Fox News - Five People Arrested for Dancing - Where do you draw the line?

[Barry]

The difficulty with drawing lines.... If you agree that there shouldn't be un-permitted protests and demonstrations inside national landmarks (which I think, on balance, is a good call), then where do you draw the line?

In addition to that, the police seemed unnecessarily harsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uyi...ature=youtu.be

[Jupiter13]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson

Would this law qualify as unjust? Medea Benjamin and these folks obviously thought so and were willing to put their bodies on the line.

[Dixon]

The difficulty with drawing lines.... If you agree that there shouldn't be un-permitted protests and demonstrations inside national landmarks...

Ah, but I don't agree. At least as long as the protests and demonstrations don't hurt passers-by. Why should dancing be illegal anywhere? Who is harmed by it? That's so white and uptight--and repressive.

[zenekar]

Ah, but I don't agree. At least as long as the protests and demonstrations don't hurt passers-by. Why should dancing be illegal anywhere? Who is harmed by it? That's so white and uptight--and repressive.
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

_____

"white and uptight –– and repressive" is a good description of the status quo in the US. Here is the full video of the incident that is posted on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dy2...embedded#at=22

[Barry]

This is a very interesting issue. And it's NOT WHAT IT SEEMS! This was organized by ADAM VS THE MAN (https://www.adamvstheman.com/, notice their logo on the video of the incident) who has a show on Russia Today. "Adam Kokesh is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and former [Republican] US Congressional candidate from New Mexico." His show is based in libertarian/right wing politics, though I noticed a cogent appraisal of the US Defense Department in one segment, which is one leg of the libertarian platform I sympathize with.

It's real clear that there intention was to provoke a confrontation with the park police. This feeds into their narrative of excessive government control.

The original flashmob at the Jefferson Memorial in 2008, which also came from the Libertarian world, was possibly more innocent and they could be given the benefit of the doubt that their objective was to peacefully demonstrate rather than confront. There was no such doubt in this recent re-enactment. At the time of the 2008, there was no ruling as to whether silent (ipod-assisted) dancing was considered the same "picketing, marching and making speeches", now there was. Adam Kokesh saw a great opportunity to stick it to The Man (from his jingle: "The passion of our hearts will be raised with our fists")

There are two questions here:

1) Is it OK to allow anybody to stage an organized demonstration inside a national landmark without a permit?
2) Does an organized silent dance constitute an organized demonstration?

I think it's an appropriate restriction to prevent un-permitted demonstration inside of national landmarks. Think about it, do you want the neo-nazis holding weekly rallies inside of the Jefferson Memorial, while Mr and Mrs Middle America are taking their kids to visit while on the their vacation?

I also agree that an organized silent dance constitutes a demonstration. An organized dance, even if silent commands a similar level of attention as other verbal forms of demonstration. It may be less offensive than neo-nazi rally, but do you want the government to adjudicate which types of expression are more offensive than others?

Regarding the police actions, it may have been too much force, but not by much. They had already warned the mob, the mob was clearly trying to resist police's warnings, they were dealing with buff ex-marines, etc. I'll give the "mob" points for their cleverness of starting the demonstration with a hug. But if you watch the most violent police action (where a demonstrator gets body slammed to the floor followed by a choke hold), you'll notice a fellow buff mob member rushes to his side for support just when the policeman engages him. The policeman quickly ratchets up his force which is reasonable under the circumstance.

On the other hand, holding dance, with a permit, to celebrate Jefferson's birthday (which is what the 2008 flashmob was supposedly doing) at the memorial sounds like a lovely idea!

[Dixon]

...This was organized by ADAM VS THE MAN..."Adam Kokesh is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and former [Republican] US Congressional candidate from New Mexico." His show is based in libertarian/right wing politics...

I support people's right to move their bodies as they wish, as long as they're not stepping on someone else's toes, regardless of their motivations or political positions. Surely, Barry, you don't think we should support such freedoms for those we agree with politically and oppose them for those whose politics we find repugnant? Why do you even feel that the politics or motivation of the dancers is relevant to their right to dance? The dancing is not so distracting as to interfere with tourists' enjoyment of the memorial, until the cops start hassling them.

At the time of the 2008, there was no ruling as to whether silent (ipod-assisted) dancing was considered the same "picketing, marching and making speeches", now there was.

You cite rulings as if they're synonymous with right and wrong. Could your attitude really be that authoritarian, Barry? Reasonable people feel no obligation to follow unreasonable rulings. You yourself, like most of us, have no doubt violated unreasonable laws many times. If you want to make a case for why dancing in places like the Jefferson Memorial should be illegal, go ahead and make your case, but let's not confuse the issue by talking as if we have a social/moral obligation to follow silly rulings just because they exist.

There are two questions here:
1) Is it OK to allow anybody to stage an organized demonstration inside a national landmark without a permit?

The way you phrase the question, Barry, it sounds like your default position is that nothing is OK unless the government "allows" it. I'd suggest asking the question from the opposite position--the assumption that everything is OK unless someone can make a case that it violates others. Thus, phrased more reasonably, the question would be: By what reasonable criteria do we decide what activities to forbid in public spaces like national landmarks? If you want to be more specific to the issue of organized demonstrations, ask: Is there any good reason to forbid organized demonstrations which don't interfere with the ongoing workings of the site (such as demonstrations which aren't so intrusively loud as to make it nearly impossible to enjoy the usual activities there)? Asking the questions thusly puts the burden of proof where it belongs--on those who are considering abrogating our freedoms.

2) Does an organized silent dance constitute an organized demonstration?

