself doesn't.

    mcdermott on
  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I said that there should be restrictions. I just don't think a blanket ban on "dancing" (or on whatever form the most recent disruptive protest happened to take) is the way to go about it, and that restrictions based on the actual level of disruption would be more appropriate. If I have to look at someone closely and realise "hey, they're fucking DANCING! Get 'em!", then I don't think it's appropriate or worthwhile.

    His Corkiness on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hey, I think a lot of you guys aren't from DC, so you have a different opinion on this. That is okay.
    Being a DC cop, especially the National beat, is very very hard. Those tards screaming "FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS CANT TOUCH MEEEEE" are a dime a dozen here. Seriously, you can go to any monument or any mall or any high-pop spot in DC and find at least ten of these people screaming about their right to do something. America is a wonderful place where we don't get sent to "camps" for doing so, but there has to be some sort of regulation so that people can enjoy the area without crazy mc crazy head climbing halfway up the National Monument in an eagle costume to protest the recent ban on freedom #457.

    There is a thing called Jerusalem syndrome, where people just start babbling religious muckery and bothering everyone in Jerusalem while on vacation. There should be a thing called DC syndrome, where people start screaming about their rights to this and that because they saw a bunch of protests were held in DC for historical reasons.

    I'm not advocating anything but moving these people and then letting them go, as the police seemed to do here. Try getting off the metro with 400 anti-abortionists screaming in your face, or making it halfway down the boulevard to find it is closed off because 10 PETA people decided to protest in the middle of the road.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I said that there should be restrictions. I just don't think a blanket ban on "dancing" (or on whatever form the most recent disruptive protest happened to take) is the way to go about it, and that restrictions based on the actual level of disruption would be more appropriate. If I have to look at someone closely and realise "hey, they're fucking DANCING! Get 'em!", then I don't think it's appropriate or worthwhile.

    I think a blanket ban on dancing at memorials is just fine, in and of itself.

    I also think a blanket ban on protests, absent a permit, is absolutely necessary.

    That the former is being used to more effectively manage the latter just makes it more acceptable to me.

    I mean, hopefully we wouldn't have to ban dancing at our national memorials because fucktards would just not dance there. But, well, we as Americans failed to not suck enough. So now we have a localized dancing ban. Which, hopefully, would never affect any of us here because we are not fucktards, right?

    I mean, if we'd ever like to be able to enjoy our national parks without having to dodge hundreds of Paultards (or whoever the idiot libertarian fucktard equivalents of the moment are).

    mcdermott on
Sign In or Register to comment.