Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Um... they knew the law they were breaking before they even showed up.

So why is there a law against dancing in National Parks? Was it enough of a problem at some point that it needed to be introduced?

No idea. It was deemed as disrespectful. Watch the vid I posted.

As I said, these dipsh*&s should really work on those who made the law, not the ones tasked with enforcing it.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No idea. It was deemed as disrespectful. Watch the vid I posted.

As I said, these dipsh*&s should really work on those who made the law, not the ones tasked with enforcing it.

That they certainly should have. I just find these oddly specific laws really intriguing. Conjurs an image of National Park dancing sweeping the nation, causing untold damage.

Dancing is disrespectful?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is disrespectful?

Would you dance on a grave?

How about a war memorial?

Why should this memorial be any different?

Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Do you really think these asshats were dancing to commemorate whoever the memorial is to?

It was an act of defiance plain and simple, they shouldn't have been so surprised when they were nicked.

I wonder what would happen if a choreographer designed a political protest to be expressed through the medium of modern dance.

Would it protected by free speech laws?

Probably not if performed at a national memorial. Much like yelling your opinions out during a session of congress.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Do you really think these asshats were dancing to commemorate whoever the memorial is to?

It was an act of defiance plain and simple, they shouldn't have been so surprised when they were nicked.

But the reason for defiance is because some view that law as silly and ridiculous.

Cheesecat wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Do you really think these asshats were dancing to commemorate whoever the memorial is to?

It was an act of defiance plain and simple, they shouldn't have been so surprised when they were nicked.

But the reason for defiance is because some view that law as silly and ridiculous.

yea but you could make the same argument about Life (TM).

Cheesecat wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Do you really think these asshats were dancing to commemorate whoever the memorial is to?

It was an act of defiance plain and simple, they shouldn't have been so surprised when they were nicked.

But the reason for defiance is because some view that law as silly and ridiculous.

Look at it this way, these people wouldn't be dancing or even be there if it wasn't illegal.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dancing is a celebration
it could be an expression of thanks to those that died.

Who was it that is the Lord of the Dance again?

Do you really think these asshats were dancing to commemorate whoever the memorial is to?

It was an act of defiance plain and simple, they shouldn't have been so surprised when they were nicked.

But the reason for defiance is because some view that law as silly and ridiculous.

Look at it this way, these people wouldn't be dancing or even be there if it wasn't illegal.

This "protest" was in response to an earlier group who were arrested for dancing at the memorial (back in 2008). The original group wasn't protesting the law, they were simply having a good time.

This dancing appears to have been motivated by the recent decision by an appellate court.

Has anyone thought they were harassed by the Man not because of where they were dancing, but just because they sucked at it?

Frazzled wrote:Has anyone thought they were harassed by the Man not because of where they were dancing, but just because they sucked at it?

I dunno, have you seen the Man dance? It's like a Dad at a wedding. That said, it could have been envy of their sweet moves that so angered him.

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder what would happen if a choreographer designed a political protest to be expressed through the medium of modern dance.

Would it protected by free speech laws?

With the proper documentation and paperwork yes. We let Neo-Nazis march through a jewish neighborhood because they had taken the time to fill out the proper paperwork.

Yeah, I don't sympathize much with these dudes. Is it a little silly not to let people dance? Maybe. But as soon as the cops tell you to put your hands behind your back, flipping do it.

When you start being non compliant, screaming, or actually trying to drag your friend out of the cop's arms, you are just being a dick. I can't help but think that these guys, based on their attitude, were trying to provoke some over the top response from the cops just to justify themselves.

I'm wondering if they had done this at Arlington we would have as much trouble grasping why partying at monuments is not encouraged. It may seem a bit silly on the surface but these aren't places to toss your blanket down, turn on a stereo, and get funky with a bunch of friends. Still, with the proper advanced notice and filing you can do that. Having a spontaneous party next to national artifacts is generally not a good idea. We don't want to have to put up a little sign that explains that the chip in Jefferson's foot came from when Kappa Kappa Kappa had a kegger and Phil tripped.

It is also going to be a selectively enforced law. If you choose to pop n lock for a moment while there with friends to show off you aren't going to be arrested, but show up in a group and just do it to annoy visitors and Parks Services the odds are you will be asked to leave and if you don't, well, you see what happens. Of course, again, if they had made notice of it and dropped off the permit they could have looked like idiots all day.

Arlington Cemetery isn't a National Park.

Kilkrazy wrote:Arlington Cemetery isn't a National Park.

My bad, i thought it was run by the National Parks Service. It does oversee several national cemeteries. I would still be willing to be that dancing there is prohibited (in this fashion) and would result in the same end result. It would just be friendly MP's that drag you out of the park instead of civilian police.

Its just a military cemetary even though several memorials are on its grounds, the Tomb of the Unkowns, Netherlands Carillon, USMC War Memorial, Arlington Memorial Amphitheater, USS Maine Memorial, and Arlington House. The cemetary has signs requesting silence out of respect and most people have the common decency to abide.

What an asshat, they shoulda tazed him.

fire4effekt wrote:What an asshat, they shoulda tazed him.

But, Bro....

