EPTIt's a stupid law and a stupid ruling of course - who's supposed to know this stuff? They'd need clear signs referencing the particular bill but it's still ridiculous.
Is it illegal to dance ? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
One more "fuck the police" from page 8 and onward is going to have an all expense paid weekend to E-Disneyland. It adds nothing to the discussion and as such please refrain from making such posts in this topic and the boards in general. | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
It's a stupid law and a stupid ruling of course - who's supposed to know this stuff? They'd need clear signs referencing the particular bill but it's still ridiculous. | ||
|
bOne7
Romania85 Posts
My concern is that we as human beings forget the conection we had to each other and "nature" ( while ofcourse everything on this planet , even the nuclear plants are natural , because they are made by us , us being part of nature ) , and since we forgot about this conection we created a deep disturbing psychoses in our human colective psychic .. And as it seems now , most of the psychopats rule the world ... These people aren't repulsive or anything ... Look at the case of Ted Bundy ... He was a very charming and apparently decent human being ... But ... what he did ... If you think I'm a retarted conspiracy theorist ... Well I left that behind , and now I'm trying only to give my persepctive on things , and trying to analyze every problem from both sides of the spectrum ... Making hydraulic fracturing legal . home gardening outlawed .... Man ... this is all f***ed up .. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:30 bOne7 wrote: I didn't open this topic to be a sensational discution or whatever , I'm just searching for a proper response to why this particular part of legislation be passed . Why o why after over 50 years just now , it is illegal to dance at the memorial ? I'm still waiting for a logical response from a sane human being. Ok you really need to start reading, I already said this in a reply to you, but that wasn't a piece of legislation that was a court ruling, as in an interpretation of an existing law. It didn't exist before because the issue hadn't been brought to court before, please read. | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote: You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny. Fuck the police. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:37 bOne7 wrote: Why am I interested in US actions ? Well , it is pretty simple ... USA is the sole superpower now ... Well China is rising up , but still it doesn't have the capability to wage war like the US has ... If this superpower slips into fascism ... Well ... It's gg humans ... Well most of us .. My concern is that we as human beings forget the conection we had to each other and "nature" ( while ofcourse everything on this planet , even the nuclear plants are natural , because they are made by us , us being part of nature ) , and since we forgot about this conection we created a deep disturbing psychoses in our human colective psychic .. And as it seems now , most of the psychopats rule the world ... These people aren't repulsive or anything ... Look at the case of Ted Bundy ... He was a very charming and apparently decent human being ... But ... what he did ... If you think I'm a retarted conspiracy theorist ... Well I left that behind , and now I'm trying only to give my persepctive on things , and trying to analyze every problem from both sides of the spectrum ... Making hydraulic fracturing legal . home gardening outlawed .... Man ... this is all f***ed up .. You're right. I do think that you're a conspiracy theorist. | ||
|
Indrium
United States2236 Posts
I'm not sure how to feel about your name in relation to mine. On topic though, some police moves are silly. This is one of those. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
Are you seriously comparing African American rights with dancing near a statue? REALLY?! From the 2008 case and appeals: On April 12, 2008, Mary Brooke Oberwetter and seventeen friends gathered inside the memorial on the eve of the former president's birthday with the intent of honoring him. The form they chose to honor him was by dancing "for the most part by themselves, in place, each listening to his or her music on headphones" because in this way they were expressing "the individualist spirit for which Jefferson is known." (Opinion p. 5) Now, the Park Service has lots of regulations that generally bar demonstrations and the like in parks and monuments in and around Washington, D.C. unless a permit has been applied for and issued by the agency. In the special case of the Jefferson Memorial (along with the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial), permits will not be issued for demonstrations and special events to protect "legitimate security and park value interests, including the maintenance of an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence in the vicinity of [these] memorials." (p. 3) Separate regulations further bar individuals from interfering with the agency as it goes about protecting the nation's parks and monuments. So, on April 12, 2008 when Officer Kenneth Hilliard ordered Ms. Oberwetter