Good job assholes. Ruined another day for tourists who came to visit the memorial. Because dancing on the fucking stairs isn't good enough.

Edit .. ugh .. I feel bad I downvoted. Sorry bareboards, these guys just piss me off. I'll find something of yours to promote.

Downvote away! This pisses me off too.

I just posted it because so many folks got their panties in a bunch over last week's "protest."

As I predicted, the response was different this week because they trained for it and strategized for it.

(I was typing this when you anointed me with a promote -- I didn't respond fast enough to stop you. Nice that Shatner got promoted in counterpoint to this vid though.... thanks for the promote!)


>> ^burdturgler:

Good job assholes. Ruined another day for tourists who came to visit the memorial. Because dancing on the fucking stairs isn't good enough.
Edit .. ugh .. I feel bad I downvoted. Sorry bareboards, these guys just piss me off. I'll find something of yours to promote.

ugh... the only lesson learned here is that white people just cannot dance.

Yes, let's be disgusted by the people peacefully dancing, not the stupid law against it that gives bully cops the incentive to throw people on the ground. What a bunch of statist idiots.

meanwhile, things of importance happened elsewhere in the world

*Hippies

@burdturgler & @bareboards2

[Edit: Please note that the following is sarcasm intended to ridicule the faulty logic of disparaging protestors, when you yourself "believe" or would engagement in civil disobedience for a particular cause.]

Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.

Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]

And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~

Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."

You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.

All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.

You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.

We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Oh yes - the poor inconvenienced tourists who don't get to gaze at the marble statuary in peace. Give me a break. This is what democracy looks like.

>> ^burdturgler:

Good job assholes. Ruined another day for tourists who came to visit the memorial. Because dancing on the fucking stairs isn't good enough.
Edit .. ugh .. I feel bad I downvoted. Sorry bareboards, these guys just piss me off. I'll find something of yours to promote.

Wouldn't today's tourists find this sort of happening a bonus? Imagine the stories:

a) We saw a bigass statue of Jefferson
b) We saw a bigass statue of Jefferson with a bunch'o weirdos doing a jig around it!

As for the reason behind the jig (which the participants were surely eager to explain), surely it complements Jefferson's ideas about keeping the people free from oppressive abuse of power, no?

@blankfist, @GenjiKilpatrick, @dag - you guys are kidding right? I'll just assume its because you're not from this country. This isn't a protest for democracy, its bored Americans with nothing better to do. Have you seen any of the videos of the protests in Egypt? That is a protest worth having. Those people have something at stake. These morons are just proving how petty and simple Americans are.

"We can't dance in one specific location that was built to commemorate the life of a great man." Boo fucking hoo. What a bunch of retards.

Adam whatever his name is has made the #1 spot on my list for Idiot of the Year. He's not a hero, he's not the voice of oppression in America, he's a fucking moron leading a bunch of sheep with nothing else going on. But, then again, if they had just said "Ok officer, we understand." and the cop just walked away, they wouldn't have anything to "protest" and they wouldn't have been on tv.

@bamdrew - your comment pretty much sums it up.

*happy

Adding video to channels (Happy) - requested by ant.

Most of them are doing a weird sort of spastic jog-shuffle. Techncially, I don't think most of them could be arrested for dancing.

(spastic freaks)

Flopsy-Mopsy redshirt sunglasses guy: You are the worst dancer. You *should* be arrested for your dancing.

I am dumbfounded at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness here. This is what it means to stand up for your rights.

When men with power command men with guns to prevent you from doing something that does not harm anyone, we lose freedom. If we don't stand up and say "no" whenever the little stuff like this happens, then it will get bigger and bigger. If you "start" fighting for your freedom after the restrictions have escalated, then it will be increasingly difficult to get it back. You know those protests in Egypt? Where people died? Maybe the deaths wouldn't have been necessary if they had started sooner. Or do people have to die before you will think the protest is worth having?

I hope that these little protests continue. I hope that many of them happen across the country in protest of stupid little laws that accomplish nothing useful but acclimating the masses to oppression. I hope it becomes a tradition to do a little dance whenever you visit this memorial.

You can take your "right to not be hassled" and shove it. Ain't no such thing.

American and proud (of the few who stand up to tyrants big and small).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^Agreed. And remember that this video has to be viewed in context, having watched this video first: http://videosift.com/video/Police-State-Arrested-For-Dancing-in-the-Jefferson-Memorial

This second video is a direct response to the first - these are people putting themselves at risk of being arrested - to support the innocent people who were assaulted and arrested for shuffling their feet a bit in the previous video.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@burdturgler & @bareboards2
Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.
Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]
And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~
Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."
You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.
All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.
You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.
We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

I make a post here in disagreement to this "protest" and get told that I'm whiny because I don't like being called a nigger. Awesome. Welcome back to videosift burdy.

You need to check your meds, this kind of aggression is uncalled-for.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@burdturgler & @bareboards2
Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.
Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]
And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~
Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."
You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.
All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.
You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.
We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

I am amazed that anyone can view this nonsense as a beacon of light for freedom

and @MaxWilder since you've brought up something I've said in a separate thread despite my not having said anything in this one (and quite angrily for some reason), while law doesn't specifically say anything about not being hassled, in does work that way in some respects. For example, there are laws that prevent me from standing in front of your house blowing an airhorn all night. There are laws preventing me from defecating in the middle of the floor in the library, then disposing of it. neither of these things hurt anybody or their property, they just bother them. If you think people don't have the right to not be bothered, you should take a stance against noise ordinances and public defecation. Join me next thursday where I take a stance and attach a trumpet to my asshole and parade through the tomb of the fallen soldier shitting through my trumpet for freedom

aka crying because someone told me I was bothering people and making a big egotistical scene disguised as political activism

Wah wah, my caviar is too salty, wah wah...>> ^MaxWilder:

I am dumbfounded at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness here. This is what it means to stand up for your rights.
When men with power command men with guns to prevent you from doing something that does not harm anyone, we lose freedom. If we don't stand up and say "no" whenever the little stuff like this happens, then it will get bigger and bigger. If you "start" fighting for your freedom after the restrictions have escalated, then it will be increasingly difficult to get it back. You know those protests in Egypt? Where people died? Maybe the deaths wouldn't have been necessary if they had started sooner. Or do people have to die before you will think the protest is worth having?
I hope that these little protests continue. I hope that many of them happen across the country in protest of stupid little laws that accomplish nothing useful but acclimating the masses to oppression. I hope it becomes a tradition to do a little dance whenever you visit this memorial.
You can take your "right to not be hassled" and shove it. Ain't no such thing.
American and proud (of the few who stand up to tyrants big and small).

Damn this comment thread is angry.

@burdturgler, @bareboards2, @Opus_Moderandi, @KnivesOut

My constant outrage is justified. There is enough awful shit taking place in the world.

Yesterday, that outrage was direct at you dudes because you all watched a moment of peaceful objection.
A group of beleaguered individuals coming together to stand up for themselves in any simple way they can.

And all your brains could fart out was - "Oh look at that. Guh, Stupid idiots!"
~~

Opus, for you to even suggest that this simple, non-violent protesting isn't as important or "as good as" the protests in Egypt & around the Middle East is just moronic.

I can't see any journalist being gang-raped in this peaceful dancing protest.
~~

I said it once and I'll say it again. You're all dumb hypocritical assholes.

You all object to many injustices that you feel are worth protest [maybe even dying] for. i.e. Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Drug Rights

But just because the message or the circumstances aren't extreme or dire.. this kinda of protest isn't worth supporting?
~~

You three, remind me again. How does that one famous quote go..?

"First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Peaceful Dancing Protesters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Peaceful Dancing Protester.

Then they came for me.."

I didn't say anything about the video, or draw any conclusions about the people in it. I just told you to chill out a bit.

So now I'm a "dumb hypocritical asshole"? Seriously, you should check your aggression, maybe go outside for some exercise.

Internets are apparently serious business.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
raaaaaaaaage

>> ^KnivesOut:

Doesn't comprehend that only the first line of that last post was directed at him.

Apparently feels like discussion of societal issues isn't serious business.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Clarification of the point I was attempting to get across the first time, in a less-ragey format.

@GenjiKilpatrick imo you should get madder.

Might as well throw my hat in the ring. First video was nuts. A few people doing nothing more harmful than moving in a slightly different way, not even technically dancing. Might as well arrest someone for fake limping through, skipping, or w/e. Then this thing, showing a group of people perhaps not being as brave as middle east protesters, but still doing something. This might not be big picture important, but as said before if you don't protest the small stuff, you won't be able to protest the big stuff. Not that we don't already have "big stuff" (patriot act *cough*). I wouldn't call these people brave earth shakers, they aren't hero's. Just regular people doing something small to protest an injustice. Just because people don't die over it or dedicate vast sums of time or money to it doesn't mean it's not important in some way.

All this aside, the venom being tossed around here on both sides is insane. It's a simple dance protest people. You agree with it or you don't, it doesn't make the other side a mentally deficient asshole of gigantic proportions. Chill. Out.

edit: Suppose I should add that there is a huge difference between a law that prevents you from disturbing the peace and defecating in public, to something that would prevent you from peacefully dancing in a public memorial. If those cops had wanted to make the same case against the people in this video who were making all this noise, it might have had a slightly better footing. Not that I would have agreed to that footing, but this at least could be called a disturbance. As opposed to some quiet dancing.

Actually, this protest has its roots months ago.

A bunch of happy libertarians wanted to celebrate Jefferson's birthday. So they planned a little midnight dance party, with iPods so no music could be heard, done quietly to minimize the impact, thinking that there wouldn't be any tourists to disturb. No harm was intended, it was just a little celebration.

They were still loud though, and they were asked to leave. Everyone left, loudly protesting but no big whoop, except one woman, who got arrested.

I don't know exactly what transpired next, but she sued and lost, and appealed and lost.

It was the loss on appeal that led Adam Kokesh to post a YouTube invitation to anyone to come to the Memorial at a specific time, during the day. That is what you see at the other video -- what happened with the public demonstration.

As I posted on the first video:
For those interested, here are links to the original flash mob event that precipitated the chain of events that led to this action:

Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-IpdeMqlkM&feature=player_embedded

Part II -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrSAJ1b6Go (the first person you see is the woman who ends up getting arrested at the end of this part)

And here is the original facebook invitation to the first birthday celebration:

"It's a secret birthday/dance party thrown by a group of flashmobbing libertarians. Tell friends about it if they are 1. Awesome. 2. Can keep their mouth shut 3. libertarians

Sweet dance moves wouldn't hurt either.

