Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

It's illegal to dance.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
The place is irrelevant. :eek:

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't think I want to watch this :/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the Jefferson Monument in D.C.

    They were arrested because they were staging a protest at a federal monument without obtaining a permit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The place is unimportant. I wouldn't hardly call it a protest either, unless you have a source that says it was? People only started protesting (as seen in the video) once the couple slow dancing were arrested. It's still ridiculous. Would it be dancing if I was to just hug someone and lose balance and start swaying, would I be arrested? Its not like they were having a rave.

    The annotations on the video have been updated since I posted this to state a protest on the 4th, that is only in response to the arrests.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was in fact a protest.

    http://dcist.com/2011/05/silent_dancing_protesters_arrested.php

    The fact that it was a protest does make the location important (at least in a legal sense). I'm not certain how I feel on the issue of whether or not these types of small unintrusive protests should be required to obtain a permit; however, they were not just a couple out for a nice afternoon who decided to slow dance with no ulterior motive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now the place becomes important only because of the law that was passed banning dancing inside the memorial previously, which is still itself a ridiculous idea. So the point still stands, it's illegal to dance, specifically there. Does that not sound stupid to you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    First of all, the Jefferson memorial was significant before people were arrested trying to dance there and will continue to maintain that significance. Secondly, there was no law passed specifically banning dancing at the monument, it was the ruling of a single judge who decided that hosting events there would detract from its solemnity. This means that a ruling by another judge might set a completely new legal precedent.

    So do I think the judge's ruling was stupid? Yes. Does it have some sort of far reaching implications regarding freedom of speech? Potentially, we'll have to see whether the judge presiding over this most recent case will establish a different precedent for interpreting the statutes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They did that deliberately to get arrested.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does it have some sort of far reaching implications regarding freedom of speech?

    Most definately I'd say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most definately I'd say.

    How? (ignoring the obvious point its freedom to dance, not speech)

    It's a bit like saying because if I decide to hold a conversation in a cinema and refuse to stop and the police then arrest me my right to free speech has been infringed... except it hasn't, really has it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've often been told that my dance moves are so good that they should be illegal.

    Well, they actually say I should be arrested. But I choose to see the positive :o
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We can dance if we want to; we can leave your friends behind; 'cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance; well they're no friends of mine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We can dance if we want to; we can leave your friends behind; 'cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance; well they're no friends of mine.

    I hate you. I JUST got that out of my head from yesterday. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Important public service announcement regarding dancing

    Thought this might be of some use.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How? (ignoring the obvious point its freedom to dance, not speech)

    It depends if the dance is a form of protest - if so then it'd say US Bill Of Rights covers this. The better similie to use would be flag burning which is, of course, protected under the First Amendment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Weren't they dancing in protest at being unable to dance at the Jefferson? which seems a very convoluted type of protest.

    However to take the wider point and transfer it to the UK (being British on a British board)

    As it happens I'm very cynical about this type of 'look at me protest' because it's often a cover by people who want the state to have more power (for example to run our lumber industry ;)).

    If we really want to protest about state power we should perhaps be asking different questions, around for example fox hunting or the rising share of GDP taken by the state and not fall for the propoganda of those who pro-state and anti-liberal (in the British sense of the word liberal)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think we're forgetting that the building is a memorial, so putting all things in perspective these people were pretty much dancing on someone's grave. Not really an appropriate form of protest is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I think we're forgetting that the building is a memorial, so putting all things in perspective these people were pretty much dancing on someone's grave. Not really an appropriate form of protest is it?

    I don't think that's really a point. Walking in the monument must also be inappropriate if that's the case, dancing is just moving your legs in a rhythm, like walking. The dancing they were doing wasn't exactly 'out there'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently there seems to be statutes that actually cover this, meaning the police were technically correct:

    http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
    http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/reports/monuments/1913e.htm

    1. Fires are absolutely prohibited.

    2. No firearms are all owed.

    3. No fishing permitted.

    4. Flowers, ferns, or shrubs must not be picked, nor may any damage be done to the trees.

    5. Vehicles and horses may be left only at the places designated for this purpose.

    6. Lunches may be eaten only at the spots marked out for such use, and all refuse and litter must be placed in the receptacles provided.

    7. Pollution of the water in any manner is prohibited; it must be kept clean enough for drinking purposes.

    8. No drinking saloon or barroom will be permitted.

    9. Persons rendering themselves obnoxious by disorderly conduct or bad behavior, or who may violate any of the foregoing rules, will be summarily removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.