and her friends to stop dancing and leave the memorial, she refused and challenged the order. Officer Hilliard arrested her for demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function. (p. 1) Oberwetter sued Officer Hilliard in his personal capacity and sued the Secretary of the Department of the Interior in his official capacity. Her theory was that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects her expressive dancing. The agency and Hilliard moved for dismissal of the case. The district court has granted the motions for dismissal and Oberwetter is left out in the cold. (p. 2) Essentially, the court has bowed to the agency's interpretation of its regulations and found those regulations to be reasonable. The court states, "the Jefferson Memorial has the specialized purpose of publicizing one of the nation's founders—supporters and critics alike may visit the Memorial to contemplate Jefferson's place in history. This purpose marks the Memorial as unique, and hence unlike quintessential examples of public fora. …" (p. 15) The court goes on to conclude that barring expressive activities in a nonpublic forum (such as the Jefferson Memorial) does not violate the First Amendment if it is viewpoint neutral and is "reasonable in light of the use to which the forum is dedicated." (p. 16) In this case, the court finds that the regulation is "viewpoint neutral" and reasonable. Since Oberwetter's case against Officer Hilliard is based on a contention that he violated her constitutional rights, and since the court has concluded that she possessed no such right, then this part of her case "necessarily fails." (p. 21) Finally, the court concludes that Officer Hilliard had probable cause to arrest Oberwetter and therefore her claim that he violated the Fourth Amendment for false arrest is also dismissed. (p. 23) http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/records/file/Oberwetter.pdf That sounds like a perfectly legitimate ruling. Honoring him is considered demonstrating because dishonoring would also be demonstrating. Therefore, the law is viewpoint neutral. | ||
|
mustache
Switzerland309 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:26 Krehlmar wrote: Well FOX actually made some real news... Anyone going "oh dem kids hate the law with their potsmocking" just watch the footage, Adam gets bodyslammed against the ground and held with a chokegrip whilst holding his hands up. That's a huge deal, chokegrip is (atleast in sweden) a huge overstepping of violence. EDIT: To put it in perspective, you could get 6 years in prison in Sweden for that. And yes, it does not have to be with the intent of killing or choking you, just holding a chokegrip is bad enough. way to take it out of context. FOX displayed only those segments that protrayed the police as the "bad guys" if you would have watched the other video, the full video, you would see that the guy get asked to put his hands behind his back nicely around ten times. how would you arrest someone who doesnt want to be arrested without violence? and how do you know he was choking him? he had his hand on his neck, that doesnt mean he was pressing hard enough to restrict air flow. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:35 turbopasca1 wrote: This is ridicilous - u.s. people think they have too much freedom, they can dance on your grave , party in library , have sex in whitehouse , this was a provocative act , to watch the cops reaction , the arrest was legal. When a cop asks u to stop dancing in a public area , u should **ing stop , and not act like a clown. Do you know what provocative means? Yes the arrest was legal, I don't think many people are arguing against that, but if a single person with an ipod walking around isn't allowed to move around funny, because that could be protesting. That is a step in the wrong direction and away from all the ideals the country was founded on. | ||
|
Vernom
Spain374 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:39 Navillus wrote: You're right. I do think that you're a conspiracy theorist. well, here in Spain our government has put some new laws which cut freedom for us, under pressure from the american government and we can't forget about the new security rules from the airports, who came from USA | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:40 dcemuser wrote: Are you seriously comparing African American rights with dancing near a statue? REALLY?! I'm comparing having the right to move your body in public in a harmless manner to sitting where you want to sit on the bus. In both situations, the law asked people to stop and in both situations, the person disobeyed in a civil manner. Elementary school children can understand this, why can't you? | ||
|
han_han
United States205 Posts
| ||
|
Vernom
