Mr. Jefferson Would Not Approve

[lashicoN]

My conscience would not have allowed me to sleep at nite knowing I arrested someone for slow dancing.

But you've got morals. Not everyone has morals and I'm sure the people who arrest couples for slow dancing sleep like babies...until Judgment Day.

So just so I'm clear.... protesting without permission should be allowed at any National Parks Service facility, in any fashion, at anytime, regardless of the place, with no prohibition as to where?

Without permission? Are you serious? Yes, free people should be free to protest their government on public property, without causing damage or impeding business, without first getting permission from said government.

 

[Garb]

Without permission? Are you serious? Yes, free people should be free to protest their government on public property, without causing damage or impeding business, without first getting permission from said government.

Boston Tea Party: Can we protest these outrageous taxes on tea?

King George: NO!

Boston Tea Party: Oh, ok, we're sorry. We'll just go home and accept whatever you do to us, even if it involves feeling our kids up in airports or arresting us for dancing.

I like to ad lib a little.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But you've got morals. Not everyone has morals and I'm sure the people who arrest couples for slow dancing sleep like babies...until Judgment Day.



Without permission? Are you serious? Yes, free people should be free to protest their government on public property, without causing damage or impeding business, without first getting permission from said government.

Ok then... and very interesting that a thread popped up giving an example of exactly what I was steer toward. Arlington National Cemetery is a place of honor, that coincidentally is administered by the National Parks Service.
If what you believe is extended en masse, then people should people should be allowed on the grounds, at anytime to protest "in any fashion they see fit," safe from people like me who would have to be restrained from punching said protesters in the face.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to most Americans, this idea is stomach turning; the idea that members of the WBC or any other group would be allowed on grounds to disrespect the memory four fallen heroes. Thankfully, protests, are prohibited (again sans a permit), on the grounds.

The guys from CopBlock are very careful in how they are viewed. They could have just as easily went to ANC to have their lil dance. They could have invited people to go there to to hold there "prom night." ANC has the exact same rules regarding it's operation as the Jefferson Memorial, being that they are memorials/monuments administered by the NPS. So why won't CopBlock go there? Because they know the backlash from the public, in that case would do more harm to their cause (though it would be consistent) than good.

So I'll ask one more time, using that as a specific example. Do you think protests on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery should be allowed?

 

[MinuteMan47]

...safe from people like me who would have to be restrained from punching said protesters in the face.

This would be violent protest.

 

[jeremy]

Arlington National Cemetery is a place of honor, that coincidentally is administered by the National Parks Service.

No, no it is not Arlington Belongs to the Department of the Army...

Arlington House itself, and only the house is administrated by the Park Service.

 

[TopDog]

The really disturbing part is when the guy doing the video is told your not allowed to do that.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok then... and very interesting that a thread popped up giving an example of exactly what I was steer toward. Arlington National Cemetery is a place of honor, that coincidentally is administered by the National Parks Service.
If what you believe is extended en masse, then people should people should be allowed on the grounds, at anytime to protest "in any fashion they see fit," safe from people like me who would have to be restrained from punching said protesters in the face.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to most Americans, this idea is stomach turning; the idea that members of the WBC or any other group would be allowed on grounds to disrespect the memory four fallen heroes. Thankfully, protests, are prohibited (again sans a permit), on the grounds.

The guys from CopBlock are very careful in how they are viewed. They could have just as easily went to ANC to have their lil dance. They could have invited people to go there to to hold there "prom night." ANC has the exact same rules regarding it's operation as the Jefferson Memorial, being that they are memorials/monuments administered by the NPS. So why won't CopBlock go there? Because they know the backlash from the public, in that case would do more harm to their cause (though it would be consistent) than good.

So I'll ask one more time, using that as a specific example. Do you think protests on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery should be allowed?

First Amendment, 2011 Edition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances... So long as you're in a government approved free speech zone.

 

[level.eleven]

First Amendment, 2011 Edition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances... So long as you're in a government approved free speech zone.

Pretty much. These guys and gals were arrested and released. The charges - demonstrating without a permit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, no it is not Arlington Belongs to the Department of the Army...

Arlington House itself, and only the house is administrated by the Park Service.

touche... but does that make a difference?

 

[Kutnupe14]

First Amendment, 2011 Edition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances... So long as you're in a government approved free speech zone.

So, you believe that protests on the grounds of military cemeteries are protected forms of speech?
Speech, assembly and expression all have constitutional limits (4 questions are applied)). To deny such, and well, nevermind.
Thankfully, some have understood that the First Amendment isn't a black check to do whatever, whenever, and wherever you like.

 

[jeremy]

touche... but does that make a difference?

Huge difference.

The Army can treat it as any other Military Facility if they so choose. The National Park Service well it is a Park...

