Is it illegal to dance ?

On May 29 2011 20:01 darlhet wrote:
i lol'd at the two police officers jumping on that guy like if he was a dangerous criminal trying to escape, i guess that's what happens when you watch police fictions 24/7 in TV , you end up thinking your into one .

On May 29 2011 20:06 Navillus wrote:


I'd really like to know how you get handcuffs on someone who's resisting doing as little damage as you can, they either both get on him and force him or one guy could've just broken something to subdue him, which is preferable? Also I don't know what the law is to dancing in a public place/memorial/whatever (though I suspect that getting a group of people to come out and do that does qualify as a demonstration legally) but once a cop gives you a warning that you'll be arrested for doing something you don't do it five seconds later in his face, that's just stupid.

EDIT: Just saw the invite video, they were doing it because it was found to be illegal under a court ruling, they absolutely had it coming, and I'm fine with them doing it as a protest, but they can't then not expect or be prepared to be arrested.

On May 29 2011 19:56 gillon wrote:


Oh? I thought they were just dancing.

On May 29 2011 20:12 Ghostcom wrote:
What I don't get is, why would you even want to dance at the memorial? Would you also hold a rave party at Arlington? There is a place for everything, and whilst it might not be straight up illegal, it can still be disrespectful. The western society is based around freedom under responsibility and well, doing something that can hurt the feelings of so many just because you can doesn't seem very responsible.

That is not to say that I don't think the cops overreacted quite a bit, but then again, it's not like he didn't do anything to annoy them.

The cops wouldn't do anything if no psychopats would put in place laws just to arouse people's behaviour . Let's see what evolved out of this ... This may just be a small snowball , rolling and rolling and rolling until a lot of people start realizing how they're being f***ed every day of their lives with the illusion of freedoms and rights which are , in fact just ideas and fairy tale stories written on a peace of paper , which can in fact be ignored at any time , and if you don't believe this go search 1942 America Japonese people internment camps on wikipedia .... Good law abiding citizens thrown in internment camps just because their fathers were born in the wrong place .

W/e , this may be happening for a long time now , but since we get the internet now , we find about this unmoral actions in a blink of an eye .

On May 29 2011 20:16 Stabby.aus wrote:
sensationalist topic name much?

On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote:
You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny.

On May 29 2011 20:18 kataa wrote:


And they just chose a politically sensitive area where they know it would cause a stir and make a political point. Yeah, that doesn't sound like protesting to me.

On May 29 2011 20:23 bOne7 wrote:
Also it's not about dancing , it's not submiting to loosing , well in this case , a ridiculuos freedom .. Probably no1 cares if they can't dance at a memorial , in particular .. It's just , passing out legislation just to f***k with peoples heads ... It just like teasing a snake ... Wtf guys ?

It's just a little point of legislation is being passed without reason .
And if you are interested in what other pieces of legislation are being passed just without sense ... Research about the passing of the "Bill S510"

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.

On May 29 2011 20:26 Krehlmar wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UyiaR1PDhQ&

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.

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.

On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote:
You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny.

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 ..

On May 29 2011 20:38 Drium wrote:

Fuck the police.

On May 29 2011 20:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


Get to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks.

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)

On May 29 2011 20:26 Krehlmar wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UyiaR1PDhQ&

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.

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.

On May 29 2011 20:39 Navillus wrote:


You're right.









I do think that you're a conspiracy theorist.

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?

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

On May 29 2011 20:48 Navillus wrote:


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.

On May 29 2011 20:48 Navillus wrote:


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.

On May 29 2011 20:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


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.

On May 29 2011 20:26 Krehlmar wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UyiaR1PDhQ&

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.

On May 29 2011 20:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


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.

On May 29 2011 20:55 maartendq wrote:

Bodyslamming and chokeholding a person who's not even attacking you.. Isn't that straight up assault?

Then again, this is the US of A...

uhuh uhuh, this is why you get original's not videos from news sources, Fox seems to have muted the guy they were talking to yelling the entire time, the guy who was thrown to the ground was only thrown down after being told to put his hands behind his back a half a dozen times, oh and you think he was holding his hands up? Cause I saw him holding his hands away from the police officer who was trying to do his job and arrest him (seriously to everyone yelling at the cops are they supposed to NOT enforce the law as it stands?) Also, just because the news announcer on fox called what he did a "choke hold" does not make it a real choke hold, he put his hand on the guys neck, that was nothing close to an actual choke hold and if you're going to make a point of saying a choke grip is a big deal learn what it actually looks like.

