Utopia Talk / Politics / Arrested for silently dancing...cont.

Trolly McSerious Member	Sun May 29 11:55:22 Because it's going to need it.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 11:57:40 Good thread, good thread.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 12:00:18 Forwyn - Hot Rod, asserting that Westboro has a constitutional right to picket a funeral, a disruptive act at a solemn occasion. According to The United States Supreme Court they do have that right. I disagree with The USSC on that decision, but I do agree with the decision to keep Memorials sacred. You may believe that is a contradiction in my thinking, but it is not. I think people have a right to be left in peace whether it be by Westboro or a gang of rowdies at a Memorial. Is it a contradiction in the law. Yes, I believe it is. I think they made a huge error in the Westboro decision. And with that, I leave you to yourselves.
Trolly McSerious Member	Sun May 29 12:01:21 Good stuff...
Forwyn Member	Sun May 29 12:11:12 So you agree that while it may be disruptive, emotionally charged, and offensive, it is protected by the Constitution and the USSC. As the USSC case is more recent, and the USSC obviously trumps a DC federal court, this kind of behavior would have to be protected.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 12:14:05 Forwyn, as I clearly stated. The Westboro decision is bullshit.
Aeros Member	Sun May 29 12:18:58 Westboro never actually "disrupted" the funeral though. They were just there. People could choose to ignore them. Hijacking a monument on the other hand does infringe on other peoples right to view and enjoy it. If they were just walking around holding a sign or handing out pamphlets, it would be fine. But they were dancing around and bothering everyone else.
Aeros Member	Sun May 29 12:19:50 Taken to logical extremes, free expression protects Sex in public because they are just showing the world how much they love each other.
Paramount Member	Sun May 29 12:20:29 " I think people have a right to be left in peace whether it be by Westboro or a gang of rowdies at a Memorial. " - Hot Rod ...or by settlers and the IDF?
Aeros Member	Sun May 29 12:30:51 Didn't we agree to DOS Paramount the moment he brought up Israel in an unrelated thread?
Paramount Member	Sun May 29 12:33:09 No we didn't. And this is not an unrelated question. I am checking to see how far Hot Rod believes people have the right to be left in peace.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 12:33:58 "But they were dancing around and bothering everyone else." - Source?
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 12:44:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI
miltonfriedman Member	Sun May 29 12:55:38 looks like the popos caused more problems than those hippies.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 13:01:58 You can oppose and demonstrate against any law you wish, that is your right. But, if you refuse to follow a lawful order by the police you will pay the consequences. The cops were doing their sworn and legal duty.
Trolly McSerious Member	Sun May 29 13:03:08 So were the police who were serving a search warrant in a home that you had a problem with too...
Sam Adams Member	Sun May 29 13:09:07 aeros has a point. i hate saying that
Sam Adams Member	Sun May 29 13:49:53 so basically, this was a herd of dirty hippies who decided to protest in a spot where they knew protesting was banned. and they got owned. lulz.
Chris Dodd Member	Sun May 29 14:21:29 “I hate victims who respect their executioners.” Jean-Paul Sartre quotes
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun May 29 14:23:21 I'm glad everyone else caught onto my Westboro comparison. :) In the case of National Memorials - I think it would probably be appropriate to set aside 2 hours once a week for protesting and dance parties and the like. It'll add to the experience, the way "save the tamil tigers" protesters outside the capital added to my most recent experience of visiting DC. In the case of funerals - If an average cemetery has 14 funerals a week lasting 1 hours each with an additional 30 minute before/after window, that means protesters have 140 hours a week to protest. Also entirely reasonable.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun May 29 14:25:09 Like it or not and agree or not, civil disobedience and protesting are a part of our national landscape. I could certainly think of more horrible things than political free expression being transposed on top of a memorial to our founding fathers.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 15:39:23 Again, can someone here please point me to a source that shows the visitors were in any way had their experience of the Jefferson Memorial disturbed by a few people dancing silently with head phones on? Pedo Rod, of course, posted a video of the uniformed pig coming up and letting the people know that the government was somehow disturbed by the actions, but that is obviously not what I am asking for.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 15:50:04 That is because you are a blind fuck that only sees what he wants to see. The Memorial was crowded up until the protestors started resisting a lawful order by the police and then just about all of the people left the memorial because of the disturbance. Like it or not shithead there is a law prohibiting dancing inside The Memorial. Like it or not shithead, the cops were doing their lawful duty. Like it or not shithead, when they resisted they were arrested for violating the law and resisting a lawful order. The protesters disturbing the other people is right there on the video that you supplied the link to. Open your fucking eyes and forget about your jaundiced bias for two minutes and you will see it for yourself. Stupid fucking Blivet.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 15:57:48 " The Memorial was crowded up until the protestors started resisting a lawful order by the police and then just about all of the people left the memorial because of the disturbance." - So in other words, people remained in the Memorial, without issue, until the police arrived and initiated the confrontation, eventually shutting the entire area down and forcing visitors to vacate the area. You've supplied no evidence that the visitors to the Memorial were disturbed by the silent dancers, only that they were disturbed by the confrontation that was initiated by the pigs. Now fuck off you crusty old piece of shit "Libertarian"
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 16:09:28 PPS - So in other words, people remained in the Memorial, without issue, until the police arrived and initiated the confrontation, No fuckhead. The protestors "INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION* by showing up at The Memorial and willfully and with the intent of breaking the law. I am through with your stupidity you bloviating Blivet.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:12:30 God damn you are so old and slow. I am asking you for proof that a few people dancing silently was disturbing the visitors. You have utterly failed to do so, providing evidence that visitors were disturbed by a few people being arrested. Try reading, you fucking pedophile.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:15:19 By the way - who here has actually been to the Jefferson Memorial? Now who here experienced and atmosphere of solemn commemoration? I, for one, experienced school kids running all over the place taking pictures and heard a constant buzz of people talking. But, unlike PedoRod, I didn't demand they be arrested (and then hopefully locked up in his crawlspace). If it bothered me enough, I would ask them to please quiet down.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 16:23:47 "When I visited The Jefferson Memorial with my girlfriend I felt more like I was in a temple than a dance hall."