Spain374 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote: I'm comparing having the right to move your body in public in a harmless manner to sitting where you want to sit on the bus. In both situations, the law asked people to stop and in both situations, the person disobeyed in a civil manner. Elementary school children can understand this, why can't you? if they don't allow you to leave your house with a non logic reason, are you going to sit and obey? | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote: I'm comparing having the right to move your body in public in a harmless manner to sitting where you want to sit on the bus. In both situations, the law asked people to stop and in both situations, the person disobeyed in a civil manner. Elementary school children can understand this, why can't you? No, you're twisting the situation to ignore the context on purpose to sensationalize the topic as usual. The first situation was about one person not having the same rights as another person. The second situation is about no people having the right to demonstrate in a park area - not just people of a certain race, creed, gender, or religion. Those are COMPLETELY different situations. The first is clearly injust, while the second is viewpoint neutral. You just feel that the country is getting worse and worse so you take the negative side of each story without looking at the laws and rulings or thinking about what would happen if the law didn't exist. You can't just make judgements in a span of 3 seconds, yet you are. | ||
|
RA
Latvia791 Posts
| ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:43 Vernom wrote: well, here in Spain our government has put some new laws which cut freedom for us, under pressure from the american government and we can't forget about the new security rules from the airports, who came from USA Oh NO!!! After 9/11 and multiple terrorist attempts, including on international flights we should just sit back and not use what power we have to try to stop it from happening again!!! God why didn't I think of that!!! On a less sarcastic note I will not feel bad or guilty for you guys getting airport security because of us, frankly you should be thanking god that you didn't need a 9/11 to happen to decide to implement this stuff. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:47 dcemuser wrote: No, you're twisting the situation to ignore the context on purpose to sensationalize the topic as usual. The first situation was about one person not having the same rights as another person. The second situation is about no people having the right to demonstrate in a park area - not just people of a certain race, creed, gender, or religion. Those are COMPLETELY different situations. So what you're saying is the law doesn't discriminate, it fucks over everyone by taking away their freedom of expression. I don't get how that doesn't make the Law look bad. How about this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367637/Symbol-defiance-Bahrain-government-tears-statue-uses-focus-pro-democracy-protests.html Bahrain doesn't want people dancing near a statue, so they tear it down. Stupid Bahrainians trying to express yourself, y'all deserve to be arrested. | ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sounds like some ignorant guy who just wants to break laws and get other people into trouble to be on television. I don't know why the courts have made the ruling they did, but when the people go out of their way to be idiots, they're just asking for trouble. I doubt Adam did any research on the court case before doing his illegal demonstration. Seems pretty immature to me. "We found a weird law, so let's break it and wonder why we're getting arrested!" Sure, people are more than welcome to disagree with the courts' ruling, but breaking the law and then being stupefied is not how you go about displaying your opinions in a professional manner. Take it up with the courts; don't go breaking the law first. What morons. Totally agree with this, but just the fact that the police way over exaggerated. I believe the only reason this is getting so much attention and negativity towards the police. Isn't because of the law, well maybe a little but its mostly due to how the police responded to this kind of situation, it was overkill. However these protesters are incredibly idiotic, they should be protesting on something that really matters. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote: I'm comparing having the right to move your body in public in a harmless manner to sitting where you want to sit on the bus. In both situations, the law asked people to stop and in both situations, the person disobeyed in a civil manner. Elementary school children can understand this, why can't you? BAHAAH thats only cause they are much less biased than "smart" people. | ||
|
delHospital
Poland261 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sounds like some ignorant guy who just wants to break laws and get other people into trouble to be on television. I don't know why the courts have made the ruling they did, but when the people go out of their way to be idiots, they're just asking for trouble. I doubt Adam did any research on the court case before doing his illegal demonstration. Seems pretty immature to me. "We found a weird law, so let's break it and wonder why we're getting arrested!" Sure, people are more than welcome to disagree with the courts' ruling, but breaking the law and then being stupefied is not how you go about displaying your opinions in a professional manner. Take it up with the courts; don't go breaking the law first. What morons. It's not called "being a moron", it's "civil disobedience". | ||
| ||