As to the second guy, he was pulling his friend away from a police officer who was putting handcuffs on him (the friend was not resisting) that is absolutely interfering with police and resisting arrest.

On May 29 2011 20:56 Batssa wrote:
I can't really determine who here is American and not American (without looking at the tags) -- cause America is pretty leftist at the moment. I'm a liberal son of a bitch. Of course shit like this happens all of the time -- in countries from which many people are posting. I don't love America by any means, and I don't hate it -- that's where I was born. I hate articles like this that defame the legitimacy of anything American, because of an instance similar to the instances that occur around the world everyday in other developed countries. Dissapointing to see this type of intelligence so global.

On May 29 2011 20:56 Batssa wrote:
I can't really determine who here is American and not American (without looking at the tags) -- cause America is pretty leftist at the moment. I'm a liberal son of a bitch. Of course shit like this happens all of the time -- in countries from which many people are posting. I don't love America by any means, and I don't hate it -- that's where I was born. I hate articles like this that defame the legitimacy of anything American, because of an instance similar to the instances that occur around the world everyday in other developed countries. Dissapointing to see this type of intelligence so global.

On May 29 2011 20:12 Ghostcom wrote:
The western society is based around freedom under responsibility and well, doing something that can hurt the feelings of so many just because you can doesn't seem very responsible.

On May 29 2011 20:12 Ghostcom wrote:
That is not to say that I don't think the cops overreacted quite a bit, but then again, it's not like he didn't do anything to annoy them.

On May 29 2011 20:59 Vernom wrote:


Left isn't the same than liberal.

On May 29 2011 19:58 MrTortoise wrote:
what people forget is that there is no such typing as freedom. You only have freedom whilst the state lets you have freedom.

What you have are sadists in blue

Around February 1951 Ray Bradbury wrote:"So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your daredevils, jet cars, motorcycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex. If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with the theremin, loudly. I'll think I'm responding to the play, when it's only a tactile reaction to vibration. But I don't care. I just like solid entertainment."

On May 29 2011 20:53 Vernom wrote:


oh, the rules which doesn't mean to prevent the terrorists because there are others way to destroy a plane...

and what about the new scanner on the airports? and the new system to check the intimate parts of your 3 years old son?

we didn't have a 9/11, but we had 11/04, did you know? And we didn't put stupid rules cutting our freedom after that. Ignorant

Your government is fucking our contry with some rules, and we can't allow that because we have enough with our stupid politicians

On May 29 2011 20:58 Navillus wrote:


Would you please actually watch the first video and read the thread before responding? Or is that above you amazing Belgians? Either way you're not even worth a new response so here.

On May 29 2011 20:44 han_han wrote:
I can't help but side with the people dancing on this one. Yes, there are regulations and laws, but honestly it's ridiculous you can't do something as simple as dancing in a public memorial. It's not like they were spewing hate speech and pissing on the memorial, they were DANCING.

On May 29 2011 20:44 han_han wrote:
something as simple as dancing in a public memorial

On May 29 2011 21:01 DisneylandSC wrote:


No it isn't. Freedom of expression is only limited by the call for others to be harmed. Especially in America. In particular this is because offense is taken, not given. If people would have to refrain from any action thought or speech if one person were to appoint it offensive any expression would be stifled. As I can claim anything is offensive to me and there is no way for you to proof it otherwise.





Being annoying is not illegal. Also being annoying is subjective, see the above. Pretty sad post comming from someone from Denmark of all places. Cartoons anyone?

On May 29 2011 20:59 bOne7 wrote:
yo Navillus

Left brained to much ?

What you're saying , is that it is okay to not be safe under law to grow your own food , or drink fresh healthy water ?

Man , you must think very highly of yourself . Well humility is for loosers I guess ....

On May 29 2011 21:11 WinteRR wrote:
Arguing about whether this specific act is right or wrong is just silly. What should be being discussed is how pointless such an amendment is... what benefit does it bring to anyone? (stopping people from 'dancing' there?)

On May 29 2011 21:06 Navillus wrote:


God I actually can't stand people that say that we shouldn't have security because it will have holes, is it really possible to be that ignorant? So we should also get rid of laws against murder because people will do it anyway right?

You're right I didn't know about 11/04 (after a couple google searches I still don't) but I don't actually see it as a good thing that you don't want new laws to protect you after that, in fact to me that just seems like you just don't want to be inconvenienced even if it means a few more people will die.

On May 29 2011 21:16 Vernom wrote:


You don't get me. What I'm saying is those rules aren't helping to capture terrorists because they aren't going to mass murder with those ways.

Did some terrorist use liquids to create bombs in a plane? Do you know EU is going to allow to wear liquids in a plane again soon? Maybe that rule was stupid?

