It's illegal to dance in America. *promote for the police state.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, May 28th, 2011 4:40pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Face, meet your new best friend: Palm.

This is just weird. What happened before this clip started? Something happened. These were self-described "activists," there to be "active."

This thing just escalated weirdly. Why not just let them dance? It would have been over and done with and we wouldn't be watching this now.

Well, this will probably be used as a training tool -- what not to do. That is what happened with the cameras being called illegal -- court action to teach security forces the law.

Give me Gandhi and Martin Luther King. There are real activists. These guys bore me with their antics.

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

'Do you see my helmet? I wear this helmet because when I was your age I recklessly danced anywhere I felt like it,... and now, even after 14 surgeries, I still need it to keep my brains in. We have these laws for a reason.'

Thank goodness for the cheap video camera. This has got to stop.

I can't even imagine how this would be appropriate even if they were there for a formal political protest like against a war or something.

I for one applaud every activist who goes out and gets arrested to display the absurdity of the police reaction.

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?

I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?

We have been here before, mr blank. We approach the world differently. I want all the facts. I want the whole story. I am not interested in propaganda, no matter what the source. I try to be intellectually honest in all my dealings, even if it is uncomfortable for me personally.

And I just don't dehumanize these public safety officers (who risk their lives daily) so utterly as to think that they will behave perfectly in all situations.

Something happened, don't you think? Why did the park cops go talk to them in the first place? Something happened and we don't know what it is.

I have no idea of how it started. It ended badly. I think it is likely that this will be used in training vids in the future, of how not to react when you, as a public safety officer, feel ... what? Disrespected? Disrespected is not a reason to arrest someone.

We're all on a learning curve. I believe cheap accessible video cameras are going to be the most democraticizing force in the world. With those cameras will come some costs that we aren't going to like, but there are some great benefits. Keeping cops honest is number one on the list.

And I think we all agree, being a smart ass is not a reason to arrest someone. Good thing, huh, blankie? (that was meant as a gentle joke, sweetie.)

>> ^blankfist:

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

@bareboards2, not everything I write is about you.

This is just like that documentry "foootloose"/ Whn the uptight dude stopped ervone dancing,.

Like more serious though but still kinda strange in a scary rights infiringing way.

Sorry really rum';ed up at the mo. Dont drink and sift.

No, probably not. I just look at the evidence in front of me and draw conclusions.

Sorry to have misunderstood.

I thought the whole world revolved around me. Guess it doesn't.


>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2, not everything I write is about you.

>> ^bareboards2:

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?
I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?


Well apparently they were dancing. I don't know what else you're looking for. Is there something that could've happened before hand that would have gave the cops some rationale for their actions? If that was the case, then why was the first cop giving them a warning about demonstrating/dancing? Clearly to him whatever you're looking for (if it exists) is irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5RXqqf9ivc

Great find, seems really ludicrous what happened there. The common theme in these types of video's is that the police never know the exact law they are supposedly applying. Even the times where they do quote a specific law they get it wrong (i.e. during the Toronto G20 demonstrations).

Pro-tip, which is often overlooked:

It is more visually effective to dress up for a protest... lends an air of seriousness, intelligence, and good intention. It can also be psychologically harder for assholes to harass and arrest women in lovely summer dresses accompanied by men wearing well-fitting suits and ties.

... props to the legend MLK Jr. for that bit of knowledge.

That first cop looks like the same guy in this video at a Law Enforcement Officers Memorial from a couple weeks back.

If that's the same guy, then he probably knew who Adam Kokesh was and had a chip on his shoulder to begin with.

It's a Memorial, not a Dance Hall. It's not a place for self-expression. It's a place of reverence for Thomas Jefferson.

The building is very old. Visitors can be counted in millions every year and doesn't need dancing to be appreciated. Dance outside, no one will have a problem with it; some may understand, but really, you'll just get strange looks.

It was not a dance troop. The dancing wasn't for dancing's sake, it was for protest. Again, it's not a place for political or personal expression. It's a place for reflecting on one of the greatest men that ever lived. Be silent to allow your fellow countrymen to be as mindful of Jefferson as they can in their visit. No one is there to see anyone dance, and no one is there to see anyone protest that they can't dance.

That was a truly lame. Is nothing sacrosanct?

The law they're breaking? Protesting in a Memorial. You can't protest anywhere in the parks without a permit. Everyone IS treated equally. The video itself is incriminating. It's labeled from a protest group as a protest video. It's not legal to protest without a permit in the parks.

An officer does not have to tell you what law you are breaking to arrest you. That's mythology. I know because I've been through it. It's the DA's job to figure that out. If the officer couldn't name exactly what you are being arrested for he has an attorney that will do it for him. That's why you need one too. In fact, in most places disobeying an officer is a crime. That's because police have a hard job, shitty pay, and should be respected, even if they're not articulate.

This makes it a very very bad idea to disobey an officer even if he doesn't communicate well ... but then maybe you weren't listening. In spite of the 1 in 10,000 instances that everyone hears about, the rest of the times the "dissident" loses.

If I'm at the capital I don't want my opportunity to visit sites disrupted by people, who I may or may not agree with in most general terms, breaking the Equal Rules For All concerning the management of protest traffic. You don't get to ruin innocent people's day just because you didn't get something you want. That's not being civil. If you want the rules changed you have to show that you're willing to live in the rules that do work. MLK would agree, I'm sure. Go dance outside and leave the Jefferson pilgrims the hell alone.

Yes, dancing is a visual distraction.

>> ^d3n4l1:

It's a Memorial, not a Dance Hall. It's not a place for self-expression. It's a place of reverence for Thomas Jefferson.
The building is very old. Visitors can be counted in millions every year and doesn't need dancing to be appreciated. Dance outside, no one will have a problem with it; some may understand, but really, you'll just get strange looks.
It was not a dance troop. The dancing wasn't for dancing's sake, it was for protest. Again, it's not a place for political or personal expression. It's a place for reflecting on one of the greatest men that ever lived. Be silent to allow your fellow countrymen to be as mindful of Jefferson as they can in their visit. No one is there to see anyone dance, and no one is there to see anyone protest that they can't dance.
That was a truly lame. Is nothing sacrosanct?


Nope. Not when it comes to the freedom of expression. Thomas Jefferson would feel the same way, I'm also under the impression he wouldn't give two fucks about a memorial to himself.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/05/appeals-court-no-dancing-allowed-at-jefferson-memorial.html

Goodbye, America. You were a nice experiment.

Hmm. I wonder what Jefferson would say...

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

I believe that Thomas Jefferson would have felt honored that this peaceful display of civil disobedience took place on his monument. In fact, I can think of no better place for people who believe that they are living in a police state to make their stand than at the Jefferson memorial, the patron saint of 'inalienable rights'.

Oh yeah. I get it now. I see the light!

Those dancers ... They're fighting for my right to dance! My rights have been trampled! I can't dance wherever the hell I want to ... This country is NOT Free ... DANCE FREE OR DIE!!

GIVE ME DANCE, OR GIVE ME DEATH!!1

P.S. B.S.

You know, there are things called scope and context. Dancing in a Memorial is not the same scope or context as what Jefferson worked for.

If you're at the Memorial to have a solemn moment or Reflection about what Jefferson did for our country, I think some moron spazzing out to his iphone doesn't fit the scope of what a "Memorial" is for, nor the context.

Can you go to the University of Virginia, walk in to any classroom, and dance? Do you have a right to do whatever you want in that context, or is there a purpose that is greater than one's rights in that space and context? Can you pull down your pants in reverence to Jefferson in his Memorial. Why the hell not? ... What is the difference? The difference is context. There are certain things we do in certain places.

self expression and protest are not what you do at a Memorial.

Did any of you or the dancers read the the court's decision? Is anyone discussing it openly? I think Jefferson would probably encourage study like that before someone makes a juvenile decision. He kinda thought people should educate themselves about issues first, ya know.

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:

"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]

...

After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing

In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."

Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

Not that it's here nor there, but if I went to see a memorial and there were a bunch of people being disruptive in any way, shape or form, I'd be rather upset at that.

What we see here is a video of the cops showing up and what follows. As bareboards said, we don't see what happened prior to the video. It could've been as innocent as two people dancing (however, "Flash Mob" really makes me think there were more then that), or it could've been rather disruptive.