It works best if we all listen to the same song (nominate on the wall) but since libertarians are "free to choose" come prepared to listen to whatever makes you happy."



>> ^dag:

^Agreed. And remember that this video has to be viewed in context, having watched this video first: http://videosift.com/video/Police-State-Arrested-For-Dan
cing-in-the-Jefferson-Memorial
This second video is a direct response to the first - these are people putting themselves at risk of being arrested - to support the innocent people who were assaulted and arrested for shuffling their feet a bit in the previous video.

@GenjiKilpatrick - sorry to burst your "I have a cause" bubble but, there's no way you can convince me dancing is as important an issue as death, rape and oppression.

LOUD NOISES!

But seriously, this is why this protest is important to me. I don't know if anyone can claim these guys are all libertarians, first off. That label tends to be bandied about freely whenever someone or a group of people exercise civil disobedience.

Secondly, civil disobedience is extremely important to stave off tyranny early. If you wait until the brownshirts are kicking in your door, then it's too late. You have to start early and often.

And third, let's keep this in perspective. These people are dancing in a public place. If you're justifying the actions of the cops and legislators who want the Memorial to be 'dance free' then you have to ask yourself why. It's dancing. It's never been a problem at the Memorial (or any of the tourist locations in DC) in the history of it being built, so why now do we need a law banning it? Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Personally, when I see tatted up ladies in shorts dancing around the monument of a famous, old dead guy...I need a few moments alone. Calling the police is the last thing on my mind...more like calling for paper towels.

I don't mind people doing this as a fun gesture, as long as it's not too disruptive to other people coming there.

I do mind the idiots who come here to dance to stand up to the man, like the dance dance revolution moron. They're just real life trolls trying to goad the police/mall cops/whatever they are into going over the line. They're dicks.

>> ^gwiz665:

I don't mind people doing this as a fun gesture, as long as it's not too disruptive to other people coming there.
I do mind the idiots who come here to dance to stand up to the man, like the dance dance revolution moron. They're just real life trolls trying to goad the police/mall cops/whatever they are into going over the line. They're dicks.


If there wasn't a law banning dancing at the Memorial in the first place, then these "real life trolls" wouldn't be doing this at all.

One can be somewhat disgusted by both, but mostly with the cops. I will honestly say it was cringey to watch them chanting "This is what Democracy looks like," but at the same time thinking how the hell someone got arrested for dancing! It ain't all black and white! Or is it???

>> ^blankfist:

Yes, let's be disgusted by the people peacefully dancing, not the stupid law against it that gives bully cops the incentive to throw people on the ground. What a bunch of statist idiots.

I must say I mostly enjoyed it... especially the part with the guy dancing in a huge Jefferson head-mask. LOL! Made my day!

>> ^blankfist:

Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".


Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?

And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.

Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

I wasn't calling these guys libertarians. It was the libertarians calling themselves libertarians at the first innocent celebration of Jefferson's birthday months ago.

I wouldn't try to argue anyone out of their self identification, blankie. They are libertarians -- they might take offense at you dictating to them!

>> ^blankfist:


I don't know if anyone can claim these guys are all libertarians, first off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoWsTAx73qo#at=125

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:


Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This thread if posted during the birth of our nation:

Look at those idiots dumping all that tea into the bay - What a bunch of morons. I don't mind a quiet protest, as long as they have permits - and are in the designated roped off areas- but this is just dumb.



This is what democracy looks like.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

yes, it's very important to be respectful at the mausoleums of our dead leaders. Rules must be adhered to. You can't dance in front of Dear Leader's shrine in N.K. either. Those guys were really on to something.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^blankfist:
Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?
And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.
Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

@dag Dude, do you even know what they were protesting? They were protesting a lawsuit being dismissed.

There are a lot of legitimate questions to be asked about this stunt. If you haven't read the ruling, or can't discuss it intelligently, I'd rather not argue with another blind, knee-jerk, faith-based cheerleader.

Anything less shows a profound disrespect for the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law.

So what will it be? Got any arguments that don't amount to emotional appeals?

BTW, you might avoid mentioning dear leader given whom Kokesh works for.

I usually look to @dag for the voice of reason -- I think this is the first time I have disagreed with him.

There seem to be two points of view here.

1. Any restriction on any freedom at any time is always a bad thing and is the first step towards the destruction of all we hold dear.

OR

2. A law on the books, upheld by the courts, about being respectful in 200 square feet of space is not a restriction of freedom, especially when you can walk 30 feet away and be as loud as you want.

Why can't we just each have our opinion and accept that we don't agree? Why does it turn personal and End of the World language is trotted out?

I guess if you subscribe to #1, you don't really have a choice but to be angry and afraid. Perhaps by definition, this can't play out any other way.

At least both points of view are presented. There is real freedom of expression.

I've been to the Jefferson memorial a few times. If I went there on a nice evening for a little bit of quiet reflection (seriously), then I can see how I would be annoyed by a bunch of people dancing around it. It would certainly seem a little disrespectful. But at the same time, it might be fun, and I might even join in. (I dance like an idiot too)

Either way, the fact is that these people were trolling. So to arrest them is to fall right into their trap. It's so absurd to arrest someone for dancing under a statue of Thomas Jefferson, it's a shame that it couldn't have just been laughed off for what it was.

Okay, I read all SEVENTEEN PAGES of the court's ruling. Luckily, the margins were wide.

Here are some fun bits I found -- including the first, which was a footnote at the very beginning:

1. For his part, Mr. Jefferson is on record discouraging celebration of
his birthday. “On Mr. Jefferson’s accession to the Presidency
[visitors] had waited on him, requesting to be informed, which was
his birthday, as they wished to celebrate it with proper respect. ‘The
only birthday I ever commemorate,’ replied he, ‘is that of our
Independence, the Fourth of July.’”


2. Having thus created and maintained the Memorial as a commemorative site, the government is under no obligation to open it up as a stage for the roving dance troupes of the world — even those
celebrating Mr. Jefferson.


3. We have noted previously that the Park Service has a
substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our
national memorials. See Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1184 (“Th[e]
interest in maintaining a tranquil mood at the [Vietnam]
Memorial wall is similar to ones that the Supreme Court and
this court have recognized as substantial.”). Here the
government has reasonably advanced its interest in tranquility
because, unlike in Henderson, the restriction on expressive
activity does not sweep beyond the actual Memorial space.
Outside the Jefferson Memorial, of course, Oberwetter and
her friends have always been free to dance to their hearts’
content.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Exactly. This second group of beautiful dancing idiots are protesting the heavy-handed police brutes who assaulted the first group of trolls. Bodyslams for shuffling your feet is never right action.

Yes, these guys are kind of idiotic and they dance poorly - but damn it, this is how things start. This is how you begin to throw off the yoke of an increasingly represive government security apparatus that instills fear in its people. This is what democracy looks like.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I've been to the Jefferson memorial a few times. If I went there on a nice evening for a little bit of quiet reflection (seriously), then I can see how I would be annoyed by a bunch of people dancing around it. It would certainly seem a little disrespectful. But at the same time, it might be fun, and I might even join in. (I dance like an idiot too)
Either way, the fact is that these people were trolling. So to arrest them is to fall right into their trap. It's so absurd to arrest someone for dancing under a statue of Thomas Jefferson, it's a shame that it couldn't have just been laughed off for what it was.

To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

To the protesters: Surely there are more important things to protest. (Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, foreign prisons, corporate domination of our political system, the 'Citizen's United' ruling, lack of accountability for Wall Street crime, subsidies of high fructose corn syrup during an obesity epidemic, the war on drugs, gutting of social services, the patriot act, tax givaways to corporations and the super rich during a recession, No Child Left Behind, lack of a decent health care system, the department of homeland security, indulgent military spending, gutting of consumer protections, gutting of rights for workers, the rape of the underclasses, etc.)

I'd be happy to forfeit my right to dance at national monuments in return for an end to any of the practices listed above.

@dag -- why didn't this second demonstration end the way the first one did?

It's the same situation. Why didn't the heavy handed police brutes show up?

Let me answer for you -- they learned from the first event.

And really.... point to me who is afraid in either of these events. NOBODY is afraid. They are children defying the rules. They are trolls looking for a reaction. And THEY WON.

There is real police brutality out there. This isn't it.

Did you read the 17 pages? It is a pretty persuasive legal argument, based on precedents set by other court cases.

It also is pretty funny in places.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

damn the government for infringing on my second amendment rights by making laws forbidding me to have firearms in federal buildings! lets all dance at the downtown courthouse armed to the teeth in protest!

should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION

I'm jumping in.

I have had a huge distaste for all of this, on both sides.. but more so on the protestor's side.

Even though I myself would never ban dancing at the memorial (I don't agree there should be a law in place there concerning it), it doesn't change the fact that I can see *why* such a law was made. And that why makes at least *some* sense. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I can simply see why someone would want that area to be free of as much disturbance as possible. If dancing is allowed, that means loud noisy dancing would technically be allowed.. no, there's no video of that happening.. but still.

So the law makes at least a little bit of sense; why then must the cops be taunted into arresting people over it? Why do that for such a stupid little law? By doing that they've turned this whole thing into something it isn't. There's no real victory here. This law wasn't oppressing anything but a possible cardio work out at most.

Should these people go to librarys now and start making noise to overthrow the horrible library sized police-states the "Please keep your voice down." draconian librarians enforce? I mean, by the logic of this protest they should, shouldn't they?

I believe a law should be protested if it doesn't make sense, and / or it harms innocents (truely oppresses). This law they're "fighting" is neither. And I think the real purpose of this rally is to get that one guy, who makes sure to end up in every video I've seen involving this, gain more following. I'm pretty sure he has his own agenda (for better or worse) here, and that's what I really don't like.

What about the college block party that was broken up by riot police that just happened recently? That's something Id respect fighting against, among so many other things. This was an easy fight, an easy win and now he's showing up on news channels claiming victory.. I think there was more driving the person(s) who put this together then simple expression of freedom. I'm not denying I could be wrong, I just heavily suspect otherwise.

Yes, a lot of us are tired of all the crap we've been seeing lately.. and this to some feels like a first step victory against all that.. and thus some are rallying behind this. I really see all of this as a play (politcal move) by the organizers. Sorry.

That's what *I* think.

>> ^dag:

This thread if posted during the birth of our nation:

Look at those idiots dumping all that tea into the bay - What a bunch of morons. I don't mind a quiet protest, as long as they have permits - and are in the designated roped off areas- but this is just dumb.