Do you think that is needed to scan our whole body to search weapons? Isn't that enough with manual metal detectors?

Checking the intimate parts from your 3 years old son is going to prevent bombs?

They just want to control the poblation, they started with small things using the Fear to terrorists and we will wake up without any freedom.


About 11/04, just check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

On May 29 2011 21:20 Navillus wrote:


Yes they won't use those ways because we have things to stop those methods, as far as I can tell you're saying the same thing which would also mean that guns should be legal because people will find other ways to kill anyway (I am aware that guns are legal in the US, just not OK with it) sure they might find other ways but if we make it easier more people will die.

As to the last paragraph, there you start to hit conspiracy theory levels so I'll just leave that alone.

On May 29 2011 21:24 bOne7 wrote:
Naviluss you are adressing the effect not the cause ... When you do that , you will only , in this case , put more and more laws , untill all the system falls because the citizens will not submit to laws anymore because they are getting ridiculuos .

You don't cure cancer by chimo , like you don't cure criminality by imposing laws . And anyway all this legal fiction is just a big scam . If you are smart and call for your special equity rights , you can avoid all the b/s that happens in the public court rooms . If you don't harm a human being or his property , then all the other laws may be avoided by simply not appearing in court as a person , but as , well ... scentient creation or whatever ... god damn it ... legal language is pretty messed up ..... And I know .... I got many friends in the legal system ... judges , lawyers .... I happen to be lucky in that respect ...

On May 29 2011 21:27 Navillus wrote:


See now you're back to just sort of saying things, there is nothing substantial in that paragraph for me to respond to soooo...

Think I'll go get breakfast now.

On May 29 2011 21:30 euroboy wrote:
Yea sure they broke the law I think they were aware of it. It's just that the law is stupid...

On May 29 2011 21:11 Ghostcom wrote:


Quote my entire post if you want to have a discussion, taking things out of context is never cool. You would notice I promoted freedom under responsibility, why piss off people just to piss them off?

Also, just because I'm from DK, what makes you think I see the drawings as stroke of genious? You don't see me commenting on you being from the Netherlands and Gert Wilders, do you? To generalize only makes you look like a moron, so how about refraining from that mr. Gravybrain... (personal attacks won't get you anywhere either).

On May 29 2011 21:36 Ocedic wrote:


There's quite a few stupid laws in every country. The fact is, democracy is a somewhat slow and inefficient process, especially when it becomes so bureaucratic. Doesn't mean that the best way to instill change is to break those laws.

I mean, of all the issues in America, you really don't think there's bigger fish to fry than trying to get the "No dancing at Jefferson Memorial" law vanquished?

On May 29 2011 20:58 Navillus wrote:


Would you please actually watch the first video and read the thread before responding? Or is that above you amazing Belgians? Either way you're not even worth a new response so here.

On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:

I really don't get people who defend fascist ways without any real insight on how laws work:

Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.

I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards.

On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.

I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards.

On May 29 2011 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


That's a very good question!

The simple answer that many people on this thread are giving is:

Rosa Parks.

...Which makes absolutely no sense.

On May 29 2011 21:36 DisneylandSC wrote:


Things were not taken out of context. I am adressing pillars of your argument. But I quoted your entire post now, happy? : D

I know you promoted freedom under responsibility. And I made an argument why that is a meaningless statement. Adress or admit I am right.

Also you mist my point about you being from Denmark. I am not attacking the cartoons but instead condemning the reactions by many government around the world on those cartoons. as these actions were precisely the point I made in my previous post.

Finally I don't think I called you names at any given moment in time.

Pretty sad post comming from someone from Denmark of all places. Cartoons anyone?

On May 29 2011 21:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

Current American society allows you to appeal court rulings and approach these judiciary cases in a professional manner. You don't go out of your way to break a law and then claim that *it's a stupid law anyway*.

On May 29 2011 21:47 bOne7 wrote:
Maaaaaaaan , i have the most terrible way of expressing myself , but there is some valid point in it if you look at it from a particular point of view ....

What you were saying , or whatever I understood by it , is that it is ok to impose more laws after terrorist attacks and so on .. What I said , is that , well ... no it makes no sense to adress the effect instead the cause .People will still die every day because of random reasons ... 3000 is nothing compared to how many people die form car crashes , drug abuse ( inclugind all the substances like : coffee, tabaco , alchool , etc ) , etcetc . We all die mofo , one day or later .. just make the best of it while we are here .... God damn it , this thread exploded ... This wasn't my intention .