Here is a link with some more info from ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/park-police-investigate-arrests-dancing-jefferson-memorial/story?id=13720498

The protestors knew what they were doing was illegal. They should have gotten papers for it, but then they would not have the coverage they got from it which I am sure was their intention. The law they were protesting is to stop people from disturbing other peoples visit to memorials, the protestors intent was cause disruption. This does not strengthen their position on the law they wish to change, the opposite outcome happens really. I have not seen the original case that led to the ruling that upset these folks so much. There is plenty info on this new arrest, anyone have a link for the '08 arrests?

The police did an OK job save for the hands around the protestors neck. Obstructing an airway is a big no no especially in that situation where the officer was only encountering non violent resistance(the officer didn't have a tight grip on his neck but will a jury see it that way?). I personally am OK with the pick up and drop, he was told repeatedly to get down and was resisting vocal direction and physical direction after vocal failed. I am sure the protestor will play up the force used on him. It is likely this was also his intention much like the tactics the Westboro Babtist Church's to get someone upset enough to do something stupid or something that may be conceived as excessive.

I have attended legal demonstrations in the past. Even in legal demonstrations there are groups who go about protesting the wrong way receiving negative attention.

The law they were protesting was to restrict freedom of speech period. Licensing is a just a way to make it possible to stick charges to whoever is dumb enough to be the license holder when either a random gak or an agent provocateur stirs gak (while the cops watch the gak but take no action to stop him of course).

And while they may have known they were violating the law, frequently the only way to challenge gak like this in court is to get your ass arrested (which is also why they usually release protesters without charge). When you march off to fight a war with a foreign power you have to put yourself in a situation where you'll get shot at, when you try to fight the US government, you have to put yourself in a courtroom.

As for preventing disruption, guess what, protesting is *supposed* to be disruptive. Its meant to draw attention to the fact that a large number of people have been pissed off enough to scream and rant about it in public.

Well, back in the day, the limits on free speech were held up by things like 'decorum' and 'common decency', and as those have fallen by the wayside, legislation has had to move in. Sad? Yes. Necessary? Debatable. Regardless, you don't resist the arresting officers unless you are a dick for it's own sake.

Bromsy wrote:Regardless, you don't resist the arresting officers unless you are a dick for it's own sake.

Agreed. If anything, you should make a show of not resisting arrest. It would strength your cause much more, and people wouldn't think you were so much of an idiot.

Personally, I'm not against laws requiring people to act with decorum around memorials. In the majority of cases, those to whom the memorial stands have earned the right to respect from any who are in that country. If people are not willing to give it, they should be removed from the site. Arrested? I'm not so sure. Is dancing necessarily disrepectful? That would have to be on a case by case basis.

J-Roc77 wrote:Here is a link with some more info from ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/park-police-investigate-arrests-dancing-jefferson-memorial/story?id=13720498

The protestors knew what they were doing was illegal. They should have gotten papers for it, but then they would not have the coverage they got from it which I am sure was their intention. The law they were protesting is to stop people from disturbing other peoples visit to memorials, the protestors intent was cause disruption. This does not strengthen their position on the law they wish to change, the opposite outcome happens really. I have not seen the original case that led to the ruling that upset these folks so much. There is plenty info on this new arrest, anyone have a link for the '08 arrests?

The police did an OK job save for the hands around the protestors neck. Obstructing an airway is a big no no especially in that situation where the officer was only encountering non violent resistance(the officer didn't have a tight grip on his neck but will a jury see it that way?). I personally am OK with the pick up and drop, he was told repeatedly to get down and was resisting vocal direction and physical direction after vocal failed. I am sure the protestor will play up the force used on him. It is likely this was also his intention much like the tactics the Westboro Babtist Church's to get someone upset enough to do something stupid or something that may be conceived as excessive.

I have attended legal demonstrations in the past. Even in legal demonstrations there are groups who go about protesting the wrong way receiving negative attention.

They should have tazed them bro.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requia wrote:The law they were protesting was to restrict freedom of speech period. Licensing is a just a way to make it possible to stick charges to whoever is dumb enough to be the license holder when either a random gak or an agent provocateur stirs gak (while the cops watch the gak but take no action to stop him of course).

And while they may have known they were violating the law, frequently the only way to challenge gak like this in court is to get your ass arrested (which is also why they usually release protesters without charge). When you march off to fight a war with a foreign power you have to put yourself in a situation where you'll get shot at, when you try to fight the US government, you have to put yourself in a courtroom.

As for preventing disruption, guess what, protesting is *supposed* to be disruptive. Its meant to draw attention to the fact that a large number of people have been pissed off enough to scream and rant about it in public.

Go protest somewhere else. Thats not what memorials are for, er. If they hit them with sticks hard enough there won't be any lawsuits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Well, back in the day, the limits on free speech were held up by things like 'decorum' and 'common decency', and as those have fallen by the wayside, legislation has had to move in. Sad? Yes. Necessary? Debatable. Regardless, you don't resist the arresting officers unless you are a dick for it's own sake.

Indeed.

Frazzled wrote: er.

I'm sure there's no need to bleep 'Protester'. surely that's you meant, right....?