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 16:25:54 I bet you people would applaud Koresh if he dropped his pants and shit on The Arizona Memorial. You fucks make me sick.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:29:25 Thanks for your proof there Pedo "Im a Libertarian" Rod. LMFAO.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:33:49 Also, his last name is Kokesh...Koresh was at Waco, retard. But since you are old and already involuntarily pissing/shitting your pants daily, I can see how you might confuse this with an someone who died almost 2 decades ago.
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 16:38:22 Or it could be at my age I don't see as well as I used to but, of course, you never think of the obvious. Come to think of it, you never think.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:39:30 Little Davey can't see too well with tears in his eyes either, can he?
Hot Rod Member	Sun May 29 16:42:05 ^-Blivet Loses an argument so he resorts to the Lil Davey "jokes". What an unmitigated loser.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 29 16:45:30 ^says the guy who faked his own death. Lmfao. You lost the minute you claimed to be a Libertarian, old PedoRod.
garyd Member	Mon May 30 00:00:16 In an attempt to get away from increasingly lame little davey jokes... Buy the way I'd all but bet the arrestee was charged with disorderly conduct. It is the catchall when some the cops want to hassle some twit.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon May 30 00:02:52 "By the way - who here has actually been to the Jefferson Memorial? Now who here experienced and atmosphere of solemn commemoration?" yes to both.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Mon May 30 01:26:13 Great. But do you attribute that experience to a law stating that is how it must be experienced?
Oddfish Member	Mon May 30 03:49:24 Why does it have to be solemn commemoration? Why cant it be joyful celebration? Just because you tards want everyone to stand to attention or grovel like it was a religious god doesnt mean everyone has to be forced to show appreciation in your stiff legged, subordinate, slave posture. I feel pretty sure Jefferson would have been proud to hear that people come to a memorial over him and dance in peaceful, loving joy to commemorate him. Dancing is a whole lot closer to feelings of love than standing to attention which is a whole lot closer to feelings of hate and violence, and grovelling like a religious tard is a whole lot closer to miserable servitude.
Trolly McSerious Member	Mon May 30 08:04:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bitxwy6okn4 Shouldn't this guy be arrested?
miltonfriedman Member	Mon May 30 10:52:23 "Great. But do you attribute that experience to a law stating that is how it must be experienced?" Of course not.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Mon May 30 11:27:20 Trolly - No, see...he was within areas the government has deemed 'OK' to practice your civil rights. The people silently dancing were about 50 yards away in the 'NO RIGHTS' zone.
