New Law Makes it Illegal to DANCE at the Jefferson Memorial

[tjaisv]

This law is clearly unconstitutional and while it may just be the doings of some self-righteous pinhead judge it's yet another example of how our civil liberties are being routinely trampled on by the federal govt et all!

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

But this one is just insane lol...and to see these storm trooper cops actually enforcing this stupid law is just yet another example of mindless authoritarian enforcement. I wonder what's next?...

 

[Locut0s]

Someone needs to arrange a huge dance flash mob at the memorial!! And put it on youtube of course.

 

[OCGuy]

We can dance if we want to..

 

[Bateluer]

Question: Why exactly would you want to dance at the Jefferson Memorial?

Question 2: Why no respect for a great man?

 

[al981]

so what? you americans accept molestation of babies at airports. for the fatherland!

 

[Ichigo]

Question: Why exactly would you want to dance at the Jefferson Memorial?

Question 2: Why no respect for a great man?

1. It doesn't matter.

2. If you watch the video, they do explain that, in their opinion, small acts of rebellion do honor Jefferson's memory.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

these people are clearly terrorists

 

[coloumb]

Video announcing they are going to break the law:

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

Actual video [rather than some 1 side fox news report] indicating they were warned about being arrested for dancing:

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

It's the law - no matter how ridiculous they may think it is - they broke the law and thus were arrested.

I for one would find it very annoying if someone was flailing all over the place at a national monument.

 

[KaOTiK]

Hold on, this ISN"T an Onion video?

 

[Howard]

Irrelevant question 1

Irrelevant question 2

Any more questions?

 

[zinfamous]

lol. government overstepping and controlling the behavior around a memorial to the man that most hated government.

 

[Locut0s]

Question 2: Why no respect for a great man?

Forcing people to show respect would be against everything he stands for.

 

[BoberFett]

This country has become a joke.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Dance is behavior. It can be regulated.

Waving a gun around can express something. Doesn't mean that there cannot be laws against brandishing a firearm.

 

[zinfamous]

Question: Why exactly would you want to dance at the Jefferson Memorial?

Question 2: Why no respect for a great man?

dudewtf?

do you know anything about Jefferson?

 

[mugs]

We can dance if we want to..

We can leave your friends behind
cause your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance
well they're no friends of mine

 

[BoberFett]

Dance is behavior. It can be regulated.

Waving a gun around can express something. Doesn't mean that there cannot be laws against brandishing a firearm.

Can is not should.

A person can bend over and insert their head in their anus and push until their collarbone is grinding their sphincter, that does not mean they should.

Of course in your case, I'd make an exception.

 

[BoomerD]

How is this unconstitutional?

What part of the US Constitution guarantees you the right to dance at the Jefferson Memorial...or anywhere for that matter?

 

[lxskllr]

How is this unconstitutional?

What part of the US Constitution guarantees you the right to dance at the Jefferson Memorial...or anywhere for that matter?

Prior restraint

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.

Freedom of expression

While freedom of expression by non-speech means is commonly thought to be protected under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has only recently taken this view. As late as 1968 (United States v. O'Brien) the Supreme Court stated that regulating non-speech can justify limitations on speech. The Court carried this distinction between speech and expression through the early part of the 1980s (Clark v. CCNV, 1984). It was not until the flag-burning cases of 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and 1990 (United States v. Eichman), that the Supreme Court accepted that non-speech means applied to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

 

[Bateluer]

dudewtf?

do you know anything about Jefferson?

Yes, I do.

Posters responded to question 2 well, but question 1 remains unanswered. Why would you want to? And no, 'Because I felt like it' is not an good answer.

And for the record, the law is idiotic and won't survive a court challenge. It will, however, cost the taxpayers a bundle as it works its way through.

 

[Meghan54]

How is this unconstitutional?

What part of the US Constitution guarantees you the right to dance at the Jefferson Memorial...or anywhere for that matter?

Nonsense statement when you think about it. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, either, but we assume we have one.

The salient question, at least from what I can see, is why there has to be a law against dancing at the Memorial at all? What prompted such stupidity?

Glad things were different when I lived in the D.C. area. We, the small group of us who hung out together....all 4 of us, got toasted more than once on the steps of both the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, not to mention all over Arlington Nat'l. Cemetery, Iwo Jima Monument, etc., etc.

But at least we weren't dancing.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yes, I do.

Posters responded to question 2 well, but question 1 remains unanswered. Why would you want to? And no, 'Because I felt like it' is not an good answer.

And for the record, the law is idiotic and won't survive a court challenge. It will, however, cost the taxpayers a bundle as it works its way through.

Who gives a fuck? That's a good enough reason.

 

[Howard]

Yes, I do.

Posters responded to question 2 well, but question 1 remains unanswered.

It's a question for which any answer will have no consequence, and the question itself is irrelevant, so why bother asking it?

 

[ProfJohn]

The kids in the video are a bunch of assholes.

Freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to disobey the police or resist arrest.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out in court.

 

[Meghan54]

Yes, I do.

Posters responded to question 2 well, but question 1 remains unanswered. Why would you want to? And no, 'Because I felt like it' is not an good answer.

Why isn't it good enough?