This is what democracyfreedom looks like.


Fixed.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

In some countries, the government fears the power of the people - I would like to posit that this is a *good thing* for a healthy democracy. Increasingly, in the United States, it's much the other way around. The people cower in fear before the enforcement arm of their government. IMO, this is what these people are fighting against.

The earlier protest may have been for a pretty lame reason, but they could have been issued citations without the bodyslams.

>> ^smooman:

should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION


EXACTLY THE SAME AS DANCING! EVERYONE CUT LOOSE! FOOTLOOSE!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.

>> ^smooman:

should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION

>> ^dag:
The earlier protest may have been for a pretty lame reason, but they could have been issued citations without the bodyslams.


They were issued citations. Then they sued. Then when their lawsuit was dismissed they came back and yelled "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at cops, proceeded to ignore numerous lawful orders for them to disperse, and further, through physical resistance they clearly escalated the situation. Then they call it police brutality, when really it was all a PR campaign to attract the youth to a policy platform that systematically exploits working class people to the benefit of the rich. All this action does is cheapen claims of police brutality for people like Oscar Grant.

It was a stunt from the get go. Honestly, I'm kind of sickened by the whole thing.

Ok...everybody sing together now!!!

The politics of dancing
The politics of ooh feeling good
The politics of moving, aha
If this message's understood

Man, I just made the mistake of reading this thread. I can't even work out who's arguing for or against what, but I hate to miss out on a good argument, so...

You guys are all evil, evil idiots.

One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).

When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.

Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war.

@dag (and everyone interested else in the thread for that matter)

Does freedom to you mean being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want? I think if you follow that definition of freedom to its logical conclusion, anarchy is the only acceptable political state.

We live in a society from which we receive innumerable benefits--far more than we could obtain on our own in a state of anarchy. In order to maintain those benefits, we choose to limit our freedoms--we realize we can't just do whatever we want, whenever we want and continue to work together effectively. How much we are okay with collectively limiting that freedom is what gets argued in front of the courts. The general rule of thumb in the U.S. is that you can do what you want, when you want, so long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.

What I find interesting is that in this case the courts haven't decided the people don't have a right to dance or protest. Instead, they have decided that this particular method of celebration/protest at this particular place is unacceptable. Why? Among other things, because it infringes upon the rights of others to enjoy the memorial peacefully. I happen to agree with that point of view.

In a way, though, you're right dag... this is what democracy looks like. People freely elected officials and those officials made this law. Some people disagreed with the law and protested it. The courts disagreed with the protesters' interpretation of the law (that it is infringing on their freedom of speech). The next step for these protesters is to get more organized and lobby to get the law changed. In the meantime, I hope they stop inconveniencing people and choose other methods of getting their message out. If they aren't that serious about changing the law--to the point where they will see it through and actively campaign to have it repealed--if they are just showing up for one day to "stick it to the man" and then going back to their lives, then they don't understand how a democracy works or what freedom really is and frankly, don't deserve to dance in front of Jefferson.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Bravo - I could not have put this as well.>> ^MaxWilder:

One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).
When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.
Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

>> ^dag:

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.
>> ^smooman:
should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION



my point being, the ordinance in question, that is, no dancing in the jefferson memorial, is there for a reason. maybe some disagree with that reason, but anyone who would argue that the reason is to suppress civil liberties, i'd say you need a damn reality check. in that way, it is NO different than public indecency laws, or being disarmed by the government (gasp!) inside federal buildings despite our 2nd amendment rights.

so to put this act of civil disobedience on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's or something, is laughable at best and just plain offensive at worst.

If you really really feel that not being able to dance inside a fucking memorial is discreetly oppressing your individual freedoms, then you have a serious disconnect with society as a whole and with the entire definition of individual rights and liberties

ugh, you guys are seriously comparing the great evil government suppressing our right to dance where ever the fuck we want no matter what, to symbolic speech, gay marraige, and other civil liberty violations........get a clue for fuck sake. If you truly cannot see, how this is in no imaginable way oppressive then heaven help you.


or should we let fred phelps and his inbred retards stomp all over soldiers graves and hoot and hollar during a funeral while the departed's loved ones are grieving? why not? thats oppressing his freedom of speech if you wont allow him to say what he wants, when he wants, where he wants no matter what.

>> ^MaxWilder:

One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).
When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.
Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war.


Max, this time I can't agree at all. Trolling the cops because you got a ticket and want your 15 minutes on youtube does not equal fighting to prevent the Patriot Act. This is nothing but a group of trolls...and I feel for the cops who had to try and deal with people who didn't -want- to deal.

I barely had enough interest in this slacktivism to write a comment, let alone watch the videos or read 17 pages. Can you give me the abridged version? >> ^bareboards2:

Did you read the 17 pages? It is a pretty persuasive legal argument, based on precedents set by other court cases.
It also is pretty funny in places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

The basic legal point was the difference between "public" and "non-public forum". Cases were quoted showing when the government -- or private enterprise -- attempted to call a place a "non-public forum" and therefore could restrict its use.

If the space in dispute was ill-defined, then it wasn't appropriate to call it non-public, and the government -- and private enterprise -- lost those cases.

Judge basically ruled that the Jefferson Memorial was a non-public place, and therefore the Park Service had jurisdiction -- and legal precedent -- to control its use.

There were other issues of law that were in dispute, but this is the part of the opinion related to dancing, and the government's legal ability to restrict access and use.

I hope my summary is correct -- I only read it once.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I barely had enough interest in this slacktivism to write a comment, let alone watch the videos or read 17 pages. Can you give me the abridged version? >> ^bareboards2:
Did you read the 17 pages? It is a pretty persuasive legal argument, based on precedents set by other court cases.
It also is pretty funny in places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Max, this time I can't agree at all. Trolling the cops because you got a ticket and want your 15 minutes on youtube does not equal fighting to prevent the Patriot Act. This is nothing but a group of trolls...and I feel for the cops who had to try and deal with people who didn't -want- to deal.


Trolling is when you do something purely to piss people off, and don't even care if what you are saying is true. If you are trying to get attention in order to further a cause, that is called demonstrating or protesting. And attention-seeking behavior is an important part.

So your assertion that these people are trolling is purely speculation. You are guessing by the video that they don't really care about the cause of liberty.

It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, to assume that some of these people crave attention for other reasons. But to assert that they don't care about the cause of liberty is baseless, especially when there is the very real possibility that they will be hurt and arrested.

MaxWilder wrote: "One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).

When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.

Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war."

Thank you for stating this so eloquently.

Someone tell me to STFU if I'm being a d-bag by saying this, but I think that more than (most) people here, I know what freedom really costs, and this isn't taking it away.

The original group was simply broken up. No arrest made. They caused enough of a disturbance there that other citizens were ...disturbed. They were asked to leave and they did. Then there was a law passed that said "No dancing within the memorial" - is this a violation of the first amendment? No. The first amendment protects written and verbal speech. There's nothing in there about dancing.

Was the law stupid? Sure it was. Was it chipping away at our freedoms? No. If you think it is, then why aren't you walking around inside the capitol building with a gun to protest your inability to lawfully carry there? There's a difference between taking away our freedoms and laws designed to bring civility to society. You want the right to dance there? What about the right to contemplate the inscriptions inside the memorial in peace without being disturbed?



This isn't taking away freedoms, it's just making sure that the majority of people (note: democracy works in favor of the majority) won't have to be disturbed.

>> ^marbles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoWsTAx73qo#at=125
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?


Thanks... For reaffirming my suspicion that Adam Kokesh is a complete idiot.

"When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up."

The fight has already been won ... In Court ... For those who want to have only Quiet Reflection in the Jefferson Memorial. Before that, the war was won in a Legislative body, where a law was made by a Legislator, who was elected by a majority of a freely voting public. There was no Revolution needed. What the people want has become law, and the law has been upheld, for decades, because the people don't want it changed.

Nobody there is in the dirt, sweat, or blood making the world a better place. There are only a few well-fed children with nothing better to work on dancing. None of them are risking their lives for anything the majority of people want. Most of them probably don't even know who their congress-critter is.

Nobody said you can't dance. Just leave the guy who wants to THINK ... in peace ... in there ... and you go ... out there.

Jefferson didn't start a dance academy.

>> ^dag:

Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.


This is what paranoia looks like.

>> ^dag:

This thread if posted during the birth of our nation:

Look at those idiots dumping all that tea into the bay - What a bunch of morons. I don't mind a quiet protest, as long as they have permits - and are in the designated roped off areas- but this is just dumb.

This is what democracy looks like.


If you can find similarities between the Boston tea party and being able to dance in a memorial, you are really reaching. I'm talking Stretch Armstrong reaching.

THEY ARE DANCING!!! Not disruptive and very positive! This would seem very appropriate to any sane person. If they made a law banning the wearing of pants in public would there not be protests where people wore pants? People here are acting as if there was some reasonable argument against dancing in public in a space where you are NOT endangering anybody's life or even blocking any commerce. It is in an open space in a public park! Why would the police get involved unless the dancers are hurting someone?

And, yes sex in public wouldn't hurt anyone either. What a culture has taught someone about sex might hurt someone but witnessing the act itself surely wouldn't.

-Karl

@Opus_Moderandi Agreed. I think one thing that needs to be considered is that the Boston Tea Party happened after all other legal recourse had been taken to try to get Britain to not only repeal the tea tax but also get representation in Parliament for the colonies. In other words, they had exhausted all other possible options. Civil disobedience is great for when you've exhausted all other possible options.

What options did these people exhaust? Did they petition to get the law changed? Did they write their representatives in government to demand it be changed? Did they try to raise awareness (through leaflet distribution, billboards, commercials, web campaigns, etc.) of the problem? Did they offer to run for election themselves to try to get the law changed?

No. They said "F*ck all that, it sounds like too much work. I'll just take a few hours to inconvenience everyone who wants to reflect quietly at the memorial and pretend I'm a hero fighting for justice."

@dystopianfuturetoday Slacktivism. Never heard that word until today, but it is the most awesome and apt description of what is happening here.

When civil disobedience is your first choice for reforming laws you disagree with, you've lost all perspective of how democracy and freedom work. When you think your rights or freedom are being violated because you cannot dance everywhere and anywhere, other people be damned, you've lost all perspective on what the words "rights" and "freedom" mean.

EDIT: Spelled dystopianfuturetoday's name wrong

EDIT 2: For a great read about the philosophy of civil disobedience (including a rationale for why civil disobedience should be a means of last resort) see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

Paranoid? Is that what they're saying about me now?

Btw I think the gist of this thread has become about how normal it is to be physically corralled and violently attacked by the state when you 'break the law'.

On one hand we've got people who think a swift blow to the temple is in order for walking on the grass (yes everyone likes nice lawns) while others think that even if you are an asshole for walking on the grass (whatever your motivation) violently subduing people is far worse and more damaging and should be done only when absolutely necessary to protect others or the functioning of the infrastructure of the state (and even then it's only a short-term self destructive 'solution').

A nation is like a marriage, it works if the people involved want it to work, and it fails disastrously if they don't. Try body slamming your wife because she didn't do what you told her and see how long the family stays together.

EDIT- not literally bareboards, opus. I TOLD YOU NO DANCING BITCH! *crunch*

The more important lesson here. Is that the courts cannot, and shall not pass arbitrary, and stupid laws without the will of the people, and that will must be explicit. Especially laws that abridge the 1st ammendment by putting zones were you can express you're speech.

Tourists would do well to understand what the United States is truly about. It's not about memorials, or government it's about the goddamned, god given, rights of the people. Whether god exists or not.

Give it a week or two and people won't be dancing at the fucking memorial. For fucks sake. I hardly expect one or two people dancing in a fucking memorial is going to disrupt tourism. Now, passing an arbitrary law to make it a crime to dance in a memorial is sure, as fuck, going to disrupt tourism.

Who's to decide what dancing is? What if a tourist whips his or her hair back and forth? Take a minute to think before passing arbitrary laws that are too loose in their language.

For fucks sake some tourist could get dizzy and all suddenly they're nauseous swaying is fucking dancing.

The protesters while annoying, are fucking correct in they're actions. It would do well for all of us to take note on effective protest of a stupid law.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.


It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.

If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.

It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

It's not a public space. It's government property. There is a significant difference, and if you'd read the ruling you'd understand that.

Not a single one of you has argued intelligently against the ruling. It's all been appeals to emotion. If you want to protest a law, explain how you would like to see the law changed.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say not a single one of you understands the free expression issue here. You all say they should be "allowed to dance." As though there should be a law which puts dancing in a separate category of expression that should be permitted within the rotunda. That to me is a much grosser misinterpretation of free expression than anything that transpired. The content of their expression is, and should be considered moot.

Short Longde: These people's protest is worthless because they chose an easy target, and risk little, for a trivial payoff.

Your comment about the egyptians is completely wrong. They didn't go from a democracy to a dictatorship in bites over the years; in one form or another, that region has had athoritarian governments for quite a while. Those people are truly courageous because they have managed to oust a dictator who has true power over their life and limb, for the noblest of causes.

These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.

The ass at 2:09 yelling that they can take the government down is fucking laughable given what happened in egypt, where people really did take down a government. I don't think that guy would last a second under those conditions.

Lastly, I have also visited that memorial for some silent reflection. I agree with the law, and I think if you put it up for a vote, most americans would vote for it.

Honestly, I think 70% of the time, the people at reason are ass clowns.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I am dumbfounded at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness here. This is what it means to stand up for your rights.
When men with power command men with guns to prevent you from doing something that does not harm anyone, we lose freedom. If we don't stand up and say "no" whenever the little stuff like this happens, then it will get bigger and bigger. If you "start" fighting for your freedom after the restrictions have escalated, then it will be increasingly difficult to get it back. You know those protests in Egypt? Where people died? Maybe the deaths wouldn't have been necessary if they had started sooner. Or do people have to die before you will think the protest is worth having?
I hope that these little protests continue. I hope that many of them happen across the country in protest of stupid little laws that accomplish nothing useful but acclimating the masses to oppression. I hope it becomes a tradition to do a little dance whenever you visit this memorial.
You can take your "right to not be hassled" and shove it. Ain't no such thing.
American and proud (of the few who stand up to tyrants big and small).

You wanna know what real tyranny is? When you think your right to dance wherever you please is more important than my right to quietly reflect the impact of the framers at their respective memorials

>> ^bmacs27:

It's not a public space. It's government property. There is a significant difference, and if you'd read the ruling you'd understand that.
Not a single one of you has argued intelligently against the ruling. It's all been appeals to emotion. If you want to protest a law, explain how you would like to see the law changed.


Government property isn't public property? What happened to all this "We the people" and "of, for and by" bullshit you statists always talk about?

And I think a lot of people have argued intelligently against the ruling. It's dancing. On public property. How, dear sir, can we argue that anymore reasonably and without emotion? Just because something's the law doesn't mean it needs to be, and bad laws certainly need to be challenged. Like what's happening here.

Did you read the legal ruling? Did you read my recap (however flawed it might be) of the legal ruling?

"Non-public forum" is a legal concept that has been developed over decades and has stood up to legal challenges.

Or don't you believe in the Constitution, and the different branches of government?

I'm beginning to think that you are an anarchist rather than a libertarian. (You are a libertarian, right? Sorry if I got it wrong.)

Do you think there should not be any laws?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bmacs27:
It's not a public space. It's government property. There is a significant difference, and if you'd read the ruling you'd understand that.
Not a single one of you has argued intelligently against the ruling. It's all been appeals to emotion. If you want to protest a law, explain how you would like to see the law changed.

Government property isn't public property? What happened to all this "We the people" and "of, for and by" bullshit you statists always talk about?

>> ^longde:

These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.

Did you not watch the prior video where the cops were bodyslamming people?

>> ^smooman:

You wanna know what real tyranny is? When you think your right to dance wherever you please is more important than my right to quietly reflect the impact of the framers at their respective memorials


I don't quite get what you're implying. Are you implying that some behavior on public property is more suitable than others, therefore we need legislators and cops to police that behavior? Is that accurate? That we should have the majority of people define what good behavior is and then have the police enforce that behavior?

How is that not tyranny? Is it because the cops aren't cutting off people's heads over it?

Did you watch the prior video where instructions given by police officers were ignored repeatedly and the cops used their training? Did you watch this video where the cops were better trained and better prepared and used different tactics -- which included a huge number of police officers on the public dime, thanks a whole bunch for that?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^longde:
These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.
Did you not watch the prior video where the cops were bodyslamming people?

In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?

You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

>> ^bareboards2:

Did you watch the prior video where instructions given by police officers were ignored repeatedly and the cops used their training? Did you watch this video where the cops were better trained and better prepared and used different tactics -- which included a huge number of police officers on the public dime, thanks a whole bunch for that?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.
Did you not watch the prior video where the cops were bodyslamming people?



Did you see the video where the white cops sprayed the black people down with hoses? Did you watch where they used their training and put snarling dogs on them? Where they had to enlist a large number of cops on the public dume to keep them uppity black people in line, thanks a whole bunch for that?

See, I can do that too.

I noticed that you did not answer my question as to whether you believed in the Constitution, the different branches of government, and whether you think there should be any laws.

You are one irrational man, blankie. Irrational.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:
Did you watch the prior video where instructions given by police officers were ignored repeatedly and the cops used their training? Did you watch this video where the cops were better trained and better prepared and used different tactics -- which included a huge number of police officers on the public dime, thanks a whole bunch for that?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.
Did you not watch the prior video where the cops were bodyslamming people?


Did you see the video where the white cops sprayed the black people down with hoses? Did you watch where they used their training and put snarling dogs on them? Where they had to enlist a large number of cops on the public dume to keep them uppity black people in line, thanks a whole bunch for that?
See, I can do that too.

>> ^smooman:

In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child


What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.

There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.

>> ^bareboards2:

I noticed that you did not answer my question as to whether you believed in the Constitution, the different branches of government, and whether you think there should be any laws.
You are one irrational man, blankie. Irrational.


What does that have to do with anything? I noticed you didn't answer whether or not the curtains matched the carpet. Probably because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Thus proving my point that you are irrational.

This is all about a law upheld by the courts. But to you that is irrelevant?

Irrational.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:
I noticed that you did not answer my question as to whether you believed in the Constitution, the different branches of government, and whether you think there should be any laws.
You are one irrational man, blankie. Irrational.

What does that have to do with anything? I noticed you didn't answer whether or not the curtains matched the carpet. Probably because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Apples and oranges. My favorite fruits
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:
Did you watch the prior video where instructions given by police officers were ignored repeatedly and the cops used their training? Did you watch this video where the cops were better trained and better prepared and used different tactics -- which included a huge number of police officers on the public dime, thanks a whole bunch for that?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
These people in the video, on the other hand, are privileged cowards, well-fed comfortable cowards. They chose an easy target, with virtually no risk involved to their persons. They protest against some memorial or capital cops, hardly an intimidating foe in this circumstance; these cops are not going to crack their skulls for not complying.
Did you not watch the prior video where the cops were bodyslamming people?


Did you see the video where the white cops sprayed the black people down with hoses? Did you watch where they used their training and put snarling dogs on them? Where they had to enlist a large number of cops on the public dume to keep them uppity black people in line, thanks a whole bunch for that?
See, I can do that too.

So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.

Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.

@blankfist You're argument is bunk. It's not public property, it's government property. Try having a dance party in the Oval Office, or NORAD, or even a busy intersection to highlight your freedom of expression and see how far that gets you. As far as first amendment rights are concerned, they are equivalent.

@bareboards2 and @smooman, next time try attacking the argument instead of the person. Calling someone "irrational" and "incoherent" is the kind of ad hominem nonsense that makes people not take you and your argument seriously.

>> ^bmacs27:

@blankfist You're argument is bunk. It's not public property, it's government property. Try having a dance party in the Oval Office, or NORAD, or even a busy intersection to highlight your freedom of expression and see how far that gets you. As far as first amendment rights are concerned, they are equivalent.


I didn't know NORAD was a monument open to the public. Good to know it's exactly the same as the Jefferson Memorial.

>> ^smooman:

So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.



Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.

@blankfist As far as free expression rights are concerned, they are the same thing. It is government property that has a purpose incompatible with free expression. That is, they are both government property classified as a "nonpublic forum." So what is your problem? Is it the existence of nonpublic forums? Or is it that such a designation was applied to this particular memorial?

That is, how would you change the law to be compatible with your views? If you can't articulate that, you aren't protesting anything. You're whining just like the rest of the tea party.

You are absolutely correct, blankie. I apologize. I even felt a little uncomfortable writing what I did before, but I couldn't figure out what it was that was bothering me.

Your argument is irrational. Your argument is illogical.

I'm sorry for conflating the argument you were making with you, the individual.


>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2 and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman, next time try attacking the argument instead of the person. Calling someone "irrational" and "incoherent" is the kind of ad hominem nonsense that makes people not take you and your argument seriously.

Wow

Actually, it is.

Arlington Cemetary is a non-public forum, as is the Jefferson Memorial. I suspect that Westboro Baptist is kept outside the grounds, corralled into their little free speech zones, under exactly the same legal argument.

Legal. Courts. Branches of government. Constitution.

Man, these words just keeps popping up, don't they?





blankfist said: Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.

>> ^bmacs27:

@blankfist As far as free expression rights are concerned, they are the same thing. It is government property that has a purpose incompatible with free expression. That is, they are both government property classified as a "nonpublic forum." So what is your problem? Is it the existence of nonpublic forums? Or is it that such a designation was applied to this particular memorial?
That is, how would you change the law to be compatible with your views? If you can't articulate that, you aren't protesting anything. You're whining just like the rest of the tea party.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a no-prize winner. If I'm not okay with anti-dancing laws at the Jefferson Memorial I must be Tea Partier! Brilliant.

I have answered this already. I wouldn't "change the law" at all. I don't think there should be a law prohibiting dancing on public property. Period. I don't care if the government claims it's something they like to call 'nonpublic forum', because it's still a place designed for the public to visit. It was never intended to be like NORAD or the Oval Office. It was intended for the people.

I'll wait for your next strawman.

@bmacs27 and @smooman...

I think it is time to give it up. Leave @blankfist in peace.

There is nothing to be gained from using logic against illogic.

What do you say, my fellow Sifters? Let it go?

>> ^bareboards2:

Actually, it is.
Arlington Cemetary is a non-public forum, as is the Jefferson Memorial. I suspect that Westboro Baptist is kept outside the grounds, corralled into their little free speech zones, under exactly the same legal argument.
Legal. Courts. Branches of government. Constitution.
Man, these words just keeps popping up, don't they?


blankfist said: Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.



Dear blankfist,

Please continue to fight back the urge to attack people personally even though it may seem as if they're laying their necks across the chopping block. I know it may appear hopeless when they build arguments to compare stomping on graves at a cemetery to dancing at the Jefferson Memorial and call anything contrary to that illogical.

It's not their fault they learned everything from a Prussian school system. Remember, they believe if it wasn't something their 3rd grade teacher didn't teach them, then it must be "illogical", "irrational", "incoherent" or something from the "Tea Party".

Kindest regards,
blankfist

@blankfist I didn't say you were a tea partier, I was implying that your whining is similarly baseless.

Also, you should get your facts straight. There is no law prohibiting dancing at the memorial. There is a law which blanket prohibits "demonstration" defined as "conduct which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers." What you seem to want is a law that discriminates free expression rights based on the content of the expression. That's unconstitutional.

p.s. Thanks for repeatedly calling me a statist before I made any such personal attacks. You're such a sweetheart.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
I don't mind people doing this as a fun gesture, as long as it's not too disruptive to other people coming there.
I do mind the idiots who come here to dance to stand up to the man, like the dance dance revolution moron. They're just real life trolls trying to goad the police/mall cops/whatever they are into going over the line. They're dicks.

If there wasn't a law banning dancing at the Memorial in the first place, then these "real life trolls" wouldn't be doing this at all.


But that's the ONLY reason their doing it. Because someone told them they couldn't. It's called a hissy-fit.

@bareboards2

You must not know me very well. I'll argue with walls until they have a hole in them.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
I don't mind people doing this as a fun gesture, as long as it's not too disruptive to other people coming there.
I do mind the idiots who come here to dance to stand up to the man, like the dance dance revolution moron. They're just real life trolls trying to goad the police/mall cops/whatever they are into going over the line. They're dicks.

If there wasn't a law banning dancing at the Memorial in the first place, then these "real life trolls" wouldn't be doing this at all.

But that's the ONLY reason their doing it. Because someone told them they couldn't. It's called a hissy-fit.


Were black people throwing a hissy fit when they couldn't sit at the front of the bus?

>> ^MaxWilder:

One of the fascinating things about this thread is that you can see why this country is falling apart. There are people who really, truly think that giving up small freedoms will somehow make the world a better place. And we've spent years giving up one small freedom after another. Until the government feels quite safe taking away big freedoms (e.g. The unPatriot Act).
When you have principles, you fight for them or you lose them. Even if somebody defies your principles in a small, silly, quite understandable way, they are still defying them. You either fight, or give up.
Another way to look at it: if those cops had simply asked those dancers to leave that first night without arresting anybody, then these daytime noisy protests wouldn't happen. Peace begets peace, war begets war.


The United States is a pretty big place. You can dance pretty much anywhere you like. Except the Jefferson Memorial. Why is that so bad? Do you really think in a few years they're gonna ban dancing in malls? You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

And it's my understanding that, during the initial incident, the cops DID ask the dancers to leave. And, according to Mr. Kookesh, one of them asked why they were being asked to leave. Then suddenly the cops ended up arresting them. Pardon me if I don't consider him a "reliable source" but, it sounds like bullshit. It's a publicity stunt, nothing more.

>> ^dag:

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.



lol, touche good sir, touche...

Oh I see, busy intersections aren't at all similar to the Jefferson Memorial, but Adam Kokesh is Rosa Parks.

You're comparing the Civil Rights movement to dancing? Seriously? Black people had a hell of a lot more to lose than these morons. Slavery, Oppression, Murder... these are things worth changing. These are things worth protesting. These are things worth standing up against and taking risks to change.
Doing the cha-cha just does not compare.

>> ^blankfist:

Did you see the video where the white cops sprayed the black people down with hoses? Did you watch where they used their training and put snarling dogs on them? Where they had to enlist a large number of cops on the public dume to keep them uppity black people in line, thanks a whole bunch for that?
See, I can do that too.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.


Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
I don't mind people doing this as a fun gesture, as long as it's not too disruptive to other people coming there.
I do mind the idiots who come here to dance to stand up to the man, like the dance dance revolution moron. They're just real life trolls trying to goad the police/mall cops/whatever they are into going over the line. They're dicks.

If there wasn't a law banning dancing at the Memorial in the first place, then these "real life trolls" wouldn't be doing this at all.

But that's the ONLY reason their doing it. Because someone told them they couldn't. It's called a hissy-fit.

Were black people throwing a hissy fit when they couldn't sit at the front of the bus?


Again, you're comparing Civil Rights to dancing. That's like saying thumb tacks are the same as lard.

Yaaaaaay DRAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Woohooo!

Who needs daytime soaps when you got threadz like THIS!

@blankfist

Let's not confuse these overprivileged white people with those who have genuinely had to endure adversity. They aren't kin to the civil rights protesters of the 60s or the suffragettes of the early 20th century. Your comparison is silly. These people have nothing at stake here. If dancing at national memorials is really at the top of your list of personal concerns, life is good.

Why not protest something meaningful?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@blankfist
Let's not confuse these overprivileged white people with those who have genuinely had to endure adversity. They aren't kin to the civil rights protesters of the 60s or the suffragettes of the early 20th century. Your comparison is silly. These people have nothing at stake here. If dancing at national memorials is really at the top of your list of personal concerns, life is good.
Why not protest something meaningful?


Glad to see you're on the "anti dancing laws are good" side of things.

And why be such a self-hating white guy? As much as I'm glad I didn't have to suffer through the Dust Bowl in my childhood and have a large majority call me their property, I was anything but privileged. What does race have to do with this?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^smooman:
So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.


Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


it is the same in principle. analogies are hard to follow i know, i'll spell it out in play-doh terms so you can keep up. the crux of what you are saying is that those who wish to dance inside the memorial as a form of free expression should be allowed to do so, even if it disturbs those around them, lest we become victims of a totalitarian dictatorship. In the same way, The WBC clan should then be allowed to protest a funeral within the actual procession even if it disturbs those who are observing the departed...

...in the same way a couple could have indiscreet sex in a public park even if it disturbs others enjoying the park. in the same way one could take a shit on the middle of a city bus even if it disturbs the other passengers.

put another way, if not being allowed to dance inside the jefferson memorial is suppressing our right to dance, is not being aloud to have indiscreet sex in a public place suppressing our rights to fornicate? is not being aloud to dump in the middle of a public transportation vehicle suppressing our rights to go number 2?

thats what this whole charade is about. and its fucking obnoxious. its made even more obnoxious by gobshites like you who then compare their struggle to the struggle of black men and women in the 60's.

I see a lot of people talking shit here who were NOT dancing in this video. Guess they had different priorities and can only stand up for those freedoms while sitting in front of a keyboard. LET'S DANCE.

>> ^dag:

A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.

i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?

whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.

btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

Did you even read my comment?

These people aren't protesting because they are oppressed. They are protesting for fun. To try and paint these people as modern day Rosa Parks and MLKs is dumb. They don't even know how to do the civil disobedience thing correctly. Rule #1: Don't resist arrest, because getting arrested is the entire point of civil disobedience.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yes frivolous, like this:

-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

So you agree with the spirit of the law, just not the semantics?>> ^dag:
Yes frivolous, like this:
-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)
The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

Yeah... couldn't have said it better... you know... like calling people or groups idiots and such, just because they disagree with you... I do so love it when Blankie gets preachy with his hypocrisy.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:
Actually, it is.
Arlington Cemetary is a non-public forum, as is the Jefferson Memorial. I suspect that Westboro Baptist is kept outside the grounds, corralled into their little free speech zones, under exactly the same legal argument.
Legal. Courts. Branches of government. Constitution.
Man, these words just keeps popping up, don't they?


blankfist said: Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


Dear blankfist,
Please continue to fight back the urge to attack people personally even though it may seem as if they're laying their necks across the chopping block. I know it may appear hopeless when they build arguments to compare stomping on graves at a cemetery to dancing at the Jefferson Memorial and call anything contrary to that illogical.
It's not their fault they learned everything from a Prussian school system. Remember, they believe if it wasn't something their 3rd grade teacher didn't teach them, then it must be "illogical", "irrational", "incoherent" or something from the "Tea Party".
Kindest regards,
blankfist

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Semantics has absolutely nothing to do with it. How could you even get that from what I wrote? I'm talking about laws and ordinances that cover a thousand silly things, trying to strap down all of the vagaries of human behavior. >> ^longde:

So you agree with the spirit of the law, just not the semantics?>> ^dag:
Yes frivolous, like this:
-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)
The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

>> ^dag:

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.