 

[thompal]

So, you believe that protests on the grounds of military cemeteries are protected forms of speech?
Speech, assembly and expression all have constitutional limits (4 questions are applied)). To deny such, and well, nevermind.
Thankfully, some have understood that the First Amendment isn't a black check to do whatever, whenever, and wherever you like.

Straw man. The Jefferson Memorial is NOT a military cemetery. At most, it's an "other needful building."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Straw man. The Jefferson Memorial is NOT a military cemetery. At most, it's an "other needful building."

Tell me the differences then? Public is public right? Both are owned by the govt, both are meant to commemorate the memory of a person or persons that meant a great deal to the nation. So you'll have to qualify the strawman tag. You either have to agree that spontaneous protests are allowed at all or none...

and the court's opinion (not that it will probably make sense to most, but myself). Important parts bolded

The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, “[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . .” 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). “Demonstrations” include:
** *picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
** *religious services and all other like forms of conduct
** *which involve the communication or expression of views
** *or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *6
** *conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
** *draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
** *casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
** *have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
** *onlookers....


The heart of Oberwetter’s complaint is her claim that the
First Amendment protects her right to engage in silent
expressive dancing inside the Jefferson Memorial.3 Because
the First Amendment “affords protection to symbolic or
expressive conduct as well as to actual speech,” Virginia v.
Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003), there is no question that she
had the right to dance in order to express her admiration for
Mr. Jefferson. Of course she did. But the question this case
presents is whether she had the right to perform her dance
inside the Jefferson Memorial.
** * We analyze Oberwetter’s claim under the familiar
“public forum” doctrine, which divides government property
into three categories for purposes of First Amendment
analysis. The “traditional public forum” includes public areas
that have “by long tradition or by government fiat . . . been
devoted to assembly and debate.” Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry
Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). The
government must respect the open character of these forums,
and can only impose speech restrictions that are “narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” Ward v.
Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Next is the
“limited public forum” or “designated public forum,” which
comprises “public property which the State has opened for

3
**Because Oberwetter brings an as-applied rather than a facial
challenge, we do not address whether the Regulations could survive
a challenge on grounds of substantial overbreadth. See Wash. State
Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 n.6
(2008).
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *9
use by the public as a place for expressive activity.” Perry,
460 U.S. at 45. Expressive activity in these forums may be
restricted to particular speakers or purposes. Third is the
“nonpublic forum,” which encompasses government property
that is “not by tradition or designation a forum for public
communication.” Id. at 46. Here the government “may reserve
the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable
and not an effort to suppress expression merely because
public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Id. This rule
recognizes that “[t]he State, no less than a private owner of
property, has power to preserve the property under its control
for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Greer v. Spock,
424 U.S. 828, 836 (1976) (quoting Adderley v. Fla., 385 U.S.
39, 47 (1966)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

** * “The dispositive question is not what the forum is called,
but what purpose it serves, either by tradition or specific
designation.” Boardley v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 615 F.3d
508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2010). We begin by analyzing the
property in this case “at a very high level of generality,”
adopting “a working presumption that sidewalks, streets and
parks are normally to be considered public forums.”
Henderson v. Lujan, 964 F.2d 1179, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
We then examine the history and characteristics of the
particular property at issue, mindful “that when government
has dedicated property to a use inconsistent with conventional
public assembly and debate . . . then the inconsistency
precludes classification as a public forum.” Id.

** * The district court properly concluded that the area inside
the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum. As a general
matter, the interior space of national memorials has not
traditionally “been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10
public questions.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 45 (quoting Hague v.
Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). National memorials are places of
public commemoration, not freewheeling forums for open
expression, and thus the government may reserve them for
purposes that preclude expressive activity. Oberwetter points
out that the Jefferson Memorial is located within the National
Park system, and that public parks are quintessential examples
of traditional public forums. See id. Even so, we have
recognized that our country’s many national parks are too vast
and variegated to be painted with a single brush for purposes
of forum analysis. “Presumably, many national parks include
areas—even large areas, such as a vast wilderness preserve—
which never have been dedicated to free expression and
public assembly, would be clearly incompatible with such
use, and would therefore be classified as nonpublic forums.”
Boardley, 615 F.3d at 515; see also Lederman v. United
States, 291 F.3d 36, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (noting that “some
areas within a large public forum may be nonpublic if their
use is specialized”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cmty.
for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 703 F.2d 586, 599 n.35
(D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc) (plurality opinion) (observing that
the Park Service “need not treat the [National Mall] as a
monolithic whole”), rev’d sub nom. on other grounds, Clark
v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).