kargen Member	Mon May 30 21:52:33 "Like it or not and agree or not, civil disobedience and protesting are a part of our national landscape." and so is facing the consequences. Civil rights activists for the most part took their night in jail in stride. "Again, can someone here please point me to a source that shows the visitors were in any way had their experience of the Jefferson Memorial disturbed by a few people dancing silently with head phones on?" Doesn't matter. The dancers could have been the only people there and they are still breaking the law. You can't get into playing a game of how many irritated people does it take before action is taken. They were asked to either stop or leave. They did neither because they wanted to cause a scene. If they didn't want to face jail time they should have not pressed it to the point they did. They went there knowing some of them would be arrested and that is what they wanted. "You've supplied no evidence that the visitors to the Memorial were disturbed by the silent dancers," that isn't a valid arguement. "Yeah I shot the guy right in the face, but look around nobody seems to care". Sure that is going beyond extreem but you see where it is going. "I feel pretty sure Jefferson would have been proud to hear that people come to a memorial over him and dance in peaceful, loving joy to commemorate him." and they have over twenty acres that are a part of the memorial park where they can do exactly that. There is just a tiny little area of the park where it is not allowed. So you gotta ask why did they insist on that bit of space for their "tribute". It was so they could be arrested. Phunky this is not a freedom of expression issue. The law does not prevent these people from dancing or otherwise celebrating in another location. It simply dictates a specific expected decorum in this one little area. In a sense you agree to that decorum when you walk into the area. Freedom of speech has never guarenteed a specific platform from which to speak. Again, I am all for this type of civil disobedience. I just expect those who are participating to then man up to the consequences. Don't whine about an "overzealous pig". take the punishment and then use the publicity to tell the country that the law is unjust and should be changed. Their way maybe the arresting officer gets desk duty for a couple of months and a slight repremend, then the story does away. The correct way, and maybe they get the law changed.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon May 30 22:46:09 "Civil rights activists for the most part took their night in jail in stride." No doubt, hence their comparative nobility.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Mon May 30 23:11:25 kargen - it seems you believe I care that they were arrested. But I made it quite clear that I think it was their intention to do so. My gripe is with the blatant retardation of the law, and of course, PedoRod's hypocrisy. "It simply dictates a specific expected decorum in this one little area. In a sense you agree to that decorum when you walk into the area." - Do you think the only reason why people act in accordance with that 'expected decorum' is because there is a law dictating that they must? Of course not. No dictation (and enforcement) from the government is necessary. I rank this retarded shit up there with "It's illegal to feed a moose ice cream on a Sunday in Alaska" type laws. Completely unnecessary and dumb, but sadly enforced because it's DC and the Park Police have to justify their tax leeching existence somehow.
Forwyn Member	Mon May 30 23:13:26 "Westboro never actually "disrupted" the funeral though. They were just there." Fucking retard, screaming that the soldier deserved to die from right across the street isn't disruptive? Its a hell of a lot more disruptive than silently dancing.
kargen Member	Mon May 30 23:47:59 Mostly in this thread phunky you have been in a pissing match with Hot Rod. Going back and reading the other you started with the point of view that the law was stupid but by the end I was getting the impression you thought their being arrested was stupid. I know you might try to argue if the law is stupid then being arrested for breaking that law is by default stupid, but that is not the case. It isn't up to the police (be they city or park police) to decide what laws are stupid and what laws are not. They are there for very simple reasons. Provide safety and enforce laws. They did their job end of story. Now it is up to those who can actually change or remove the law to do their part. Changing the law isn't as simple as it might appear though. Swaying to music on a headphone might not cause much of a disruption, but if they allow "silent dancing" you know some group of assholes is going to push the limit and start doing that acrobatic shit in there with no music saying they have a right to do so. As much as I hate these kinds of laws and the strict enforcement of them, sometimes they just have to be because of the really stupid amongst us. The law has to be precise in its writing. They can't have a law that says public displays that annoy or interupt others are illegal then leave it to officers to decide where that line is. Maybe require a complaint before an arrest is made, but that isn't completely fair either. Some people no matter how tame the situation would be to timid to complain. When I was there a class of grade schoolers was there and a guard told the teacher she would have to take the class and leave if she couldn't quite them down. Out on the steps they could pretty much be as loud as they wanted it seems, but inside not so much. Until it is legal to castrate dumbasses until they are no longer a part of the gene pool we will just have to from time to time tolerate laws that are written specifically for them. Sad but the way it has to be.
Hot Rod Member	Tue May 31 00:53:21 How am I being a hypocrite? I think it is unfortunate that such a law must exist, but until yahoos like you and those dancers are taught some manners those kinds of laws are sometimes necessary.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue May 31 01:10:30 HR, check out the thread I just made. Relevant to your interests.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue May 31 01:38:58 "I know you might try to argue if the law is stupid then being arrested for breaking that law is by default stupid, but that is not the case." - You are indeed correct that I will try to argue this. "It isn't up to the police (be they city or park police) to decide what laws are stupid and what laws are not. They are there for very simple reasons. Provide safety and enforce laws. They did their job end of story. Now it is up to those who can actually change or remove the law to do their part." - True. They are just 'doing their job'. I haven't argued against that. I am going far beyond it and saying their job - to 'provide safety and enforce laws' - is not at all necessary in this situation. You keep talking about how people can dance right on the outside and elsewhere in the park...tell me - how many people do so? You act like the only thing preventing this tiny area from becoming a freak show is these uniformed, taxpayer funded, federal officers just 'doing their job'. Yet, are the surrounding areas anything even close to that? No. The only reason people have ever danced silently in the Memorial is because there was a law against it. I know this because nobody does it X number of feet away where it is legal. "How am I being a hypocrite?" - You are a hypocrite (and dumbass) because you see no conflict in your "Libertarianism" (non-aggression) with your desire to have government officials enforce a law that dictates (under threat of aggression) that one must feel and act a certain way when in the vicinity of whatever is deemed suitable.