You know, I was almost convinced by the arguments about non-public places and how the right to dance is like the right to artistically defecate in public.

Then Dag reminded me of the law against disturbing the peace.

Now, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how it currently works, but let me explain how I think it should work. If a "Peace Officer" is making his rounds through a public place, and somebody is making a spectacle and obviously harassing others in the area, then that person should be warned and potentially arrested. This would include the extreme examples of defecating in public and indecent exposure, and more moderate and disputable examples like dancing at a memorial. Those people would then be tried before a jury of peers, who would make the judgement call. Was the disturbance large enough to warrant being arrested in order to stop it? If so, then the person would be found guilty. And if the police had arrested people for silently swaying in a rhythmic manner, then perhaps the jury could find them innocent, which might leave the police open to a counter-suit. That way the police would also have to make a judgement call instead of following some absurd zero tolerance policy.

So there you have it. I don't think those laws should try to enforce a "tranquil atmosphere for solemn reflection", I think that juries should decide what is acceptable behavior under a given circumstance.

In this system, there would still be penalties for breaking the bounds of common decency, but also some wiggle room for common sense to survive.

>> ^Januari:

Yeah... couldn't have said it better... you know... like calling people or groups idiots and such, just because they disagree with you... I do so love it when Blankie gets preachy with his hypocrisy.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bareboards2:
Actually, it is.
Arlington Cemetary is a non-public forum, as is the Jefferson Memorial. I suspect that Westboro Baptist is kept outside the grounds, corralled into their little free speech zones, under exactly the same legal argument.
Legal. Courts. Branches of government. Constitution.
Man, these words just keeps popping up, don't they?


blankfist said: Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


Dear blankfist,
Please continue to fight back the urge to attack people personally even though it may seem as if they're laying their necks across the chopping block. I know it may appear hopeless when they build arguments to compare stomping on graves at a cemetery to dancing at the Jefferson Memorial and call anything contrary to that illogical.
It's not their fault they learned everything from a Prussian school system. Remember, they believe if it wasn't something their 3rd grade teacher didn't teach them, then it must be "illogical", "irrational", "incoherent" or something from the "Tea Party".
Kindest regards,
blankfist



If I'd said "@Januari is a fucking douchebag who is dumb as a box of dirty dicks" to discredit your argument, then you'd have something to say worth listening to.

@dag?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Januari:
Yeah... couldn't have said it better... you know... like calling people or groups idiots and such, just because they disagree with you... I do so love it when Blankie gets preachy with his hypocrisy.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bareboards2:
Actually, it is.
Arlington Cemetary is a non-public forum, as is the Jefferson Memorial. I suspect that Westboro Baptist is kept outside the grounds, corralled into their little free speech zones, under exactly the same legal argument.
Legal. Courts. Branches of government. Constitution.
Man, these words just keeps popping up, don't they?


blankfist said: Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


Dear blankfist,
Please continue to fight back the urge to attack people personally even though it may seem as if they're laying their necks across the chopping block. I know it may appear hopeless when they build arguments to compare stomping on graves at a cemetery to dancing at the Jefferson Memorial and call anything contrary to that illogical.
It's not their fault they learned everything from a Prussian school system. Remember, they believe if it wasn't something their 3rd grade teacher didn't teach them, then it must be "illogical", "irrational", "incoherent" or something from the "Tea Party".
Kindest regards,
blankfist


If I'd said "@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Januari" title="member since June 30th, 2007" class="profilelink">Januari is a fucking douchebag who is dumb as a box of dirty dicks" to discredit your argument, then you'd have something to say worth listening to.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is a good heated discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks or name-calling though. This includes "hypothetical" name-calling as well. Now that's semantics.

>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2 and @smooman, next time try attacking the argument instead of the person. Calling someone "irrational" and "incoherent" is the kind of ad hominem nonsense that makes people not take you and your argument seriously.


I agree with you that ad hominem is bad. But your argument is irrational. In other words, it isn't logical or reasonable for reasons that smooman, bareboards, and others have been trying to patiently point out to you over several posts now. I can hardly blame them for getting frustrated... you don't seem to be listening to what they are saying. You certainly aren't replying to what they are saying.

So, if it's any consolation you aren't irrational or incoherent. But your argument is. Feel better?

@hallmonitor?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Someone tell me to STFU if I'm being a d-bag by saying this, but I think that more than (most) people here, I know what freedom really costs, and this isn't taking it away.
The original group was simply broken up. No arrest made. They caused enough of a disturbance there that other citizens were ...disturbed. They were asked to leave and they did. Then there was a law passed that said "No dancing within the memorial" - is this a violation of the first amendment? No. The first amendment protects written and verbal speech. There's nothing in there about dancing.
Was the law stupid? Sure it was. Was it chipping away at our freedoms? No. If you think it is, then why aren't you walking around inside the capitol building with a gun to protest your inability to lawfully carry there? There's a difference between taking away our freedoms and laws designed to bring civility to society. You want the right to dance there? What about the right to contemplate the inscriptions inside the memorial in peace without being disturbed?

This isn't taking away freedoms, it's just making sure that the majority of people (note: democracy works in favor of the majority) won't have to be disturbed.

You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.


The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.

What if the new law was "No smiling" or "No laughing" or "No shaking hands with other visitors" or "No walking too fast" or "No picking your nose" or "No standing still for more than 5 seconds" or "No looking directly at Jefferson's backside", etc...
Would these laws violate the first amendment? Would they be ok with you too? You may think it's a trivial and insignificant law, but that's not the point. It's a clear violation of your natural rights.

The Supreme Court has upheld that dancing is a means of non-violent expression. The first amendment does protect freedom of expression. It's not explicitly written because it's implied and assumed. How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of expression? How can you be free to speak, but not free to smile or laugh or express your message through some other gesture... like dancing?

@SDGundamX,

Then pick my argument apart instead of making platitudes. I know you believe what bb2 and smoo say, but that doesn't make you right by agreeing with them. A popular viewpoint doesn't make it right. I've had at least five Sifters coming at me all at once, and I've tried to keep it civil, but then I'm just met with nonsense like this.

Make a fucking argument. Debate it. It's easy. I don't mind debating, but I DO mind when people call me illogical or irrational just to denigrate my argument without an attempt at being civil. It's not that I'm going to run around here like a crybaby, busybody hall monitor crying to @dag like I'm rosy fucking innocent over here, but then again I don't have to choose to debate any of you when all you want to do is make snide comments back and forth. It's just stupid at that point.

In the end, if you think it's bad or not important to stand up against a piece of legislation that prohibits dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, then we can debate that. Otherwise, I will make my own ad hom attack and say you're all a bunch of thuggish bullies. Which is cool, it's just a dumb way to win an argument by browbeating people.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Beautifully stated.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Someone tell me to STFU if I'm being a d-bag by saying this, but I think that more than (most) people here, I know what freedom really costs, and this isn't taking it away.
The original group was simply broken up. No arrest made. They caused enough of a disturbance there that other citizens were ...disturbed. They were asked to leave and they did. Then there was a law passed that said "No dancing within the memorial" - is this a violation of the first amendment? No. The first amendment protects written and verbal speech. There's nothing in there about dancing.
Was the law stupid? Sure it was. Was it chipping away at our freedoms? No. If you think it is, then why aren't you walking around inside the capitol building with a gun to protest your inability to lawfully carry there? There's a difference between taking away our freedoms and laws designed to bring civility to society. You want the right to dance there? What about the right to contemplate the inscriptions inside the memorial in peace without being disturbed?

This isn't taking away freedoms, it's just making sure that the majority of people (note: democracy works in favor of the majority) won't have to be disturbed.

You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.
The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.
What if the new law was "No smiling" or "No laughing" or "No shaking hands with other visitors" or "No walking too fast" or "No picking your nose" or "No standing still for more than 5 seconds" or "No looking directly at Jefferson's backside", etc...
Would these laws violate the first amendment? Would they be ok with you too? You may think it's a trivial and insignificant law, but that's not the point. It's a clear violation of your natural rights.
The Supreme Court has held that dancing is a means of non-violent expression. The first amendment does protect freedom of expression. It's not explicitly written because it's implied and assumed. How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of expression? How can you be free to speak, but not free to smile or laugh or express your message through some other gesture... like dancing?

You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.

War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.

The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.

Such as jihadist a$$hole$.

War works.

This is what you opened up with. I bet it got you a "power point" to boot. <--- Irony
When I hear that, I get angry. I'm not saying I opened up any better, and it wasn't even toward you. Still, this is about free expression right? Or can't we dance on the sift?

>> ^blankfist:

Yes, let's be disgusted by the people peacefully dancing, not the stupid law against it that gives bully cops the incentive to throw people on the ground. What a bunch of statist idiots.

Oh no... you'd never do that Blankie... It's so much easier to just refer to everyone who disagrees with you as 'idiots' and then lecture to everyone about courtesy and the merits of 'making an argument'... Hypocrites preach civility when it suits them... and call people idiots when it doesn't...

blankfist is just a doodie poop face

i can concede to the merit of civil disobedience towards a law that may seem trivial, however, one would really be showing their ass to compare this particular incident to the civil rights struggle of the 60's. I think that could sum up my frustration with the discussion

as someone stated earlier, the point of civil disobedience is to NOT resist arrest. In the video that spurred this one (the one with the snap-suplexes and DDT's) the "protesters" are spoiled children, not freedom fighters. unfortunately what gets media attention, or at least, internet attention, are these asinine breed of dissidents that intentionally goad the police into arresting them, then spasmodically resist, all the while crying tyranny.

there's a certain dignity in civil disobedience, but these numbnuts (the ones in the previous video anyway) have none

>> ^Januari:

Oh no... you'd never do that Blankie... It's so much easier to just refer to everyone who disagrees with you as 'idiots' and then lecture to everyone about courtesy and the merits of 'making an argument'... Hypocrites preach civility when it suits them... and call people idiots when it doesn't...


I call statists idiots. I didn't say @Januari is an idiot, or @bareboards2 is an emotional mess, or @smooman is a retard, @bmacs27 is moron and so on. I've been guilty of ad hom on here many times, but this isn't one of those cases, and I've tried to be careful not to do it. So please call me out for it.

And certainly when I'm in the majority on here (which isn't often), I try not to team up and bully people. Unless it's @NetRunner. I do have a perverse fascination with tormenting that pig fucker.

>> ^quantumushroom:
War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.


Violence begets violence right? Ever heard of blow-back? If war is our solution, then how are we any different than the enemies you're talking about.