** * In creating and maintaining the Jefferson Memorial in
particular, the government has dedicated a space with a
solemn commemorative purpose that is incompatible with the
full range of free expression that is permitted in public
forums.4 Oberwetter alleges that visitors to the Memorial

4
**We are mindful that forum determinations are typically fact
intensive, and that we lack a factual record here because the district
court dismissed this case on the pleadings. We press ahead
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11
regularly “talk loudly, make noise, [and] take and pose for
photographs,” Compl. ¶ 10, but none of this conduct rises to
the level of a conspicuous “demonstration.” For three-and-a-
half decades, the Park Service Regulations have sought to
“protect[] legitimate security and park value interests,
including the maintenance of an atmosphere of calm,
tranquility, and reverence in the vicinity of major memorials.”
41 Fed. Reg. 12,879, 12,880 (Mar. 29, 1976). The
Regulations specifically identify the interior of the Jefferson
Memorial as a place where visitors may not engage in
expressive activity that “has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers.” 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(1)(i).
Visitors to the Memorial interior must ascend a stairway,
traverse a portico, and pass a sign that says “Quiet / Respect
Please” before entering. The Park Police patrol the area, and
Oberwetter has pled no facts suggesting that they allow
visitors to engage in disruptive demonstrations. Having thus
created and maintained the Memorial as a commemorative
site, the government is under no obligation to open it up as a
stage for the roving dance troupes of the world—even those
celebrating Mr. Jefferson.

** * *That the Memorial is open to the public does not alter its
status as a nonpublic forum. Visitors are not invited for
expressive purposes, but are free to enter only if they abide by
the rules that preserve the Memorial’s solemn atmosphere. As
the Supreme Court has observed, an area “is not transformed
into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is
permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically
all times.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983)...

Having determined that the Jefferson Memorial is a
nonpublic forum, we have little trouble concluding that the
Park Service Regulations are “viewpoint neutral and
reasonable in light of the purpose [of] the forum.” Marlin v.
D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 236 F.3d 716, 719 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The
Regulations plainly do not discriminate on the basis of
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *13
viewpoint, but rather prohibit disruptive speech regardless of
its message. Oberwetter argues that the government engages
in viewpoint discrimination by hosting its own official
birthday ceremony in the Memorial while excluding her
celebratory dance. This argument fails because the
government is free to establish venues for the exclusive
expression of its own viewpoint. See Pleasant Grove v.
Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (holding that when the
government erects a monument on public property, it is not
obligated to allow other monuments expressing alternative
viewpoints); Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550,
553 (2005) (“[T]he Government’s own speech . . . is exempt
from First Amendment scrutiny.”). It would be strange indeed
to hold that the government may not favor its own expression
inside the Jefferson Memorial, which was built by the
government for the precise purpose of promoting a particular
viewpoint about Jefferson.

 

[jeremy]

Tell me the differences then? Public is public right? Both are owned by the govt, both are meant to commemorate the memory of a person or persons that meant a great deal to the nation. So you'll have to qualify the strawman tag. You either have to agree that spontaneous protests are allowed at all or none...

Close again one is owned by the Government making it a Public Facility.
The Other is Owned by the Department of the Army who is allowing the Public entry...

Clear as mud right?!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Close again one is owned by the Government making it a Public Facility.
The Other is Owned by the Department of the Army who is allowing the Public entry...

Clear as mud right?!

actually the memorial is non-public (I think I stated that before)

 

[jeremy]

actually the memorial is non-public (I think I stated that before)

I know, I just find that Ironic...

 

[rambone]

Maybe the memorial should post signs like these, to make it clear that the constitution is null-and-void in this area.

 

[hornadylnl]

So, you believe that protests on the grounds of military cemeteries are protected forms of speech?
Speech, assembly and expression all have constitutional limits (4 questions are applied)). To deny such, and well, nevermind.
Thankfully, some have understood that the First Amendment isn't a black check to do whatever, whenever, and wherever you like.

If nobody paid attention to them, they'd give up and go home. I've seen a vide on AFV. There's a kid that throws himself on the floor and starts squalling. The parents walk past him and out of site. Suddenly the kid is fine. He gets up and walks to where he can see his parents and throws himself on the floor and starts squalling again. This process was repeated several times. Sometimes ignoring a tantrum is the greatest way to end it.

 

[jeremy]

Sometimes ignoring a tantrum is the greatest way to end it.

Not according to my Parents...

 

[lashicoN]

Speech, assembly and expression all have constitutional limits (4 questions are applied)). To deny such, and well, nevermind.
Thankfully, some have understood that the First Amendment isn't a black check to do whatever, whenever, and wherever you like.

Yes, there are limits to Free speech. That limit is on the government and it clearly states that the people have unabridged freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it especially doesn't give us limited rights. The Bill of Rights should have been called the Bill of Restrictions on Federal Power, because that's exactly what it is. You've got it all twisted around, using it to actually deny rights to the people, instead of protecting them, which is your job. The first Amendment isn't a blank check, it's a list of things the Federal government isn't allowed to touch.

Hopefully, now you understand what the Bill of Rights is, how our Federal Government is supposed to operate, and why it's wrong to arrest people for slow dancing with ipods at the Jefferson Memorial.