Hot Rod Member	Tue May 31 01:50:51 pps - that one must feel and act a certain way when in the vicinity of whatever is deemed suitable. That is not at all what I said. You are entitled to 'feel' anyway you like. You are *NOT* entitled to act however you please in public places. This law is no different than being drunk in public, or streaking at a ball game. It is people like you that have never been taught any manners or the how to act in public that object to these kinds of laws and if it were not for people like you they would not be necessary.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue May 31 02:35:21 "This law is no different than being drunk in public, or streaking at a ball game." - LMFAO. So the reason people can't be drunk in public or streak at ball games is because the federal government wants to maintain an atmosphere of solemn commemoration? GG
Hot Rod Member	Tue May 31 02:45:04 Go away milton, I'm tired of trying to reason with you.
Sam Adams Member	Tue May 31 02:50:42 those are bad comparisons but the no nudity law is a good comparison.
Hot Rod Member	Tue May 31 02:57:05 The point is there are a lot of things you are not allowed to do in a public place.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue May 31 12:33:39 "Go away milton, I'm tired of trying to reason with you. " I didn't even bother to respond to you in this thread, Hamas Rod. But I would be happy to participate if you want me to.
kargen Member	Tue May 31 12:55:16 "You keep talking about how people can dance right on the outside and elsewhere in the park...tell me - how many people do so?" Don't know, don't care, isn't relevant. What is relevant is that recently a court decided in favor of the law being enforced. These people knowing that went there to get arrested. Now they are making the arrest an issue instead of making the law an issue. Very few people are talking about changing or getting rid of the law, most are talking about firing the arresting officers. If they want the law changed they need to highlite the law. They are just a bunch of whiny fucks that thought dancing in protest to the law would be fun, and now they are doing nothing to help their cause because of all their indignant whining. The story is already being distorted saying a couple was arrested for kissing in the memorial and that they were beaten by the cops. They need to, if they want to change the law, get the focus back on the law and off the arrest. "You act like the only thing preventing this tiny area from becoming a freak show is these uniformed, taxpayer funded, federal officers just 'doing their job'. Yet, are the surrounding areas anything even close to that?" No I was pointing out these people picked the one spot they knew would get them arrested and then have the nerve to act surprised. I did go on to say if they started allowing silent dancing it would then open up a whole new arena of what is allowed and what is not. Sure there would be very few that press the line, but they would be there. I offer up as proof the latest bunch of idiots we see in this video that are surprised that they were arrested for purposely breaking the law. The law they are protesting was written pretty much because of assholes like them. "The only reason people have ever danced silently in the Memorial is because there was a law against it." and why is there a law against it? Starting there we can then go along the path of deciding is it a bad law or not. Personally I think they should be highlighting the one person that got arrested that the court made ts decision on. One person with headphones swaying to the music isn't likely to cause a dispuption. A whole group doing so is. Fact is this was a demonstration and even without the silent dancing law demonstrations are not allowed. We are agreed in saying they wanted to be arrested. I guess where we disagree is the way they have handled it since. Would you do away with the law completely, or make changes to the law?
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue May 31 16:33:11 "Don't know, don't care, isn't relevant. What is relevant is that recently a court decided in favor of the law being enforced." - Well then it seems there's very little use for us discussing it because that is relevant to me and what you said is relevant is not so to me. Like I've said, I really don't care about the individuals and their arrest aside from the fact that it exposed yet another ridiculous and unnecessary law. Don't give a shit about r the individuals, frankly. Nor do I care how they or tge police handled the situation. I'm just coming at it from the perspective that it should have never, and very likely would have never, happened had there not been federal rules dictating how one must act while in a particular space. "Would you do away with the law completely, or make changes to the law?" - At this point I am not sure. It depends on how many people know about it and this incident. "
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue May 31 17:27:25 "Don't know, don't care, isn't relevant. What is relevant is that recently a court decided in favor of the law being enforced." - Well then it seems there's very little use for us discussing it because that is relevant to me and what you said is relevant is not so to me. Like I've said, I really don't care about the individuals and their arrest aside from the fact that it exposed yet another ridiculous and unnecessary law. Don't give a shit about r the individuals, frankly. Nor do I care how they or tge police handled the situation. I'm just coming at it from the perspective that it should have never, and very likely would have never, happened had there not been federal rules dictating how one must act while in a particular space. "Would you do away with the law completely, or make changes to the law?" - At this point I am not sure. It depends on how many people know about it and this incident. "
Hot Rod Member	Tue May 31 17:30:06 Glad to see my PC in not the only one hanging up. :)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: