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!

1246

Posts

  • 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: »
    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.

    It has very little to do with the reason we might or might not restrict a protest and whether it has anything to do with our enjoyment. The district court's opinion was that the monument is a nonpublic forum, so the responsible agency (national parks service) has broad discretion to police it however it wants.

    I'm not sure what the jefferson monument has in common with other nonpublic forums.

    As to the rest of your post, you still seem to be relying on the "we should restrict expression because the people doing the expression are dumb" line of reasoning. Which in fairness to you seems also to be the reasoning being used by the parks department, but not one I would think people would be so eager to endorse.

    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: »
    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.

    It has very little to do with the reason we might or might not restrict a protest and whether it has anything to do with our enjoyment. The district court's opinion was that the monument is a nonpublic forum, so the responsible agency (national parks service) has broad discretion to police it however it wants.

    I'm not sure what the jefferson monument has in common with other nonpublic forums.

    As to the rest of your post, you still seem to be relying on the "we should restrict expression because the people doing the expression are dumb" line of reasoning. Which in fairness to you seems also to be the reasoning being used by the parks department, but not one I would think people would be so eager to endorse.

    No, even if people were holding protests for causes I absolutely supported, I'd want them chokeslammed just as hard. Harder, perhaps. I don't think we need to restrict the protesters from protesting there because they are dumb. I think they are dumb because they want to protest there, and because they cannot understand why this is unacceptable.

    But yes, you put it perfectly. It's a nonpublic forum. Thus, you don't get to use it freely to stage protests.

    Most (all?) parks are actually nonpublic forums, despite being "public land." They often have a multitude of restrictions on their use, ranging from hours to the actual activities that are allowed there.

    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
    Right, your position appears to be that they're dumb because they don't understand why it's unacceptable to protest there, and since they're so dumb, they shouldn't be allowed to protest there.

    Even if I accept that the state has the authority to regulate expression in the memorial and that it's being done evenhandedly (questionable in my view but okay), that doesn't mean the state ought to do so.

    And for the record, parks are (almost) all public forums (as are streets, sidewalks, and most other generally open government properties.) Nonpublic forums generally are places like schools, jails, courthouses, military installations, etc.

    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
    Right, your position appears to be that they're dumb because they don't understand why it's unacceptable to protest there, and since they're so dumb, they shouldn't be allowed to protest there.

    Nope. Try again.
    And for the record, parks are (almost) all public forums (as are streets, sidewalks, and most other generally open government properties.) Nonpublic forums generally are places like schools, jails, courthouses, military installations, etc.

    Welp, guess the courts disagreed with you on this. At least as regards national memorials (or was it just Jefferson specifically...either way).

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I'll let you think for a few on it, then you can click this spoiler to see why you were so utterly wrong. But no cheating! Take at least, oh, two or three minutes to try and figure out where you went wrong as far as what my position "appears" to be.
    Their stupidity is entirely seperate from the reason they shouldn't be allowed to protest there. I've not linked the two. Even if they were fucking rocket scientists and historical scholars who fully understood why there were being restricted from protesting there, I'd still say.......wait for it.......they shouldn't be allowed to protest there.

    They should not be allowed to protest there. Because they don't understand why, they are also stupid. But the latter does not actually cause the former.

    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
    Well then, perhaps you could elucidate with reference to specifics your particular objection to this expression (aside from considering it dumb, ofc.)

    I'm not a district judge so I'm not really qualified to answer the question of whether the memorial is a nonpublic forum or not. It doesn't seem to have very much in common with other sites traditionally considered nonpublic forums, but whatever: the court decided simply that the parks service had the authority to regulate this particular expression. The reason the parks service officers saw the need to take action in this case is what I am concerned with.

    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
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Well then, perhaps you could elucidate with reference to specifics your particular objection to this expression (aside from considering it dumb, ofc.)

    Why does there need to be further reason other than it ruins the purpose of the memorial for people?

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    Well then, perhaps you could elucidate with reference to specifics your particular objection to this expression (aside from considering it dumb, ofc.)

    Why does there need to be further reason other than it ruins the purpose of the memorial for people?

    Apparently.

    mcdermott on
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    You know, if I spent all that money to fly from my Washington to D.C.'s Washington, then I'd want to explore the memorial without having to dodge dancing queens doing flashdances.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    You know, if I spent all that money to fly from my Washington to D.C.'s Washington, then I'd want to explore the memorial without having to dodge dancing queens doing flashdances.

    I'd also like to be able to visit the memorial with my wife (well, soon to be ex-wife) without wondering if I was supposed to buy her a corsage first.

    EDIT: Apparently we're unamerican assholes, though, because the real purpose of our national memorials and monuments is to provide a forum for Paultards to get their Paultarded protests on.

    mcdermott on
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Paultards and randroids really need to build Rapture and make out together.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • SejarkiSejarki Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    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.

    Yet had they been standing there hugging in the exact same fashion, but swaying less, it's suddenly more acceptable?

    Sejarki on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Actually, if they were to just stand there hugging for a few minutes they'd probably be asked to move along then too.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    Actually, if they were to just stand there hugging for a few minutes they'd probably be asked to move along then too.



    Yup.

    And if they refused because OMG MAH RIGHTS they'd probably have been chokeslammed just as hard.

    Edit _ But it is marginally more.acceptable, in that we'd let.them do it a little longer before the hustling along and subsequent chokeslamming.

    mcdermott on
  • RialeRiale I'm a little slow Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Yes, because physical violence is an acceptable way to control and intimidate those around you. Restraining and handcuffing them in order to escort them off the premises isn't enough, you have to make sure they're bruised and battered to get the lesson!

    Riale on
    33c9nxz.gif
    Steam | XBL: Elazual | Last.fm
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Riale wrote: »
    Yes, because physical violence is an acceptable way to control and intimidate those around you. Restraining and handcuffing them in order to escort them off the premises isn't enough, you have to make sure they're bruised and battered to get the lesson!

    So you're willing to agree that the extent of physical force used is the only potential issue here?

    mcdermott on
  • RialeRiale I'm a little slow Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I would agree it's the most pertinent issue, yeah. I have other reservations about the ban itself, because I don't feel that the act the law was in response to (the flash mob) was intended as a form of protest or serious demonstration. I think the law is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, and a waste of taxpayer money, but that's an entirely different decision and is much more subjective than the fact that a dude got choked for dancing in the jefferson memorial.

    Riale on
    33c9nxz.gif
    Steam | XBL: Elazual | Last.fm
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Riale wrote: »
    I would agree it's the most pertinent issue, yeah. I have other reservations about the ban itself, because I don't feel that the act the law was in response to (the flash mob) was intended as a form of protest or serious demonstration.

    Okay, so you're in the 'planking on the Vietnam Memorial is peach keen' camp?

    If the original act wasn't meant as a serious protest, then that means they have even less reason not to try and prevent future disruptions.
    I think the law is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, and a waste of taxpayer money, but that's an entirely different decision and is much more subjective than the fact that a dude got choked for dancing in the jefferson memorial.

    Maintain the integrity of our national memorials and monuments is not a waste of money. If it is, then fuck it let's just sell them. Also, we have park police anyway, so you're probably exaggerating how much money is being 'wasted'.

    mcdermott on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Riale wrote: »
    Yes, because physical violence is an acceptable way to control and intimidate those around you. Restraining and handcuffing them in order to escort them off the premises isn't enough, you have to make sure they're bruised and battered to get the lesson!

    If you notice the cops tried to restrain and handcuff the individuals. The individuals began screaming about their rights, and resisted arrest. I have no issue with law enforcement officers using force on suspects resisting a legitimate arrest.

    DeShadowC on
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    I am most concerned that apparently it's ok for police to choke people. That is dangerous.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Its a tactic to restrict blood flow to the head in an attempt to make the subject get lightheaded so he'll stop tensing up his arms allowing him to be handcuffed.

    DeShadowC on
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    I understand what it's for, just something I assumed was illegal.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The choke is maybe the only issue I have here.

    Dude was resisting so I don't have much issue with him throwing him down, and as far as the reason for involvement, I don't think there's anything wrong with a dance ban at memorials.

    TheBlackWind on
    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You know, if I spent all that money to fly from my Washington to D.C.'s Washington, then I'd want to explore the memorial without having to dodge dancing queens doing flashdances.

    I'd also like to be able to visit the memorial with my wife (well, soon to be ex-wife) without wondering if I was supposed to buy her a corsage first.

    EDIT: Apparently we're unamerican assholes, though, because the real purpose of our national memorials and monuments is to provide a forum for Paultards to get their Paultarded protests on.

    Actually in a hilarious twist that makes you just as american as the guys who don't understand a memorial is something built to respect a dead person!

    King Riptor on
    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I don't understand how "because me and the old ball and chain wouldn't like it" is a good enough reason to ban something.

    Being disruptive may be a good reason to ban certain things in certain locations. You not liking something does not equal it automatically being disruptive however.

    Breakdancing like a maniac all day inside the memorial is already banned. It's called disrupting the peace.

    Chokeslamming people for making a short, very non intrusive, political statement that you don't like is not a good way to police a free citizenry. Those people were not being disruptive, and if someone at that location found the display awkward, too bad. That's one of the smallest prices I can think of for living in a free country. Freedom doesn't mean just being able to do what you like. It means other people can do things you don't like. Totally offended by people exhibiting their right to free speech in a monument to a hero of free speech? Leave. Take a walk for a few minutes and come back later.

    I think these dancers are total dopes, but that's so beyond irrelevant, it's bed, bath & beyond irrelevant.

    armageddonbound on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The decision is online here.

    Despite the fact that I <3 free speech, it reads pretty reasonably.

    MrMister on
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I don't understand how "because me and the old ball and chain wouldn't like it" is a good enough reason to ban something.

    Being disruptive may be a good reason to ban certain things in certain locations. You not liking something does not equal it automatically being disruptive however.

    Breakdancing like a maniac all day inside the memorial is already banned. It's called disrupting the peace.

    Chokeslamming people for making a short, very non intrusive, political statement that you don't like is not a good way to police a free citizenry. Those people were not being disruptive, and if someone at that location found the display awkward, too bad. That's one of the smallest prices I can think of for living in a free country. Freedom doesn't mean just being able to do what you like. It means other people can do things you don't like. Totally offended by people exhibiting their right to free speech in a monument to a hero of free speech? Leave. Take a walk for a few minutes and come back later.

    I think these dancers are total dopes, but that's so beyond irrelevant, it's bed, bath & beyond irrelevant.

    But if the protesters stay there. If it makes me uncomfortable enough to get me to leave, and the protestors wont go away then what, I just am not allowed to have a pleasant experience at a public place? I mean, I'm not asking for a lot here. I just want to go to a place that exists solely to provide people with good feelings and happy memories, and am being denied that. But it's cool, because some people should be able to make anyone they want uncomfortable anywhere they want because it's free speech.

    Now, you might say that such is hyperbole. Maybe it is, I don't know mcdermott. But even if it is in his case, it might not be in another. The government doesn't get to play favorites. A lot of people are prevented from doing things simply because it makes people uncomfortable (like being naked in public) in public spaces. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that it's okay in one instance, but not another.

    Also, I think that the ruling for this case does involve a little bit of legal manipulation (though it's clear that the law states that such is wrong), but I'm not sure I disagree with the government being able to limit the conduct of people in such public spaces. And I don't think saying "if you're going to dance, take it out to the street" is unreasonable.

    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
  • RialeRiale I'm a little slow Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Now, you might say that such is hyperbole. Maybe it is, I don't know mcdermott. But even if it is in his case, it might not be in another. The government doesn't get to play favorites. A lot of people are prevented from doing things simply because it makes people uncomfortable (like being naked in public) in public spaces. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that it's okay in one instance, but not another.

    Are you seriously comparing silently dancing in place to public nudity?

    Riale on
    33c9nxz.gif
    Steam | XBL: Elazual | Last.fm
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If two people slowdancing in a public memorial makes you sputter with rage, than maybe you're the problem.

    America would be a much better place if everyone realized that they don't have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in public.

    SmokeStacks on
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If two people slowdancing in a public memorial makes you sputter with rage, than maybe you're the problem.

    America would be a much better place if everyone realized that they don't have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in public.


    Yes. If they had the megaphones and placards and a giant crowd, I could understand a reasonable person being disturbed (which is sometimes fine, but I do think a permit is reasonable in that context). However, if silent dancing upsets you to the extent you feel the need to ask for police intervention, you need to toughen up and develop some self-discipline. When I see something I don't like in public, so long as it isn't dangerous, I ignore it and move on.

    programjunkie 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
    There is not actually that much room at the Jefferson, and people like to walk around it looking at the statue. And again, if we let things like this go unregulated, then this shit would happen all over the Mall, and that is bad.

    Fencingsax on
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2011
    I think the important thing to take away from this is that the Men Without Hats were wrong.

    Premier kakos on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    There is not actually that much room at the Jefferson, and people like to walk around it looking at the statue. And again, if we let things like this go unregulated, then this shit would happen all over the Mall, and that is bad.

    I don't think the average person has any fucking idea whatsoever what Washington, D.C. would be like without some of these restrictions. They can't even contemplate it.

    EDIT: Well, that or they don't care. But considering that the rest of the country would like to be able to visit these important landmarks and actually enjoy them, I do. The people that run them do. And the courts, apparently, do.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If two people slowdancing in a public memorial makes you sputter with rage, than maybe you're the problem.

    America would be a much better place if everyone realized that they don't have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in public.


    Yes. If they had the megaphones and placards and a giant crowd, I could understand a reasonable person being disturbed (which is sometimes fine, but I do think a permit is reasonable in that context). However, if silent dancing upsets you to the extent you feel the need to ask for police intervention, you need to toughen up and develop some self-discipline. When I see something I don't like in public, so long as it isn't dangerous, I ignore it and move on.

    I think you might consider, just for a moment, that yours is a minority position.

    And as evidence of that, ponder for just a second why anybody would choose silent dance as a form of protest to begin with. I mean, if it doesn't disturb people, why would they bother?

    mcdermott on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If two people slowdancing in a public memorial makes you sputter with rage, than maybe you're the problem.

    America would be a much better place if everyone realized that they don't have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in public.

    Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much of a special unique snowflake you think you are, if you want to protest at a park in DC, you need a permit.

    If you want to protest an injust law, feel free to commit sodomy in any number of US municipalities and tweet about it.

    Deebaser on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Honk wrote: »
    I understand what it's for, just something I assumed was illegal.

    Its a tactic you're trained to use in those situations.

    DeShadowC on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Park police are like the flunkies of policedom which is saying a lot.

    I thought those were rentacops.

    Are park police better or worse than rentacops? Or just different?

    Rent-a-cops aren't flunkies, they weren't even in process. Like, I'm a college flunkie; I was admitted to college, and flunked a bunch. Rent-a-cops likely are never even admitted to any serious police training and accreditation. Park police are like the bottom of the class. I mean how else do you explain assignments like "Hey Johnson, you're gonna protect the Jefferson Memorial from dancing!"

    mrt144 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
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Park police are like the flunkies of policedom which is saying a lot.

    I thought those were rentacops.

    Are park police better or worse than rentacops? Or just different?

    Rent-a-cops aren't flunkies, they weren't even in process. Like, I'm a college flunkie; I was admitted to college, and flunked a bunch. Rent-a-cops likely are never even admitted to any serious police training and accreditation. Park police are like the bottom of the class. I mean how else do you explain assignments like "Hey Johnson, you're gonna protect the Jefferson Memorial from dancing!"

    To be fair, I'd prefer that to "Hey Johnson, I'm gonna shoot a dude just 'cause!

    Fencingsax on
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If two people slowdancing in a public memorial makes you sputter with rage, than maybe you're the problem.

    America would be a much better place if everyone realized that they don't have the right to not be offended or inconvenienced in public.
    Yes. If they had the megaphones and placards and a giant crowd, I could understand a reasonable person being disturbed (which is sometimes fine, but I do think a permit is reasonable in that context). However, if silent dancing upsets you to the extent you feel the need to ask for police intervention, you need to toughen up and develop some self-discipline. When I see something I don't like in public, so long as it isn't dangerous, I ignore it and move on.

    I think you might consider, just for a moment, that yours is a minority position.

    And as evidence of that, ponder for just a second why anybody would choose silent dance as a form of protest to begin with. I mean, if it doesn't disturb people, why would they bother?
    The First Amendment exists specifically to protect speech that disturbs other people. Speech that others are fine with does not need protection.

    edit: As a pair of easy examples to cite42: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (neo nazi's intentionally marching in a town with a large Jewish population), Texas v. Johnson (burning a US flag)

    Syrdon on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Park police are like the flunkies of policedom which is saying a lot.

    I thought those were rentacops.

    Are park police better or worse than rentacops? Or just different?

    Rent-a-cops aren't flunkies, they weren't even in process. Like, I'm a college flunkie; I was admitted to college, and flunked a bunch. Rent-a-cops likely are never even admitted to any serious police training and accreditation. Park police are like the bottom of the class. I mean how else do you explain assignments like "Hey Johnson, you're gonna protect the Jefferson Memorial from dancing!"

    To be fair, I'd prefer that to "Hey Johnson, I'm gonna shoot a dude just 'cause!

    Park police would do it if they had real weapons.

    mrt144 on
Sign In or Register to comment.