No Freedom in New York

[GoPackGo]

Link

Now this is stupid. The New York Supreme Court says dancing is not protected by Freedom of Expression.

 

[sandorski]

I dunno. Doesn't ban Dancing, just bans it from specific establishments.

 

[JEDIYoda]

much tadoo about nothing...
As usual the OP mislabeled the thread to get people to read it...

 

[Schadenfroh]

It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

I'm sure this law is applied in an unconstitutional manner for the benefit of businesses that paid for the law.

Very sad to see the usual America haters in here supporting this law.

 

[judasmachine]

Quick someone call Kevin Bacon.


Seriously though, this is stupid. The city just wants more money for every little thing people do.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing...
As usual the OP mislabeled the thread to get people to read it...

So the judge says dancing is not protected by freedom of expression and that a dancing ban was upheld and I mislabeled it? :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Durned Red States!!! 😀

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Durned Red States!!! 😀

We're not in Kansas anymore Toto!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing...
As usual the OP mislabeled the thread to get people to read it...

So the judge says dancing is not protected by freedom of expression and that a dancing ban was upheld and I mislabeled it? :roll:

So is yelling fire in a crowded theater a protected freedom ? Is dancing in the middle of a freeway during the height of evening traffic a protected freedom ?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

I'm sure this law is applied in an unconstitutional manner for the benefit of businesses that paid for the law.

Very sad to see the usual America haters in here supporting this law.

"1926 The cabaret law is created to crack down on multiracial Harlem jazz clubs. "Most of the jazz in 1926 was being played in clubs in Harlem where there were mixed groups. And a lot of people considered jazz to be a mongrelized, degenerate music," "

A old article but still relevant as background.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

I'm sure this law is applied in an unconstitutional manner for the benefit of businesses that paid for the law.

Very sad to see the usual America haters in here supporting this law.

"1926 The cabaret law is created to crack down on multiracial Harlem jazz clubs. "Most of the jazz in 1926 was being played in clubs in Harlem where there were mixed groups. And a lot of people considered jazz to be a mongrelized, degenerate music," "

Yay and let's re-enslave blacks and take away women's right to vote while at it too since you guys love these bans.

 

[Fern]

I think you guys need to reread the article. Dancing is banned city-wide, not in certain areas or certain establishments.

Only certain establishments (300) can offer dancing. They have received a license permitting them to do so.

Originally posted by: sandorski
I dunno. Doesn't ban Dancing, just bans it from specific establishments.

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

 

[palehorse]

stupid.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Fern
I think you guys need to reread the article. Dancing is banned city-wide, not in certain areas or certain establishments.

Law bans dancing in ordinary bars and restaurants in New York City

[*]The plaintiffs claimed that in the 1960s, about 1,000 places legally allowed patrons to dance, but fewer than 300 such places exist now.
[*]Law bans dancing in ordinary bars and restaurants in New York City

How difficult is it to acquire said license, at what cost, and is the approval of the license based on the proximity to residential areas?

Is it legal to dance in your private home as long as you do not turn it into a club? (charge for admission or sell drinks)

 

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
The city just wants more money for every little thing people do.

No kidding. It's ridiculous. The city that hosts US Open Tennis and tries to promote tennis DOESN'T have FREE tennis courts. You have to pay for access.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Fern
I think you guys need to reread the article. Dancing is banned city-wide, not in certain areas or certain establishments.

Law bans dancing in ordinary bars and restaurants in New York City

[*]The plaintiffs claimed that in the 1960s, about 1,000 places legally allowed patrons to dance, but fewer than 300 such places exist now.
[*]Law bans dancing in ordinary bars and restaurants in New York City

How difficult is it to acquire said license, at what cost, and is the approval of the license based on the proximity to residential areas?

Is it legal to dance in your private home as long as you do not turn it into a club? (charge for admission or sell drinks)

Dunno the answer to those questions. Haven't lived in NYC for over 10 yrs now.

But I think the real point of the OP is that of a constitutional question - The 1st amendment freedom of speech, which has been broadly interpreted so far to mean freedom of expression. Seems to me the curtailment of this in NYC is based upon the "breach of peace" exception. Anyhoo, that's my guess.

C. Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a ban on dancing.... it only bans it in certain places near residential areas where it is known to cause too much noise, I agree with this law.

Are there laws against noise pollution? Yes.

Are there laws against messing with others property (such as shaking your neighbors walls, etc)? Yes.

Why was this law necessary again?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing...
As usual the OP mislabeled the thread to get people to read it...

So the judge says dancing is not protected by freedom of expression and that a dancing ban was upheld and I mislabeled it? :roll:

So is yelling fire in a crowded theater a protected freedom ? Is dancing in the middle of a freeway during the height of evening traffic a protected freedom ?

Yes, yelling a fire in a crowded theater is protected. As long as there's actually a fire.

I get sick of people using the damn "fire in a theater" excuse every time freedom of speech is discussed, even if they haven't got a clue what it means. The reason yelling fire may not protected is because of intent. If you think there's a fire, you smell smoke, you see something burning, then you have every right to yell it. If on the other hand you're just pulling a prank that ends up with people getting hurt when there was never a fire, you are guilty of negligence at the least.

That and dancing have nothing in common. The intent when dancing is not to cause panic or injure. It's because you enjoy the music and want to move. It's one of the oldest forms of expression, just slightly newer than music itself.

Please, if you don't understand simple concepts such as intent, don't bother weighing in with your totally uninformed opinion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing...
As usual the OP mislabeled the thread to get people to read it...

So the judge says dancing is not protected by freedom of expression and that a dancing ban was upheld and I mislabeled it? :roll:

So is yelling fire in a crowded theater a protected freedom ? Is dancing in the middle of a freeway during the height of evening traffic a protected freedom ?

Yes, yelling a fire in a crowded theater is protected. As long as there's actually a fire.

I get sick of people using the damn "fire in a theater" excuse every time freedom of speech is discussed, even if they haven't got a clue what it means.

The reason yelling fire may not protected is because of intent. If you think there's a fire, you smell smoke, you see something burning, then you have every right to yell it. If on the other hand you're just pulling a prank that ends up with people getting hurt when there was never a fire, you are guilty of negligence at the least.

That and dancing have nothing in common.

The intent when dancing is not to cause panic or injure.

It's because you enjoy the music and want to move.

It's one of the oldest forms of expression, just slightly newer than music itself.

Please, if you don't understand simple concepts such as intent, don't bother weighing in with your totally uninformed opinion.

:shocked: One of the rare times we actually agree on something.