You know what... very not worth it...

Jesus christ...

>> ^cosmovitelli:

Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.


if jailtime for chewing gum anywhere and being arrested and consequently released with no charges for dancing in one particular spot is the same thing to you, then perhaps a lobotomy is in order because you are certifiable

>> ^dag:

Exactly. This second group of beautiful dancing idiots are protesting the heavy-handed police brutes who assaulted the first group of trolls. Bodyslams for shuffling your feet is never right action.
Yes, these guys are kind of idiotic and they dance poorly - but damn it, this is how things start. This is how you begin to throw off the yoke of an increasingly represive government security apparatus that instills fear in its people. This is what democracy looks like.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
I've been to the Jefferson memorial a few times. If I went there on a nice evening for a little bit of quiet reflection (seriously), then I can see how I would be annoyed by a bunch of people dancing around it. It would certainly seem a little disrespectful. But at the same time, it might be fun, and I might even join in. (I dance like an idiot too)
Either way, the fact is that these people were trolling. So to arrest them is to fall right into their trap. It's so absurd to arrest someone for dancing under a statue of Thomas Jefferson, it's a shame that it couldn't have just been laughed off for what it was.



bit late but.......they werent "bodyslamed for shuffling their feet" they were bodyslammed for repeatedly and adamantly resisting arrest.

but you see what you wanna see i suppose

@blankfist I'll be honest, I haven't been very careful not to. I will be from now on if you would just respond to the substance of what has been posted. As you might imagine, this isn't the only conversation I'm in over this ruling, provided here again for your convenience. In none of the conversations has someone purporting to be an avid supporter of this protest been able to highlight anything specific in that ruling which they oppose. I actually took the time to read the ruling in light of the protests, and found very little objectionable about it. That is, I'm trying to understand the grievances of the protesters, with genuine interest, but even their supporters can't explain them to me.

I repeatedly hear misinformation which I'd rather wasn't used in the debate, because it shows a disregard for the facts. For instance, that there is a law "against dancing in the memorial." That's ridiculous, of course no such law exists. There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial. There's as much a law against candlelight vigils in that space as there is against "dancing quietly, at midnight, with 17 like minded individuals." You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Oberwetter asserted that their right to do so was protected under the first amendment. The ruling (which is only as long, and detailed as it is in homage to Mr. Jefferson) clearly explained why it is not.

I don't want to gang up on you. I want to understand this, and make people think.

@bmacs27

Thank you for being the voice of reason in this thread.

How did this thread get so far without degenerating to a discussion about Nazis or the existance of God?

Well done us!

.....and then suddenly the acrimony was gone, just as quickly as it had appeared.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I want to have a pajama snuggle party with all of you.

Yeah! And we could all dress up in our favorite plush animal costumes and pretend to have sex!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

For sentimental reasons, I keep a roll of silver dollars tucked in the front of my jammies - so if anyone feels something through their flannel - that's what that's all about.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Jesus christ...


Was a carpenter ?

>> ^smooman:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.

if jailtime for chewing gum anywhere and being arrested and consequently released with no charges for dancing in one particular spot is the same thing to you, then perhaps a lobotomy is in order because you are certifiable


If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.

>> ^bmacs27:

There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial.. ..You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period.


Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

Statist idiots.

lulz. Man. I wish you'd reply about the ruling.
>> ^blankfist:

Statist idiots.

You're a class act.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Januari:
Oh no... you'd never do that Blankie... It's so much easier to just refer to everyone who disagrees with you as 'idiots' and then lecture to everyone about courtesy and the merits of 'making an argument'... Hypocrites preach civility when it suits them... and call people idiots when it doesn't...

I call statists idiots. I didn't say @Januari is an idiot, or @bareboards2 is an emotional mess, or @smooman is a retard, @bmacs27 is moron and so on. I've been guilty of ad hom on here many times, but this isn't one of those cases, and I've tried to be careful not to do it. So please call me out for it.
And certainly when I'm in the majority on here (which isn't often), I try not to team up and bully people. Unless it's @NetRunner. I do have a perverse fascination with tormenting that pig fucker.

The validity of the law classifying memorials as "nonpublic" is potentially a legitimate question. However, there are legitimate ways to question it (say through representation) and illegitimate (say by picking fights with cops). If people showed up at the WH, in numbers, at midnight, you better damn well believe they'll get what's coming to them. You have to understand the nerves of a law enforcement official (particularly in DC). They can't know your intentions. There are times and places that other constitutional mandates, such as to provide for national security, trump the first amendment. If you don't believe me, see my sift here. Also, please don't shoot back with "deserve neither." Like you point out, it's more complicated than simple aphorisms.

That's why we have courts. The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the law in question. Frankly, that the arrests were so physical had more to do with the attitude of the demonstrators than the cops. Refusing a lawful order repeatedly won't end well for you. They asked the demonstrators to leave nicely. The kids refused. When you disobey the law, as it is currently written, especially after being peacefully warned, reasonable states employ physical force. Saying that arrest is "violence" again over simplifies law enforcement. Those protesters knew what they were doing the whole time. Frankly, the force employed was the minimal force necessary to enforce the law. No weapons were used. Oscar Grant this wasn't.

As for Jefferson, if people flash mobbed his bed chambers, he'd most certainly ask them to leave. It's manners. If they refused, as these kids did, by yelling "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at him, you better believe there would be some Jeffersonian body-slams.
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

^cosmovitelli:If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.




*sigh* again, no one was getting slammed for dancing. The cops werent running around saying "hey, that dude is dancing, crossface chicken wing that motherfucker! ya! DX for life!! SUCK IT" and then slamming their crossed arms on their crotch.

the only "bodyslam" that took place (in the video at least, the rest is speculation) was on kokesh (pretty sure it was him). If you can objectively watch that video and then with a straight face insist he was slammed for dancing you are out of your fucking mind. He was being placed under arrest and then repeatedly and forcefully resisted arrest. THAT is what he was taken down for. The arresting officer gave him two "last" warnings before the takedown but all you saw was the bodyslam huh?

if you can objectively watch the video and then with a straight face insist that those arrested were not disturbing the peace and were acting civilly then you are out of your fucking mind.

their first warning even was "if you demonstrate by dancing" but all you heard was dancing huh?

officer calmly and politely explains to them they are in violation of the demonstration ordinance and gave them ample warning to knock it off. what do they do? argue the semantics of dancing with them? continue to demonstrate and then act outraged that they got arrested? MLK would be proud

the fact that everyone keeps latching on to the dancing aspect and willfully ignores the fact that they were demonstrating shows a certain selectiveness of what we are seeing here. Ive been trying to be as objective as possible in viewing both of these videos. but we see what we wanna see huh?

wait...was that zach galifinakis at about 2:53

>> ^bmacs27:

As for Jefferson, if people flash mobbed his bed chambers, he'd most certainly ask them to leave. It's manners. If they refused, as these kids did, by yelling "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at him, you better believe there would be some Jeffersonian body-slams.

he'd probably shoot em actually. he was infamous for dueling.

*EDIT* sorry, confused him with jackson

Too skinny and too tall. Nice beard though.

>> ^smooman:

wait...was that zach galifinakis at about 2:53

Like I said, I haven't reviewed the law, but if it gives the government the power to set up free speech zones, then it's unconstitutional. "Non-public forum" is a contradiction of terms anyway. Ok, so some public property is really not public property, but government property. And to operate as a government, you specify these governments buildings and etc as non-public forums. I can live with that (as long as the government functions in question are constitutional). But at the Jefferson Memorial there is no government function to preserve. It's no different than going to a public park. Whether you're on the steps of the memorial or inside the interior, there's no difference. It's a public forum, ...except when it isn't. Government bureaucrats don't have that authority to pick and choose what is a public forum and what isn't.

I watched part of clip of the original dancers. I don't really remember them being all that loud. (Maybe I missed it) But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not they were loud, were demonstrating, or whatever, dancing is the issue. And that's not the protestors fault, the first cop that approached Kokesh made it explicitly clear: You can't dance here. Dance and you will be arrested. Nothing about demonstrating, protesting, or anything else. Dancing was/is the issue at hand.

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.

I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
1. The law has stood up to multiple challenges as to its constitutionality (the law is about the government's right to declare a space "non-public forum"). It has been around for decades.

If it helps any, the government has tried to use this "non-public forum" legal concept/law and have been shot down by the courts. Apparently, they have tried to encompass ill-defined areas and control the activity when a reasonable person wouldn't recognize the area in question as a specific defined place. No, no, say the courts, and the government has lost those cases.

2. Have you looked at the link I provided from the original event from months ago, that led to this court case? The libertarians who showed up at midnight to celebrate his birthday?

The music was silent but the group was in a good mood and pretty loud in an echoey place. No harm was intended, but the area is posted "quiet please" and they weren't. So that is why the original dancers were removed.

3. The May and June dancers were demonstrating, which is not allowed in a non-public forum, so that is why they were asked to leave. Not because they were dancing. (Watch Kokesh's youtube video calling for folks to come dance in protest, if you don't think they were there to demonstrate.)

So 1) the law is constitutional and 2) defining dancing has nothing to do with it, it is about literally "disturbing the peace" or "demonstrating".

I am as pissed about the Patriot Act as anybody -- I just don't agree that this demonstration is an enfringement on my rights. The Patriot Act? Hell yes!!!!!!!!!


It gets back to whether you believe in laws or not. Does society empower the government to make laws in its name, using the Constitution as its guide?

If you don't think it does, then .... well. Nothing. You don't think it does. Fair enough.




In reply to this comment by marbles:
Thanks, I seen you post something to that effect the other day. I haven't had the time to look into the law, (it outlaws demonstrating right?) but I'm pretty sure my argument still applies. It's two-fold. 1. The law is unconstitutional. 2. You can't define what is and what isn't considered "dancing".

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
It isn't a new law, marbles. It is an old law, decades old, discussed and debated over many court cases.

Just wanted to toss that fact your way, if it makes any difference to your point of view.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is exactly the same kind of bullshit! http://bit.ly/kADYCP

A psychologist could write a doctoral thesis on this thread.

>> ^dag:

A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.



I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

>> ^marbles:


I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.



marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?

The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.

Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.

But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.


I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?

My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.

What authority did you think the courts had?
>> ^marbles:

My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?
My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.


Maybe they thought they'd never HAVE to enforce the law. But who can say? I think this argument has reached a stalemate. Everybody seems fairly set in their opinions so... rock on.

>> ^bmacs27:

What authority did you think the courts had?
>> ^marbles:
My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.


