dancing in protest is illegal

[CruisnGrrl]

[video=youtube;8jUU3yCy3uI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI&feature=player_embedded[/video]

they were all released fairly quickly. be interesting if the police get counter sued...

 

[imnothng]

Yet again a video of someone resisting arrest and the cops reacting. Time and time again, you can't resist arrest, but only deal with the matter after the fact. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

 

[guym]

****ing BS!!

 

[cycling]

Abuse of power.
Total B.S.

 

[Royson]

Where is the abuse of power? They were protesting a previous court ruling which stated no dancing or demonstrations in monuments to maintain decorum.

The police warned them up front no exceptions.

 

[Nick_f]

Reminds me of a Simpson episode, when Marge is a cop and she arrests Homer, and gives him the line "you have the right to remain silent" and Homer say's " I choose to wave that right" and starts screaming.

lol

 

[turbodish]

Where is the abuse of power? They were protesting a previous court ruling which stated no dancing or demonstrations in monuments to maintain decorum.

The police warned them up front no exceptions.

Yeah, really. Some people's kids have no respect or consideration for others, or any sense of what appropriate time and place means.

Washington - Five people were arrested for dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, in defiance of a ban on demonstrations at the site.
The flash mob was organized through Twitter and Facebook as a protest against a recent court decision upholding a 2008 verdict that banned dancing at the memorial. Andrew Sharp, a protester, told radio station WTOP:

"I think some people thought it was a joke at first, and then they started putting handcuffs on people and were very, very serious about it."​

Sharp also said that people were told that no warnings would be given, and arrests would be made on the spot. The court's decision stems from 2008, when Mary Oberwetter was arrested by police for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial on the eve of the former president's 265th birthday. Oberwetter, then 28, was charged with a misdemeanor count of interfering with agency functions, and was later released. Oberwetter sued the Park Service in 2009, saying that her arrest for dancing was a violation of her First Amendment rights. In her suit, she asked U.S. District Judge John D. Bates to stop the Park Service from preventing such demonstrations in the future.

In his final decision, Bates took side with the Park Service, writing in his 26-page opinion:

“...the purpose of the Memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history. The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial, in order to maintain an "an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence,"'”​

The Justice Department, acting on behalf of the Park Service, wrote in court papers:

“The Memorial is, has long been, and is intended to be a place of calm, tranquillity, and reverence—a place where visitors can go to celebrate and honor Jefferson and enjoy and contemplate the Memorial itself without the distraction of public demonstrations and other expressive activities. The Memorial is akin to a temple or a shrine (both in terms of its purpose and its physical characteristics), not a place of public expression.”​

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307284#ixzz1Nknv5EoD

 

[mmmnaked]

Protest outside, whats the big friggin deal... buncha hippies.

 

[guym]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[turbodish]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Explain how a regulation requiring that proper decorum be shown in a national shrine is unjust.

 

[rukus]

she was in the wrong.


from various news outlets.

U.S. District Judge John Bates stated in the court’s decision that the Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial, in order to maintain an "an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence,"

"What they're referring to here is Jefferson's endorsement of popular resistance to tyrannical authority," he said yesterday. "What these folks were involved in was provoking authorities into having to enforce the law. Jefferson was very anal about obedience to the law.

(thats for guym)

"They were dancing and just generally making a distraction, and the chamber is posted that you are to remain quiet so you don't disturb other visitors," said Sgt. Robert Lachance, a Park Police spokesman. "The chamber of the Jefferson Memorial is a restricted area for demonstrations or causing any kind of activity that could distract other visitors . . . [in order] to preserve a spirit of tranquility and reverence.

and according to court documents
Tried Before: ROGERS, TATEL, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

The district court dismissed Oberwetter’s complaint for
failure to state a claim, holding that she was lawfully arrested
for violating the reasonable regulations that govern the
Jefferson Memorial, a nonpublic forum reserved for the
tranquil commemoration of Mr. Jefferson’s legacy.

The court further held that Hilliard had probable cause to
make the arrest, and that he used reasonable force to subdue
Oberwetter without injury after she twice refused his lawful
orders.

there is no question that she
had the right to dance in order to express her admiration for
Mr. Jefferson. Of course she did. But the question this case
presents is whether she had the right to perform her dance
inside the Jefferson Memorial.

National memorials are places of
public commemoration, not freewheeling forums for open
expression, and thus the government may reserve them for
purposes that preclude expressive activity.

As the Supreme Court has observed, an area “is not transformed
into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is
permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically
all times.

Oberwetter argues that the government engages
in viewpoint discrimination by hosting its own official
birthday ceremony in the Memorial while excluding her
celebratory dance. This argument fails because the
government is free to establish venues for the exclusive
expression of its own viewpoint. See Pleasant Grove v.
Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)

 

[Baggsy]

Protest backfire?

It might be wise to have the kids undergo a psychiatric assessment.

 

[bobjohnson]

Explain how a regulation requiring that proper decorum be shown in a national shrine is unjust.

The first amendment guarantees their right to protest in a public place (which the jefferson memorial is). It is a police officers job (or any other law enforcement officials job) to direct protesters to free speech areas if they are protesting in a public place that has been designated off limits for protesting (all public places designated off limits for protesting are required to have a "free speech area").

Considering the officers did NOT direct possible and actual demonstrators to this area, and instead just threatened them with arrest or actually arrested them, that makes this unjust. If there is no free speech area designated, the law disallowing protesting inside the memorial is also unjust and unconstitutional, which they absolutely without a doubt have the right to protest freely about, guaranteed by the constitution and years of case law, despite what any lone judge or cop says.

And, no matter the law at all, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Thomas Jefferson would support his own shrine being off limits to public protest, at least in the form of a peaceful protest. If they were burning things or smashing **** with hammers or shoving people around, the cops, judge, and justice department may have a point. But they werent, and they dont.

 

[bobjohnson]

As the Supreme Court has observed, an area “is not transformed into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times.

So a piece of land and a memorial, built by the government, paid for by the people and administered with tax dollars, which freely allows any member of the public, both citizens and foreign nationals, free access at all times is not a public place? But a citizens restaurant, which has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time, is a public place when it comes to things like injuries or smoking bans or the right to serve alcohol?

This would be an example of one of those "unjust laws" that thomas jefferson was talking about... I mean, if thats not public property, id have a really hard time defining what IS public property.

Dont kid yourself into thinking the supreme court hasnt taken a bastardized view of the constitution before, or twisted the law to still fit in line with the letter, but not the spirit, of the constitution.

 

[Baggsy]

The first amendment guarantees their right to protest in a public place (which the jefferson memorial is). It is a police officers job (or any other law enforcement officials job) to direct protesters to free speech areas if they are protesting in a public place that has been designated off limits for protesting (all public places designated off limits for protesting are required to have a "free speech area").

Considering the officers did NOT direct possible and actual demonstrators to this area, and instead just threatened them with arrest or actually arrested them, that makes this unjust. If there is no free speech area designated, the law disallowing protesting inside the memorial is also unjust and unconstitutional, which they absolutely without a doubt have the right to protest freely about, guaranteed by the constitution and years of case law, despite what any lone judge or cop says.

And, no matter the law at all, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Thomas Jefferson would support his own shrine being off limits to public protest, at least in the form of a peaceful protest. If they were burning things or smashing **** with hammers or shoving people around, the cops, judge, and justice department may have a point. But they werent, and they dont.

Did you not read the decision? It is a private place with access granted to the public.

Anyway, your rights disappear the moment you step outside - they become our rights. I have the right to not have to put up with other people's nonsense. If you want to test this out here, go down to the public gallery at the courthouse and start dancing around during a trial.

 

[bobjohnson]

Did you not read the decision? It is a private place with access granted to the public.

Anyway, your rights disappear the moment you step outside - they become our rights. I have the right to not have to put up with other people's nonsense. If you want to test this out here, go down to the public gallery at the courthouse and start dancing around during a trial.

In the US, you will be ejected from the courtroom and directed outside to continue your protest in the appropriate area. I dont know what the laws are in canada in regards to how much warning the police have to give before arresting you for protesting in the wrong area, but in the US it is their responsibility to direct any protestors in a public area that is off limits to protesting to the designated "free speech zone". If the Jefferson memorial doesnt have a free speech zone, the law preventing protesting inside is unjust because ALL public areas which do not allow protesting anywhere are required to have a designated free speech zone where can protest to your hearts content in any (legal) way you want.

Did you not read my second post? I kind of addressed the issue of the memorial not being public property as being a pretty ******** answer. It also is NOT the law, its some **** that the parks department and the justice department came up with to justify the arrest and charges against the first woman who was arrested for dancing. They had a sign stating that it was a "quiet" zone, but as you can see in the video, they arrested 2 people for dancing quietly. What if i have earphones on, turned down quietly, and bobbing my head, completely silent to an outside observer. Is that dancing? What if i just have earphones on, no music playing, and nodding my head thinking of all the great things jefferson did. Is that dancing?

Theres no way to twist this that doesnt imply an improper action by police. IF the police had instructed them to go outside, id be with you. IF the people were causing a disturbance, id be with you. But they didnt, and they werent. They arrested 2 people for questioning their actions, which lead to more people egging on the police. While thats stupid, its not wrong in my eyes. If more people would question the men and women in charge of protecting us and governing our lives, perhaps we wouldnt be in a situation where we have to debate whether a public building is public or not, or whether or not dancing should be allowed.

And by the way, you do not have any right to not be annoyed by peoples nonsense unless it directly affects you, and even then only if they are breaking a LAW. People dancing in close proximity to you does not qualify, sorry. If dancing in public upsets you, theres lots of room in amish country.

 

[Myztyk]

Did you not read the decision? It is a private place with access granted to the public.

Anyway, your rights disappear the moment you step outside - they become our rights. I have the right to not have to put up with other people's nonsense. If you want to test this out here, go down to the public gallery at the courthouse and start dancing around during a trial.

The situation you're proposing is considerably different than what happened to these people.

That being said, our laws and right to protest are considerably less than our US counterparts. Right to protest is inherent in the fabric of their country, it is not in ours.

 

[Baggsy]

I don't get it. A woman was arrested in 2008, sued and lost. Some people didn't like the decision and decided to do the exact same thing as her in protest.
They knew that there was no dancing allowed before they went, so when they started dancing they were arrested.
Lo and behold they were arrested too. If more adults would think of others before thinking they can do whatever they want in spite of others, we wouldn't be arguing freedom. If you really feel that there was an improper action by police, you could always go there and dance. But, my guess is that you would get arrested too, and border crossing would become a new and different experience for you.

I suppose you could go and dance in front of the eternal flame in Ottawa and see if anyone cares.

 

[Graves]

#1 Its America who cares
#2 see above
#3 The officer VERY calmy and politely for what 1:15seconds explains its illegal and they'll be arrested
#4 Protesters ignore warning, get arrested and then ask for a warning?

Videos like this prove a few things, yes some laws are stupid but even more idiotic than that are the ways some people choose to go about attempting to change those stupid laws.

This is what happens when children get "time outs" vs. a smack accross the ***

 

[bobjohnson]

I don't get it. A woman was arrested in 2008, sued and lost. Some people didn't like the decision and decided to do the exact same thing as her in protest.
They knew that there was no dancing allowed before they went, so when they started dancing they were arrested.
Lo and behold they were arrested too. If more adults would think of others before thinking they can do whatever they want in spite of others, we wouldn't be arguing freedom. If you really feel that there was an improper action by police, you could always go there and dance. But, my guess is that you would get arrested too, and border crossing would become a new and different experience for you.

I suppose you could go and dance in front of the eternal flame in Ottawa and see if anyone cares.

Which brings us back around to this incredibly relevant quote:

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

They didnt just decide to do this, they did it for a reason. And I have already explained why the law is unjust.