My final statement about this incident : The cops did their job correctly , The court ruled in an unmoral manner ( from my pov ) , and the "protestants" civicly disobeyed to show they are not ok with such laws . I don't think they are atention whores .

See the feedback I got from this thread is pretty positive cuz it helped me to get a better understanding of the situation .

And about the left-right brain . I don't know research you have done or whoever foney scietntist did but it has been prooven that kids ability to learn are increased at young age ( well first because the brain is developing ) , but also because they have a balance in their brain chemistry , and the brain "communicates" with both of the sides in a natural manner . As you go in educational institution , you will get mostly left-brain education which inevitably creates an imbalance and the learning abilities are crippled .

If you believe this is b/s you can simply listen to bright people like .... hmmm ... let's say mister Albert ?

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

As I understand , the rightside of the brain is responsible for intuition , imagination , creation , and the left side , is for reason , logic , etc ( which are all , you should understand , that all of them are purely conceptual )

On May 29 2011 21:42 johanngrunt wrote:
So if it's ruled to be illegal, why didn't they challenge it in a court of law, instead of breaking the law by dancing?
That's completely counterproductive.

You fucking americans keep trying to hurt my brain XD.........

On May 29 2011 21:46 Tenz wrote:
I find myself filled with such rage when I see a couple who are merely swaying back and forth while cuddling arrested.

I'm not a "fuck da police" kind of person... but those officers are absolute filth. The civilians at the memorial should of gone Egypt on their asses and risen up together in unity. That little fucking badge on your chest doesn't give you the right to oppress freedom, it gives you the right to protect it.

On May 29 2011 21:54 Batssa wrote:
I'm sorry, did someone die here? Did someone suffer extreme treatment for injuries? An instance that happens everywhere. I don't know why this thread is still going.

And bullshit arguments about WWII, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks can go suck a dick.

On May 29 2011 22:00 Ocedic wrote:


Anyone who compares the people in the video to Rosa Parks is basically spitting on her grave and legacy.

On May 29 2011 22:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
squash those rl trolls

On May 29 2011 21:57 Ghostcom wrote:
What you are doing is basicly the equivalent of me saying you are an idiot because you come from the Netherlands and thus obviously must agree with Gert Wilders? I'm not willing to go in to such a discussion as it is pointless and I see no reason why I should be held accountable for the actions of other people (whom I might not agree with in the first place). So, thanks but no thanks, I won't discuss with you.

On May 29 2011 21:52 DisneylandSC wrote:
Also you mist my point about you being from Denmark. I am not attacking the cartoons but instead condemning the reactions by many government around the world on those cartoons. as these actions were precisely the point I made in my previous post.

On May 29 2011 22:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What are you talking about? I'm well aware that laws aren't fixed.

I'm certainly not talking about WWII or racial equality or comparing today's government to sixty years ago. That's what you guys are doing, and it's a faulty analogy.

I don't even claim to agree with this dance law. I have no idea why it exists. But in today's society, you don't show a law is unjust by breaking it. You can present your case for a law being wrong in a more professional manner than being abhorred by police officers doing their jobs when you do something illegal.

And I'm getting tired of reading posts that say that the cops were using excessive force. Seriously.

On May 29 2011 22:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


What are you talking about? I'm well aware that laws aren't fixed.

I'm certainly not talking about WWII or racial equality or comparing today's government to sixty years ago. That's what you guys are doing, and it's a faulty analogy.

I don't even claim to agree with this dance law. I have no idea why it exists. But in today's society, you don't show a law is unjust by breaking it. You can present your case for a law being wrong in a more professional manner than being abhorred by police officers doing their jobs when you do something illegal.

And I'm getting tired of reading posts that say that the cops were using excessive force. Seriously.

On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote:
How did this thread make it to 6 pages?

It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.

Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.

Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.

On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:

I really don't get people who defend fascist ways without any real insight on how laws work:

Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.

I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards.

On May 29 2011 22:04 Arkless wrote:


This is ridiculous. Apparently nazgul doesnt like people's freedoms. Squash those real life trolls? Give me a break with that shit, you should temp ban yourself for derailing the thread.

Did you actually watch the video and see how violent they were over people fucking dancing? or when the husband/wife couple were hugging and had a kiss?

Either you aren't happy yourself and see people who are and hate it (like the cops) or you are just retarded like the cops in this video, and the law.

User was warned for this post

On May 29 2011 22:14 7mk wrote:


Yep, thats also the 100% logical conclusion I came to after reading that post - either Nazgul is sad and hates happy people or he is retarded. Makes sense.