To uphold their constitutional responsibilities. Rights are protected by law, not granted.

Why don't you unpack that for us a little. What do you think their constitutional responsibilities are?

>> ^marbles:

To uphold their constitutional responsibilities. Rights are protected by law, not granted.

>> ^bmacs27:

Why don't you unpack that for us a little. What do you think their constitutional responsibilities are?
>> ^marbles:
To uphold their constitutional responsibilities. Rights are protected by law, not granted.



If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.

So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.

>> ^marbles:

If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

>> ^bmacs27:

I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.


??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.

It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?

I'll repeat:

Rights are not granted by law.

Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

You don't seem to understand my point. I never said that they rule the bill of rights to be unconstitutional, that would be absurd. I said that they decide when a law is actually infringing on your constitutional rights. For instance, they might decide on whether or not laws dictating the permitting requirements for demonstration are an infringement on your right to free expression granted by the first amendment. In this particular case, they held that they are not. That is, they upheld the constitutionality of the law in question against direct challenges. Further, they set the precedent that dancing can potentially be considered a form of demonstration.

That is, in this particular case, they've found that laws drafted by the legislature are not infringing on your constitutional rights, and as I've pointed out, they have the constitutional authority to do so.

So what's your beef?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.
It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?
I'll repeat:
Rights are not granted by law.
Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

>> ^bmacs27:

You don't seem to understand my point. I never said that they rule the bill of rights to be unconstitutional, that would be absurd. I said that they decide when a law is actually infringing on your constitutional rights. For instance, they might decide on whether or not laws dictating the permitting requirements for demonstration are an infringement on your right to free expression granted by the first amendment. In this particular case, they held that they are not. That is, they upheld the constitutionality of the law in question against direct challenges. Further, they set the precedent that dancing can potentially be considered a form of demonstration.
That is, in this particular case, they've found that laws drafted by the legislature are not infringing on your constitutional rights, and as I've pointed out, they have the constitutional authority to do so.
So what's your beef?

Nice strawman. I never said they didn't have the authority to judge whether laws are infringing on constitutional rights. I said they don't have the authority to decide when constitutional rights apply. There is no government function being interfered with on the interior of the JM. It's a public forum. If a judge or lawmaker decides to make it a non-public forum to restrict free speech, then they are overstepping their authority. Period.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

>> ^marbles:

I never said they didn't have the authority to judge whether laws are infringing on constitutional rights. I said they don't have the authority to decide when constitutional rights apply. There is no government function being interfered with on the interior of the JM. It's a public forum. If a judge or lawmaker decides to make it a non-public forum to restrict free speech, then they are overstepping their authority. Period.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?


Show me any precedent that shows memorials "by long tradition or by government fiat . . . been devoted to assembly and debate." (i.e. the criteria for being protected as a traditional public forum). The burden of that proof is on the one alleging her rights were infringed, Ms. Oberwetter. She failed to do so.

Further, who is it that would decide whether or not government property is classified as a non-public forum if not some combination of the courts and lawmakers?

Also, I've said repeatedly, the courts do have the authority to decide in which cases (i.e. when) constitutional rights are infringed by laws. In fact, that's almost the entire purpose of the judicial branch. They've cited a long list of precedence that shows similar spatial (i.e. not content related) restrictions of expression on government property are not infringing your first amendment rights. In fact, they've cited precedence concerning memorials specifically, and laws pertaining specifically to this memorial. The only new precedence in this ruling is that you can call "a collection of like-minded dancers" an act involving one or more people that "has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers." Such acts, in the JM, are against the law, and said laws have been deemed constitutionally valid by the courts. Period.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^marbles:
I never said they didn't have the authority to judge whether laws are infringing on constitutional rights. I said they don't have the authority to decide when constitutional rights apply. There is no government function being interfered with on the interior of the JM. It's a public forum. If a judge or lawmaker decides to make it a non-public forum to restrict free speech, then they are overstepping their authority. Period.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Show me any precedent that shows memorials "by long tradition or by government fiat . . . been devoted to assembly and debate." (i.e. the criteria for being protected as a traditional public forum). The burden of that proof is on the one alleging her rights were infringed, Ms. Oberwetter. She failed to do so.
Further, who is it that would decide whether or not government property is classified as a non-public forum if not some combination of the courts and lawmakers?
Also, I've said repeatedly, the courts do have the authority to decide in which cases (i.e. when) constitutional rights are infringed by laws. In fact, that's almost the entire purpose of the judicial branch. They've cited a long list of precedence that shows similar spatial (i.e. not content related) restrictions of expression on government property are not infringing your first amendment rights. In fact, they've cited precedence concerning memorials specifically, and laws pertaining specifically to this memorial. The only new precedence in this ruling is that you can call "a collection of like-minded dancers" an act involving one or more people that "has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers." Such acts, in the JM, are against the law, and said laws have been deemed constitutionally valid by the courts. Period.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?


You keep trying to argue a point that I'm not disputing. You keep citing precedence and rulings that have nothing to do with what I said. The government doesn't have the authority to draw a circle in the sand and say the 1st amendment doesn't apply there. And just because the government has overstepped it's power in the past and present, doesn't mean they actually have the authorization to do so.

>> ^marbles:

...The government doesn't have the authority to draw a circle in the sand and say the 1st amendment doesn't apply there...
FINALLY! Thank you! I've been searching for decades for this information!

/dances his way into Area 51 .. shufflin

@marbles So how would you reconcile laws against trespassing, and the first amendment?

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^marbles:
...The government doesn't have the authority to draw a circle in the sand and say the 1st amendment doesn't apply there...
FINALLY! Thank you! I've been searching for decades for this information!
/dances his way into Area 51 .. shufflin


Decades, huh? Maybe you should re-take a civics class at the local community college.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Sound familiar?

@bmacs27

There's nothing to reconcile.

How would you reconcile laws against homicide, and the right to self-defense?
How would you reconcile laws against school prayer, and the right to freely worship?

Just because an individual has a right to something, doesn't give them the authority to infringe on someone else's rights. (Again) That's the whole purpose of laws... to protect rights.

If the people have a legal right to set up functions of government like court houses, military bases, schools, etc., then individuals don't have the right to infringe on that government function.

Making the interior of the JM a non-public forum is horseshit. There is no government function to protect. Furthermore, there should be no burden to prove that a public place is a public forum, the burden of proof should always be to make it a non-public forum. You should've have to prove that you have the right to free speech. It undermines the Constitution and the entire purpose of government.

@marbles, you might consider becoming a lawyer.

Then you can stand in open court, and no matter what argument is presented to you based on legal precedents going back decades, you can just keep saying "it should be this way."

I'll bet you win all your cases.

>> ^bareboards2:

marbles, you might consider becoming a lawyer.
Then you can stand in open court, and no matter what argument is presented to you based on legal precedents going back decades, you can just keep saying "it should be this way."
I'll bet you win all your cases.


Wow, thanks. Didn't realize I was having a legal argument.
My argument has actually been from the very beginning a natural rights one.

Precedents established by the government to incrementally abridge natural rights don't really hold any weight for me, sorry. I'm more of a strict constitutionalist.
And the courts shaping a public forum doctrine to crack down on anti-war speech doesn't seem like progress to me, sorry.

So keep being a state apologist, I'm sure they'll look after your rights for you.

@marbles, honey....

"strict constitutionalist" is a legal argument.

@bareboards2, honey....

What's your point?

I don't have a point.

You are correct in absolutely everything that you have ever said.

I bow to your superior logic.

>> ^marbles:

@bareboards2, honey....
What's your point?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

200th comment! (sorry. I am lame.)

I see your 200 and raise you 201.

And only a single degree separates all of this from Kevin Bacon.

@marbles It isn't clear what right I'm infringing by trespassing (is it a search?). Still, what you are saying is that the government purpose cited is not a compelling one. How about the park service's offices, can I demonstrate there?

Jefferson would puke on the Jefferson monument! That should sum things up nicely.

>> ^bmacs27:

marbles, It isn't clear what right I'm infringing by trespassing (is it a search?). Still, what you are saying is that the government purpose cited is not a compelling one. How about the park service's offices, can I demonstrate there?


Frederic Bastiat: "Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

If you're trespassing on private property, then you're violating the owner's natural right to life.

If you're trespassing on public property, rarely is that ever violating anyone's natural rights. Depending on the circumstances you could be violating legal rights or statutory rights by interfering with a government function. Sometimes that may be the intent of the demonstrators. Dancing at the JM doesn't violate anyone's rights, natural or legal. Outlawing it does.

@marbles That doesn't sound like strict constitutionalism so much as strict ideology. The constitution/BoR says nothing about restricting the first amendment on private property. Therefore, under what authority do the courts uphold laws against trespassing?

Also, call me a commie, but I don't view property as a natural right. It's arguable that using the threat of force to lay siege to resources stolen from the commons is the original sin of violence. I don't recognize the lords of old, nor their "rights" to the land. No man toiled to create the Earth.

Is the idea that the government can limit the time place and manner in which you express yourself news to all these people? It's not a recent statist backslide. It's 200 year old jurisprudence. So yes, if you have an unpopular idea you'd like to express, then the government can't and shouldn't stop you. But if you want to express it in a way that has been established by our representatives with the consent of the majority as incompatible with the standards of our society, then you will need to modify your approach.

Freedom of expression means that you get to share your ideas with the public so that they have the opportunity to be influenced to choose representatives who will advance your agenda. It isn't free license to do it however and wherever you want. Judges spend a lot of time thinking very hard about where the line should be drawn between way the majority (and the government they elect) would like society to function and how an individual would prefer to express his ideas.

People can argue that they draw this line incorrectly, but there is no perfect ideal balance. Even if there were, it's unlikely that someone on videosift has stumbled upon it and can enlighten us.

People can also argue that the entire doctrine of time place and manner is inappropriate, but they can't wrap themselves in the constitution. The doctrine was decided and accepted by the same group of statesmen who produced the constitution itself.

I do feel pretty silly that there is a specific law on the books to ban dancing in certain places. I'm not sure why they couldn't prosecute this under disturbing the peace. The whole point of "expression" though is getting your message out to others. I don't go to memorials to listen to other people's messages. I'm glad it's a place that has been set aside for quiet reflection. There are plenty of nearby places where my fellow citizens can harass me to their heart's content. Most of it is bullshit that I'd rather not hear, but I accept it as the price of a free society.

fact: zombie Thomas Jefferson is currently haunting the dreams of all the protest-dancers