Honestly, if you're going to be there to protest, at least take the time to do it right. Lets use me as an example, if I went to D.C. I'd love to see things like the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, etc. Take in the sights dedicated to history, because that's something I truly enjoy.

If I got to one of those places and i'm not able to enjoy it fully because someone decided they wanted to make a flash mob for whatever reason, not even taking the time to buy a protesting permit, I'd be pretty bummed. I would have traveled however far and not been able to enjoy something I was looking forward to because of this.

I'm not saying how it was handled was right by the cops, but I am saying that the protestors were being rather ignorant to everyone but themselves by how they handled this situation, too.

Just keep in mind. Jefferson didn't free our country. Military discipline did. If some German captain hadn't come over and whipped our boys into shape in spite of the harshest conditions imaginable at Valley Forge, we would be drinking very expensive tea over this argument.

>> ^Shepppard:

Not that it's here nor there, but if I went to see a memorial and there were a bunch of people being disruptive in any way, shape or form, I'd be rather upset at that.
What we see here is a video of the cops showing up and what follows. As bareboards said, we don't see what happened prior to the video. It could've been as innocent as two people dancing (however, "Flash Mob" really makes me think there were more then that), or it could've been rather disruptive.
Honestly, if you're going to be there to protest, at least take the time to do it right. Lets use me as an example, if I went to D.C. I'd love to see things like the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, etc. Take in the sights dedicated to history, because that's something I truly enjoy.
If I got to one of those places and i'm not able to enjoy it fully because someone decided they wanted to make a flash mob for whatever reason, not even taking the time to buy a protesting permit, I'd be pretty bummed. I would have traveled however far and not been able to enjoy something I was looking forward to because of this.
I'm not saying how it was handled was right by the cops, but I am saying that the protestors were being rather ignorant to everyone but themselves by how they handled this situation, too.


Respect. There are certain places that demand it. Also, if a cop tells you not to do something and you go right ahead and do the very thing he told you not to do right in his face, your incarceration is imminent. Duh. I don't think they were arrested for dancing so much as belligerence.

As dumb as the little law is, that's all this video is about. Some people breaking a dumb little law and being arrested for it.

Now if one of the cops had said, "Hey, you know what? This is AMERICA.. F the court's decission.. dance all you want!" that would have been awesome.. but in the end, this is not indicative of massive opression or anything. There is some dumb logic to this law (the keep it a place of tranquility.. as it reads in the court order), and the cops in this video didn't go around tazing everyone or being overtly rude or belligerent.

Infact the guy who pretended like he didn't know he was breaking any law annoys me. If you're going to break the law to make a statement, don't play ignorant when it's obvious you're perfectly aware of what you're doing. Weakens your stance, imo.

It's good to keep one's eyes open for stuff like this on a more broad scale, but as it stands this is a skirmish over one idea of what should be allowed in a specific public area vs another's.. and I can see both sides. I totally side with the dance freedom though myself.

Also this is a city-state, so I would bet federal judges like to flex their muscle here and there amongst DC.

WOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Then fuck his memorial anyway right?!! Seriously Sir you have NO FUCKING IDEA.

>> ^d3n4l1:

Just keep in mind. Jefferson didn't free our country. Military discipline did. If some German captain hadn't come over and whipped our boys into shape in spite of the harshest conditions imaginable at Valley Forge, we would be drinking very expensive tea over this argument.

It's also annoying in these videos how the protestors always try their hardest to get the cops to do stuff they consider unlawful. For example the idiot that gets slammed had a bit of warning to just comply with the officer's requests. what does he do instead? try to walk away with his hands in the air as if he thinks he's following directions. You know the whole time he's thinking "C'mon throw me throw me throw me throw me" then he acts all victimized

Way to back them into a corner morons

A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.


All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.


Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

@bareboards2: The warning the officer issues as the video starts is that they are not allowed to dance in the memorial. If they had been doing something else, something worse, I imagine he would have said so. The evidence suggests to me that dancing was all they did.

@d3n4l1: Inappropriate is not the same as illegal. We don't need to imprison everyone we disagree with; sometimes we can just think they're assholes and move on. I wouldn't have any problem at all with people slow dancing as the one couple was shown doing. If they were to break out in choreographed line dancing, Backstreet Boys style, that might be a little irritating. It's hard to even say it would be inappropriate at a Jefferson memorial. Let's keep it in perspective; we're talking about a member of the Hellfire Club here.

@Shepppard: How would you suggest I go about protesting protest permits?

The thing I dislike about these sorts of protests is they are creating the situation they protest against. This isn't protesting, really, it's trolling: baiting people into a reaction.

If some couple had been arrested for innocently dancing while visiting the memorial, then I'd be more inclined to support a dancing flash mob.

And yeah, if you protest anything with the intent of being arrested, don't act like it's a surprise. You just look like a moron.

http://videosift.com/video/News-report-on-Dancing-at-the-Jefferson-Memorial

Here's a link to a news report that discusses this incident.

Personally, I am bored to death by folks like Adam, who reflexively respond to any "limitation" put on their "freedoms." The best way to handle this "protest"? Turn your back and walk away. Nothing to film, nothing to complain about.

I think it is interesting of the original flash mob only one person was arrested. I suspect it wasn't dancing that got her arrested, or all of them would have been.

I also find it interesting that the cops and the protestors are actually both doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They feel disrespected and they respond. Everybody is human, hows about that?

>> ^bareboards2:


I also find it interesting that the cops and the protestors are actually both doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They feel disrespected and they respond. Everybody is human, hows about that?


One is a state security operative sanctioned to use violence to enforce the will of the powerful. The other is a free citizen with a duty to assert their rights at all times and especially when they are threatened (according to Jefferson and a few other people who 'mouthed off' in the Constitution).

Lets just agree that Jefferson would have been profoundly on the side of the protesters but people no longer give a shit what he thought.

SHUT UP!! SHUT UP OR I'LL SMASH YOUR FACE!!

wow, based on a link posted by @bareboards2, this guy is a complete idiot.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5RXqqf9ivc)

Here's info from the video:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled in a 26-page opinion on Monday that the interior of the memorial is not a public forum where people may dance, even if they are silently boogying to music on headphones.

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

"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," the judge added.

Upon hearing this information, what is Kokesh's response? fuck that! I can be disruptive wherever I want! Which is the sentiment that led to this video..

So knowing the recent verdict he got a troup together to go cause a disturbance because he feels like "freedom" means you can do whatever you want wherever you want.

I'm with @d3n4l1 on this one.. why not have a gay butt-fucking orgy for freedom at the holocaust memorial next week! hooray!

This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?

There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.

This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^bareboards2:

I also find it interesting that the cops and the protestors are actually both doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They feel disrespected and they respond. Everybody is human, hows about that?

One is a state security operative sanctioned to use violence to enforce the will of the powerful. The other is a free citizen with a duty to assert their rights at all times and especially when they are threatened (according to Jefferson and a few other people who 'mouthed off' in the Constitution).
Lets just agree that Jefferson would have been profoundly on the side of the protesters but people no longer give a shit what he thought.
SHUT UP!! SHUT UP OR I'LL SMASH YOUR FACE!!

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)

Part III -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7HFTtjJZZg was linked with part I & II but has been blocked as private.

This is like those Begat bible verses:

1. A group of admirers of Jefferson decide to celebrate his birthday at midnight, when tourist traffic is low, by "dancing" with iPods plugged into their ears. The original facebook page invitation, slightly edited:
"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."

Seems to me it was a sweet idea to honor someone they admired, knowing it probably wasn't okay (secret, going at midnight, they knew they were being naughty, but no big whoop.) No disrespect intended.

2. Disrespect, however, was perceived by others. The video shows a party-like atmosphere, which attracted attention enough for the partiers to be asked to leave.

3. Being asked to leave was perceived as being disrespectful to the rights of the partiers.

4. Not leaving (the woman who was arrested, not the guy filming, who left) was perceived as disrespectful.

5. Being arrested was perceived as disrespectful.

6. Which led to a series of other events, all of which were perceived as disrespectful by one "side" or the other.

Perceived disrespect begats perceived disrespect begats perceived disrespect.