Oh and apparently everyone who disagrees with you needs to "get a life"

On May 29 2011 22:04 DisneylandSC wrote:


I implicitely state you are not responsible for other people their actions.



So why are you so mad? Also you still haven't adressed my point.

Oh and btw, I find it offensive if people other than myself use the letter "e". So please be responsible with your freedom and refrain from using it in your answer.

On May 29 2011 22:11 bOne7 wrote:
yo Navillus I would appreciate if you'd give me a book or a refference for your college psychology textbook so I can you know , expand my superficial knowledge on stuff . I guess I eventually have to start hardcore research on basic stuff .

On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.

On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.

They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.

These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.

What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with.

On May 29 2011 22:16 Arkless wrote:



Yep pretty much, now read why instead of just quoting a seperate comment. Arresting people for dancing............. If that doesn't sound stupid then I worry for the human race.

On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.

They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.

These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.

What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with.

On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.

They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.

These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.

What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with.

On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.

On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.

They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.

These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.

What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with.

On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote:

The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence.

On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:


Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.

On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote:
Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.

Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.

Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.

On May 29 2011 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Then by that standard, breaking any law that you disagree with is civil disobedience (since c.d. doesn't have to be peaceful and a law being "right" or "wrong" is purely subjective). I don't think you want to deal with that slippery slope.

On May 29 2011 22:29 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.

As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. You guys are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police here.

I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.

On May 29 2011 22:29 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.

On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote:



You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.

To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.

On May 29 2011 22:33 Arkless wrote:




And yes I got warned for disagreeing with you

On May 29 2011 22:17 Manifesto7 wrote:


Dude, you totally should have posted about the Nazis too.

On May 29 2011 22:04 Arkless wrote:


Apparently nazgul doesnt like people's freedoms. Squash those real life trolls? Give me a break with that shit, you should temp ban yourself for derailing the thread.

Either you aren't happy yourself and see people who are and hate it (like the cops) or you are just retarded like the cops in this video, and the law.

User was warned for this post

On May 29 2011 22:29 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:

I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.

As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. It seems some people in this thread are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police in the video.

I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.

On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote:



You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do.

On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote:
I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.

To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.

On May 29 2011 22:36 DisneylandSC wrote:


Then we simply have to agree to disagree. In my opinion he could have just handcuffed the guy and moved him away. But if it is needed to get him on the ground there are more suffisticated ways to do that other than a body slam. Which can result in serious head injury / broken bones / collapsed lungs.

On May 29 2011 22:33 Derez wrote:


And that's where you're just wrong.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.

On May 29 2011 22:32 Arkless wrote:
No one seems to be commenting on the laws the cops broke. It is illegal for a cop to strangle you, it is illegal for a cop to strike you, they can maneuver position and withstrain you. But you clearly see the cop give the guy 2 punches in the head (close fisted but with his palm still counts as a strike)
Is this footloose? A movie made about dancing being illegal......... Like this is serious lols, Like I said before glad these 8 cops were breaking up a few people slow dancing or jiving instead of busting drug dealers/rapists/murderers/drunk drivers. And who is to determine what is and isnt dancing? What if during this some guy had the shivers quick, they think he is dancing and boom gets arrested. The violent restraint used here is the real issue, cops abusing their power not people "trolling" (Which if u had ever seen an episode of adam vs the man you would realise that it isn't really them trolling)

On May 29 2011 22:27 Navillus wrote:


Where was it excessive? The guy being thrown to the ground? Because how should he have gotten him in handcuffs, asking nicely obviously wasn't working, should he have just grabbed his arms and forced them behind the guys back, because that's about as likely to break the guys arms as do anything productive. Frankly I thought he put him down lighter than he had to. Or are you angry about the 2 guys on the ground, because I seem to recall the one the cops were on top of was the one who physically interfered with an arrest by trying to pull his cooperating friend away from a cop, and that certainly warrants force. So please, where were they excessive?

On May 29 2011 22:36 Angra wrote:


Nope.

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





What if they were told by whoever manages them that either they go and break up the protest, or be fired? It's highly likely. In fact I 100% doubt that those cops were just cruising by, bored, and were like "hey dude lol lets go flaunt our power this should be fun!"

On May 29 2011 22:39 Arkless wrote:

Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment

he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say
Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.

On May 29 2011 22:41 Navillus wrote:


I really want to know where you're getting these laws from, because I am positive that police officers are allowed to strike people that are resisting arrest.

Also that is not a choke hold and it's actually absurd that you think it is, a choke hold requires choking, putting even two hands on someone's neck is not enough to make it a choke hold he wasn't even close to putting enough pressure to actually choke the guy out, he was keeping him pinned.