Freedom of speech suppressed at the Jefferson Memorial

[Bloody Mary]

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

I must say, this is one of the reasons the united states is so horrible today. When your right to free speech is suppressed at the memorial for one of the champions of free speech.

Jefferson is probably turning over in his grave.

[Ad Bot]

[Qwepir]

free speech is great except when you're dancing.
Then you're an ENEMY OF FREEDOM

[Visage]

I think the problem with America is people are dancing in a place to cause drama but they bend over when the government asks them to shell out a couple trillion so some rich bank CEOs can get their 20 million bonus for the year and not have to give up one of their 10 mansions. These people aren't changing anything or helping common man.

[Oasis]

Both sides were wrong. There is no crime to dance in a memorial, but resisting arrest is also illegal.

Both sides were idiots in the situation.

Edit: Forgot to add, a sign outside of the memorial clearly states Quiet: Respect Please. The "dancers" after resisting arrest also violated this rule in the memorial, and were rightfully arrested.

[Bloody Mary]

Both sides were wrong. There is no crime to dance in a memorial, but resisting arrest is also illegal.

Both sides were idiots in the situation.

But the cops had no grounds to arrest them on.

[Oasis]

But the cops had no grounds to arrest them on.

That video may not be the whole story.

[Qwepir]

But the cops had no grounds to arrest them on.

They were arresting them for the no dancing law or whatever.
Sure the law was unjust but it was still a law.

[Bloody Mary]

That's the thing, there is not a "No dancing" law. There is a permit you can get for a "demonstration" which was what the cops were calling it, but in reality, dancing is not a demonstration.

[Oasis]

That's the thing, there is not a "No dancing" law. There is a permit you can get for a "demonstration" which was what the cops were calling it, but in reality, dancing is not a demonstration.

In reality, flash mobs are demonstrations.

[Bloody Mary]

In reality, flash mobs are demonstrations.

Okay, lets say this is true. The fact that they needed a permit in the first place is a moral affront. What happened to freedom to assemble? What happened to free speech? The government shouldn't be able to say whether my demonstration of free speech or freedom of assembly are okay or not - it says in the constitution. As long as they're not in the way, promoting violence, or profiting from it, what's the problem?

I mean, I agree that the 'solemn atmosphere' SHOULD be upheld - but it's not the government's place to enforce it.

[Oasis]

Okay, lets say this is true. The fact that they needed a permit in the first place is a moral affront. What happened to freedom to assemble? What happened to free speech? The government shouldn't be able to say whether my demonstration of free speech or freedom of assembly are okay or not - it says in the constitution. As long as they're not in the way, promoting violence, or profiting from it, what's the problem?

I mean, I agree that the 'solemn atmosphere' SHOULD be upheld - but it's not the government's place to enforce it.

So, you wouldn't be totally upset if I set-up a supposed "assembling" of my peers and neighbors, and picketed right outside your street, upsetting your neighborhood and disturbing the peace. It's legal, right?

[Bloody Mary]

So, you wouldn't be totally upset if I set-up a supposed "assembling" of my peers and neighbors, and picketed right outside your street, upsetting your neighborhood and disturbing the peace. It's legal, right?

There is a difference between silently dancing, and 'disturbing the peace'.

[Oasis]

There is a difference between silently dancing, and 'disturbing the peace'.

Define disturbing peace.

Also, if the government shouldn't uphold the security of memorials, who should? Who has the right?

[Bloody Mary]

Define disturbing peace.

I would say something like making a racket or bothering people.

Also, if the government shouldn't uphold the security of memorials, who should? Who has the right?

Nobody should uphold the "security" of memorials. Why would they need to?   

[Trifax]

As I type I'm wearing a "got freedom?" shirt. Hm.

Anyway, I believe as the video went on the arrested men pushed the limits and were indeed trying to instigate something. Just because you have the right to dance, or to kiss or whatever in a place like a solemn memorial doesn't mean you necessarily should.

At first, they were not disturbing anybody, and I believe the cops should not have approached them in the first place. However, the fact that the offenders pushed their luck until they were forcefully subdued puts some blame on their part. It's really not that hard to just stop, because you don't HAVE to be dancing in a place like that.

I thought it was funny how when the offenders asked "What law is that? That says we can't dance?" and the cop couldn't answer him. That was most likely because in some cases dancing would be considered public demonstration (like in the case of a flash mob) but in this case it was one person, dancing quietly with earbuds in. No "demonstration" there.