Who is going to step outside this cycle and say, hey, can we go about this differently? Because going on like this perpetuates nothing but bad feelings and a lot of lawyer fees.

>> ^residue:

"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history," Bates wrote. "The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain 'an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.'"
"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," the judge added.


(Anti-)Free Speech Zones! Good idea Judge!!!

Because that's what real freedom is, deciding when and where natural rights actually apply!

Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?

When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.

Would it be ok to practice your trumpet playing at the monument? How about having an inpromptu game of flag football with your friend in the monument? The point is when you're bothering other people in a place generally considered to be quiet you're infringing on other people's rights to not be hassled. Like Shepppard pointed out earlier.

>> ^Skeeve:

Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.

I'm wondering why the cops weren't shooting the people with the cameras? Don't they know that's a felony?

>> ^residue:

Would it be ok to practice your trumpet playing at the monument? How about having an inpromptu game of flag football with your friend in the monument? The point is when you're bothering other people in a place generally considered to be quiet you're infringing on other people's rights to not be hassled. Like Shepppard pointed out earlier.
>> ^Skeeve:
Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.



Yes and Yes. As long as you abide by any noise ordinances and don't encroach on someone else's personal space.
Of course, your question isn't of any honest inquiry, but of a logical fallacy of the false continuum sort.
There is no subjective right to "not be hassled".

For once I'm not outraged by the police reaction; you simply can't be soft on street performers. If they didn't get the occasional beat down, our national memorials and libraries would quickly be overrun with jugglers, clowns, dancers and magicians of all kinds. And what sort of world would that be for our children?

So what about the uneducated British troops sent to put down the illegal colonial rebellion over, as you put it "expensive tea"? Blue collar hardworking guys right? Should have just bent over and taken it because they had badges?

It is bad luck for them, as for the British soldiers, that those whose will they have pledged to violently enforce make tyrannical and demented proclamations. But the most elementary understanding of Jefferson, and the fundamental basis for the US constitution, absolutely precludes meek subservience to tyranny.

A few more gutless masochists like you in Boston and you would be singing God save the Queen, and crowing about how great the staus Quo is. Or whatever mental contortions you had to perform to avoid growing a pair.

As for causing a disrespectful commotion at the memorial to a father of free expression, are you really blaming people silently jigging over people violently attacking others??

No offense but if you'd spouted that shit to Jefferson he'd have knocked you the fuck out.

>> ^bareboards2:

This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?
There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.
This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

@marbles playing a trumpet in the monument is surely against a noise ordinance, just like dancing in this one is. the reason there was a problem in this video is because these guys were doing something against an ordinance recently passed for the memorial.

Now whether or not it's a reasonable law to pass is another issue and I do think it's a silly one, but this particular group came to the memorial with an agenda to get arrested.

The real problem is we don't really get to see what was going on before the cops showed up, which is unfortunate

@residue

No, they were dancing in an act of civil disobedience against the ordinance. It's not another issue, that is the issue.

And I'm not sure what you are referring to "before the cops showed up".

All I see is a bunch of assholes who want to stir shit up instead of going through proper channels to get the law they dislike repealed. You know, like the guy in the memorial wants you to do!

Civil disobedience is for the lazy and the stupid.

@marbles

I mean we never see what they are getting in trouble for, the very start of the video has the officer already walking towards them and we never see what the offending action was.

As a quick side note, can I do whatever I want as an "act of civil disobedience?" And that's honestly not a facetious question, I'm genuinely curious. Isn't that the same thing as doing something illegal because you don't personally agree with it?

If they really cared so much, why not organize a legal protest instead of showing up to make a scene and make an already difficult job for police even more difficult

There are, in reality, two conflicting things happening here. One is a group of people protesting what they feel (rightly or wrongly) is a ridiculous law. The other is that you have a group of cops enforcing said law. The cops don't get to decide which laws they enforce and which they don't, which is a damn good thing.

I have no issue with people protesting, and I have no issue with the cops arresting them. I do take issue with the presentation of this video, which implies that the cops took it upon themselves to arrest some people dancing and then cried "police state". That's rubbish. The cops were doing their job and enforcing a law regardless of their personal opinion on the law (and let's be clear here, this is not a holocaust analogy "we were only following orders" situation).

The people running the protest should have expected to be arrested (in fact I'm pretty sure they were) and went along with it. Being arrested is a great way to make a point about a stupid law. As for the cops, they obviously knew about the ruling, they should have made it clear why they were being arrested.

Finally, to the people saying the host is a dick. Well, that may be true, but it's an irrelevant ad hominem that has nothing to do with the issue he's protesting.

Oh, and for the record, that law is beyond stupid.

You can't legislate against dancing! How do you define it?!
You can't argue the point elsewhere, it doesn't make enough sense to even have a conversation!
The only response to a flagrant tyrannical decree in direct contravention to constitutional norms is to break it and force the issue.

It is then up to the agents of the state to respond appropriately - in their view. This might mean a moratorium on enforcement pending official review, or it might mean firing on the crowd, or somewhere in between.

The judge is an asshole who will be torn a new one by the supreme court, the cops are aggressive psychos, and the 'protesters' are clearly protected by the constitution.
Anyone who thinks this was appropriately handled is petitioning to live in a police state.

@residue

The first cop walked up and warned them about demonstrating by dancing. Whatever you're referring to (if it exists) was obviously irrelevant to the cop.

What is legal and illegal? What makes something a crime? Our responsibilities to natural law as individuals should always trump any government perversion of the law. There's plenty of non-crimes on the books that we call "laws".

@marbles I'm not sure how to clarify any further... can you describe to me what they were doing before this clip started? no, you can't (unless you were there).

As far as what is legal and non-legal, in this case what they are doing is illegal. Like ChaosEngine said, it's not up the police to enforce which laws they deem important, they enforce them all (in theory).

As far as our responsibilities to "natural law" that's pure opinion and so we live in a framework of ever-changing laws which try to please the majority, in this case to protect those who don't want a circus troop of dance performers all over the monument.

@residue

Clarify what? That you're looking for irrelevant material to justify the cops actions?

Sorry to confuse you with the law from a philosophical standpoint. It might go over your head if you're a bit dense. Cops pick and choose when and what laws to enforce all the time. They had no problem enforcing the no-dancing law even though they couldn't even define what dancing was. It was at their discretion and they weren't reluctant in the least bit to use it to arrest them.

So now natural law is pure opinion? And "ever-changing laws" by popular vote are the "framework" of society? :banghead: Whatever you say pal.

Just to add a fact to this comment stream -- I actually doubt much had happened before the cop walked over. The man running this protest had posted a YT video, calling people to come down and dance in defiance of the law. Announced the time and the place. To show "the man" that their freedoms couldn't be trampled on.

So probably nothing happened -- the cop probably recognized them from the vid, came over and said -- dance and you will be arrested.

There is another "protest" planned for this Saturday. Time has already been chosen and announced on the news.

It will be interesting to see what the mall cops have learned from this event. I hope they stand around and do nothing, patiently waiting for it to be over. That will take all the fun out of it, I suspect.

So much energy wasted on such a silly thing. When there are real problems with police misconduct to protest against.

Jefferson was a gentleman, a scholar and a deep thinker.

He would be appalled by you, not me. He would be appalled at the mountain being made out of this molehill, when there are true mountains to be tackled.

Not that either of us really can speak for the man.


>> ^cosmovitelli:

So what about the uneducated British troops sent to put down the illegal colonial rebellion over, as you put it "expensive tea"? Blue collar hardworking guys right? Should have just bent over and taken it because they had badges?
It is bad luck for them, as for the British soldiers, that those whose will they have pledged to violently enforce make tyrannical and demented proclamations. But the most elementary understanding of Jefferson, and the fundamental basis for the US constitution, absolutely precludes meek subservience to tyranny.
A few more gutless masochists like you in Boston and you would be singing God save the Queen, and crowing about how great the staus Quo is. Or whatever mental contortions you had to perform to avoid growing a pair.
As for causing a disrespectful commotion at the memorial to a father of free expression, are you really blaming people silently jigging over people violently attacking others??
No offense but if you'd spouted that shit to Jefferson he'd have knocked you the fuck out.
>> ^bareboards2:
This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?
There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.
This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

>> ^bareboards2:
So much energy wasted on such a silly thing. When there are real problems with police misconduct to protest against.


Exactly.

As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has held (not consistently, mind you) that Freedom of Speech does not mean saying whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. That may be the ideal that some people wish it represented (I'm not one of them), but that's not the legal precedent that has been set.

The legal precedent that does exist through Supreme Court decisions seems to be that the government cannot limit speech without compelling reasons. So, for example, telling Top Secret information to another country doesn't fall under your 1st amendment rights because the government has a compelling reason to keep you from blabbing information that might put the security of the country at risk. What constitutes "security of the country" is often what gets argued in front of the Supreme Court (for example, clear and present danger).

Does the government have a compelling reason to prevent protesting at national monuments? Only the Supreme Court can really decide that. But I tend to be with Sheppard on this one. You want to protest, that's fine. There are literally thousands of ways to go about it without inconveniencing other people who probably don't care about your cause. There are literally thousands of ways to make those people who don't care about your cause aware of your cause without inconveniencing them. If you choose to make a nuisance of yourself anyway, then be prepared for the consequences and don't whine about it or act insulted when the hammer comes down.

This isn't the first time this has happened.

Lol QM!

So some public prosecutor is going to be arguing, on your tax dollar, at massive expense at the supreme court if necessary, the difference between hugging and dancing! (In the case of the couple). Don't think that's insanely childish and absurd?

dancing(Verb)
1. Move rhythmically to music, typically following a set sequence of steps.
2. Perform (a particular dance or a role in a ballet).

No music therefore they will fail, and a wrongful arrest claim will follow, followed by a payout, again of your money.
The whole episode will in retrospect be a very expensive, bloody minded excuse for a guy in a bicycle helmet to get his jollies. And I do mean expensive, like maybe 20 cops annual salaries for starters. Potentially way more if anyone got injured as it becomes a constitutional issue -because trust me the SC won't rule against Jefferson in his own memorial.


     “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
 Thomas Jefferson

I wish there were some serious, well organised resistance in the US. Imagine if the peaceful dancing group were supported by a larger, armed force ready to execute the first unprepared idiots who tried to break it up. Leaving a dozen corpses on the floor in a national memorial would be a rather more effective and impressive protest than getting arrested for nothing, which is what thousands of people do every day. But of course we're all more interested in arguing about law, as if such a thing even existed.

These scum expect and rely on having a local advantage in numbers and armament to perform their crimes, take that away from them for just one minute and they fold so quick; I've seen it happen.

very sad.

Wait, wait, wait.

This guy is discharged. Then, after he's out of the armed forces, he does something or other to piss off the military. So they waste god knows how much government money to hold a trial to retroactively change what they call the conditions of his discharge?

You're fucking with me, right?>> ^d3n4l1:

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:
"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]
...
After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing
In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."
Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

There are all sorts of arcane rules and rituals that go with being in the armed forces. They take them seriously, for good and ill.

Read the contract before you sign -- caveat emptor, if ever there was a time for an emptor to caveat, it is when signing your life over to the military.


>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Wait, wait, wait.
This guy is discharged. Then, after he's out of the armed forces, he does something or other to piss off the military. So they waste god knows how much government money to hold a trial to retroactively change what they call the conditions of his discharge?

http://videosift.com/video/Safety-Dance-80s

>> ^Skeeve:

Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.


Once again, it's called RESPECT. These monuments are not "inherently joyful and full of wonder". You're thinking of the Smithsonian museums.

The monuments are reminders of what this country had to go through to get where it's at today. What is inherently joyful about war and struggle? Dancing at this monument is like spraying graffiti on the Vietnam Veterans memorial or pissing on graves in Arlington cemetery. You just don't do it. At least, mature adults don't.

My sister walked into the room while I was watching this..

Sister: What's that?

Me: A bunch of people getting arrested for dancing..

Sister: Oh like footloose?

Me: I was thinking more like swing kids..

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The thing I dislike about these sorts of protests is they are creating the situation they protest against. This isn't protesting, really, it's trolling: baiting people into a reaction.
If some couple had been arrested for innocently dancing while visiting the memorial, then I'd be more inclined to support a dancing flash mob.
And yeah, if you protest anything with the intent of being arrested, don't act like it's a surprise. You just look like a moron.

You rang??? Oh...ok back to under my bridge

Interesting and also sad. I saw max 10 people being arrested and while that makes it an official protest I don't think it will rank very high. You know you've arrived when they have to break out the Greyhound paddy wagons.

Watching this vid is like eating a giant bowl of stupid soup.

I disagree.

Yes, dancing at Arlington or the Vietnam Veterans memorial would be disrespectful, there's just one problem with your examples - the Jefferson Memorial isn't a cemetery or war memorial.

The Jefferson Memorial is memorializing Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and the victory of liberty over tyranny. On a frieze below the dome is inscribed, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man," and Jefferson's statue is surrounded by other quotes about freedom.

The monument is a celebration of freedom (one of the greatest concepts in existence) and the actions of one mighty individual in the pursuit of that freedom. I believe it's only right to feel a massive sense of joy and wonder in seeing the memorial and appreciating how lucky we are that men like that lived and that people are/were willing to stand up for liberty.
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^Skeeve:
Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.

Once again, it's called RESPECT. These monuments are not "inherently joyful and full of wonder". You're thinking of the Smithsonian museums.
The monuments are reminders of what this country had to go through to get where it's at today. What is inherently joyful about war and struggle? Dancing at this monument is like spraying graffiti on the Vietnam Veterans memorial or pissing on graves in Arlington cemetery. You just don't do it. At least, mature adults don't.

Excuse me while I drop in to make an obvious point - respect is not something to be mandated by the state.

Most poignant moment @ 8:49, imo. (The camera angle, not the cheesy comment.)

A friend of mine told me that she was at a Gay Rights March on Washington. She stood on the Capitol steps and waved a rainbow flag. She was told that she couldn't do that, that only American flags were allowed on Capitol grounds.

When I was 15, I sat down on a chunk of marble at JFK's grave site, off to the side. A soldier in full regalia came over and told me that I was "sitting on his grave" and that I should stand up to show respect.

I am beginning to see a theme to these stories.

Sometimes respect has to be legislated, if there are so many different understandings of what it means to show respect.

Certainly there is a conversation to be had about whether it is even appropriate to say "this space is sacred". But why turn it into "Adam versus The Man"? It is childish and in my opinion, is a kneejerk response from a guy who has authority issues.

There are real problems with police brutality -- take this energy and instead highlight the brutality that results from our misguided war on drugs. Now that is something worth fighting for. This just diminishes the whole concept of "police brutality."

And bottom line.... this is just silly.

You people are so gullable! This was just a viral for Footloose 2: Footlooser!

^You're joking, but they actually are remaking Footloose, sadly enough.

Declaration of Independance
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

US Constitution: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

.

>> ^gorillaman:

Excuse me while I drop in to make an obvious point - respect is not something to be mandated by the state.


You're right. It should be common sense.

And I disagree right back. It is a MEMORIAL. To me that is synonymous with respect. As far as I know, there are no memorials for living people so, technically, every memorial is a "cemetery" memorial. They're in memory of someone or something.

So, go ahead and dance wherever you want to and I'll just sit back and laugh while you're being arrested.

>> ^Skeeve:

I disagree.
Yes, dancing at Arlington or the Vietnam Veterans memorial would be disrespectful, there's just one problem with your examples - the Jefferson Memorial isn't a cemetery or war memorial.
The Jefferson Memorial is memorializing Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and the victory of liberty over tyranny. On a frieze below the dome is inscribed, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man," and Jefferson's statue is surrounded by other quotes about freedom.
The monument is a celebration of freedom (one of the greatest concepts in existence) and the actions of one mighty individual in the pursuit of that freedom. I believe it's only right to feel a massive sense of joy and wonder in seeing the memorial and appreciating how lucky we are that men like that lived and that people are/were willing to stand up for liberty.

Today is the day when they go back and dance again.

I look forward to the news reports.

How will the mall cops respond this time?

Personally, I hope they ignore them. Like children having a tantrum.

http://videosift.com/video/Jefferson-Memorial-Dancing-on-June-4-2011

http://videosift.com/video/Russia-Today-RT-reports-on-6-4-11-Flash-Mob

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.