This rather bizarre question only becomes relevant if we've decided that organized demonstrations should be forbidden. I see no way that could reasonably happen. Certainly behaviors which violate the rights of others (smoking, excessive loudness, etc.) are reasonably forbidden regardless of whether they're part of a demonstration. Why does whether something's a demonstration even have to come into the discussion? Only if someone wants to make policy that censors political expression--that's why. Fuck that!

I think it's an appropriate restriction to prevent un-permitted demonstration inside of national landmarks. Think about it, do you want the neo-nazis holding weekly rallies inside of the Jefferson Memorial, while Mr and Mrs Middle America are taking their kids to visit while on the their vacation?

I think it would be dandy to give Mr and Mrs Middle America and their kids an opportunity to consider the whole range of political ideas, including pro- and anti-Nazi ideas, when they visit the Jefferson Memorial. Rather than just engaging in mindless veneration of genocidal slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson, we could all think about which is worse, Jew-murdering Nazis or Indian-murdering slave-rapers like Jefferson. What a great opportunity to teach kids how to apply critical thinking principles to political claims! Barry you seem to be in favor of dealing with repugnant ideas by censorship of them (which I see as a terrible idea in several ways), even to the point of taking away people's right to express good ideas in certain places so as to shut up the bad guys.

I also agree that an organized silent dance constitutes a demonstration. An organized dance, even if silent commands a similar level of attention as other verbal forms of demonstration. It may be less offensive than neo-nazi rally, but do you want the government to adjudicate which types of expression are more offensive than others?

Nope, I don't want the government to illegalize anything based on its being deemed "offensive" by somebody. That just ends up being a "might makes right" situation--if you and your friends are in charge, the Nazis are censored; if the right-wingers are in charge, you and I are censored, etc. "Offensive" means that somebody doesn't like it; it doesn't mean that anybody is harmed. Expressions of ideas, even horrid, bigoted ideas, in and of themselves, are harmless. Furthermore, we cannot do proper reasoning about ideas to even determine which ones are right or wrong without free expression of them. If you don't believe that people have the right to express ideas that you judge offensive, you don't believe in freedom of expression; it's as simple as that. You want to live in a free society? Then get used to occasionally hearing the foul spoutings of Nazis or whatever other assholes we may not like. Being civilized means we have to have some tolerance for "offensive" stuff", keeping in mind that everybody is "offensive" to somebody.

On the other hand, holding dance, with a permit, to celebrate Jefferson's birthday...at the memorial sounds like a lovely idea!

So having a permit makes the difference between right and wrong. That sounds so authoritarian! I could only agree if the permits were decided on rational criteria which, as far as I can see, has not been the case in this instance so far. Regarding the notion of celebrating the birthday of the genocidal slaveholder Jefferson being a "lovely idea"--well, I find that idea as offensive as Nazism, Barry; should you be censored?

In closing, here's a relevant double dactyl that I wrote some years ago:


HYPOCRACY

Higgledy-piggledy
President Jefferson,
undemocratically
dealing in slaves,
cried “Independence!” Some
call him a hero, while
those once his property
spin in their graves.

["Mad" Miles]

It's called Freedom of Assembly and Speech. Rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights.

(And never forget that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were forced on the Founding Fathers by the citizenry of the time, as the price that had to be paid to get it ratified.)

These rights used to honored, they need to be exercised and defended.

In that regard I agree with the Libertarians and Tea Partiers, and in little else.

(Well OK some more exceptions for the Libertarians, but I don't want to muddy up my forceful prose too much. Let's just say Libertarians are great for the most part on Social issues, and their economic theory sucks and is loony tunes. Completely out of touch with economic history and reality. But they're great on wanting to legalize victimless crimes!)

[Barry]

The empire reacts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGw2...layer_embedded

[Barry]

...Surely, Barry, you don't think we should support such freedoms for those we agree with politically and oppose them for those whose politics we find repugnant? Why do you even feel that the politics or motivation of the dancers is relevant to their right to dance? ...

No, my point is that if you allow a demonstration, then any demonstration would be allowed, from "innocent" dancing to neo-nazis.

Other bloggers came up with essentially the same analysis here and here. This is not what it seems.

I also note, Dixon, while you are protesting the maintenance of decorum at a national memorial (and preventing it from being co-opted for some other agenda and preventing the peaceful enjoyment by other guests) , you are also calling for the "authorities" to be eject people from the Harmony Festival for smoking a cigarette in an outdoor festival.

[Dixon]

No, my point is that if you allow a demonstration, then any demonstration would be allowed, from "innocent" dancing to neo-nazis.

Yup. I support the idea that all demonstrations should be allowed, whether or not you or I agree with their message. That's called "freedom of expression".

I also note, Dixon, while you are protesting the maintenance of decorum at a national memorial (and preventing it from being co-opted for some other agenda and preventing the peaceful enjoyment by other guests)...

Barry, I wish you'd read my stuff more carefully before you start taking potshots at a straw figure. I've already stipulated that the right to demonstrate, dance or whatever is, as always, appropriately constrained by the requirement that people not step on others' toes, literally or figuratively--not be intrusively noisy, etc. I don't think the dancing got in the tourists' way at all; it was only when the cops intervened,:policeman: and eventually shut the place down, that the tourists were discomfited. You can't reasonably blame harmless dancers for the behavioral problems of cops, or of the legislators who illegalize dancing, any more than you can blame Jews for the horrid excesses the Nazis committed in repressing them. That's called blaming the victim (even if some of the victims, like some of those dancers, are annoying).

...you are also calling for the "authorities" to be eject people from the Harmony Festival for smoking a cigarette in an outdoor festival.

Barry, I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you seem to see these two fundamentally different things as equivalent. How can you not get that being exposed to toxic cigarette smoke makes people physically ill and kills quite a few of them, while being exposed to dancing people is utterly harmless? Sheeeeeeesh! Really, I'm stunned.