Merged: Code Pink at the Jefferson Memorial / arrested

[IDB87]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Code Pink and crew show up at the Jefferson memorial. Warned ahead of time they can't demonstrate by dancing. The people start dancing. Cops tell them they can't do that, and they continue. Cops begin arresting members of the group. Members resist.

What do you guys think?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who the hell is code pink?

[Alt+F4]

College classes are over! Woot, summer 2011!

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Who the hell is code pink?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink

Well, I thought it may be. The lady who is initially arrested is wearing a Code Pink shirt so I just assumed they were either that group, or affiliates.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Dude, Tommy Jefferson is our leader! Duuuuuuude!!!

[arthwollipot]

So who decided people couldn't dance at the memorial?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So who decided people couldn't dance at the memorial?

The people.

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So who decided people couldn't dance at the memorial?

I read somewhere in those Tubes that there are signs forbidding any form of demonstration while in the area. Perhaps the people were dancing before hand, and the cop recognized that they were members of a group that was known for demonstrating and told them what's up.

Don't know though. Haven't been to D.C. since the 8th grade.

[geni]

Not code pink. Some group calling themselves ADAM

http://www.adamvstheman.com/

[Thunder]

do you need a permit to protest at the Jefferson Memorial?

if not, then dancing/protesting is not illegal.

call the ACLU.




..and btw, I think Jefferson would have found them amusing.

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by geni

Note code pink. Some group calling themselves ADAM

http://www.adamvstheman.com/

Oh cool. Looking at their founding members, Luke Rudkowski is number deuce.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Thunder

do you need a permit to protest at the Jefferson Memorial?

Probably. If it's even allowed at all.

[shadron]

This needs to be Matt-rolled:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JeanFromBNA]

Yes, you need a permit to protest at any of the Memorials. They are part of the National Parks System.

I've been there several times, and it seems fairly easy to get a permit. I've seen plenty of small groups of people on the mall carrying signs and asking people to sign petitions, and they were unmolested by the police.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by geni

Not code pink. Some group calling themselves ADAM

http://www.adamvstheman.com/

Adam Kokesh. Say no more.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by IDB87

What do you guys think?

Some pretty nice take-down work that the whiners are trying to blow up into something more sinister.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sure it'll be on Alex Jones sometime this week. Alex pays his dues to other loonies and Kokesh is a big fanboy

[PhantomWolf]

Loony or not was what they were doing so terrible that they had to be arrested for it?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Loony or not was what they were doing so terrible that they had to be arrested for it?

I don't know if "had to be" is the operative term. Look at it from the perspective of D.C. law enforcement. It's more like a "hey, at least we can".... Adam is known to be into civil disobedience, and they were probably over-anticipating, e.g. something like his shenanigans at the Senate Office Building or GOP convention. And if they got him on the no-permit technicality, I doubt they care. It was a righteous bust, if a bit douche-baggy!

But, other than the technicality of the permit, I concur that what they were up to up to that point was harmless, as much as it pains me to defend this wannabe Alex Jones. But, hey. He wants to water the tree of liberty with blood now and then, so what's a night in the local lock-up. From experience, the D.C. holding pen for dissenters was always a walk in the park.

[arthwollipot]

Can you just dance? If I went to the Jefferson Memorial and started dancing, would there be a problem with that?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Can you just dance? If I went to the Jefferson Memorial and started dancing, would there be a problem with that?

Probably not.

Publish a thread on it, here to get people to show up with you and have a previous record of arrests for civil disobedience and the checkered past of Kokesh? Probably.

[Cavemonster]

The part that troubles me is when they ask the officer at the beginning what law they'd be violating if they danced and the officer refused to answer.

I'm not sure what the legal obligation of the officer is, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has no need to supply an answer.

However, it seems unreasonable, when the action in question is so clearly non-harmful as the dancing shown in the video, not to supply a clear reason for the arrest and what law is being broken.

If indeed, the issue is that a permit is needed for a demonstration there as some posters suggest, I imagine a much more effective method for the officer might have been to announce that and tell everyone to come back when they have a permit.

EDIT:
Ah, it appears the group was well aware of the legal issue with their dancing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5RXq...eature=related

I don't think that removes the problem with the officer failing to respond to the question of what law was being broken though.
As civil disobedience goes, they knew they would likely be arrested. Their major mistake was in those members who physically resisted arrest.

There's nothing wrong with knowingly breaking a stupid law as an act of protest, as long as you understand that you will be arrested, know that it is the officer's job to arrest you, and go peaceably when that happens. Dr. King did it all the time. I'm not comparing the seriousness of King's struggle with this group in any way, but I do think that breeches of freedom of assembly like this are ridiculous, and the only reason I can think that this sort of ban and "free speech zones" have been approved by the courts is that there is no wealthy lobby for it.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Probably not.

Publish a thread on it, here to get people to show up with you and have a previous record of arrests for civil disobedience and the checkered past of Kokesh? Probably.

Isn't that the definition of thought crime ? The same exact action being legal normally, suddenly becoming a crime if you think/associate it with something special/some cause ?

Not that I defend them , I have no clue whatsoever what all those names thrown in this thread are, but if dancing is legal, then people spontaneously dancing even if they agreed to it off site, should also be legal, should it not ? As long as they do not hold signs...

As time goes I see that the definition of free speech the US is about identical to our definition of freedom of expression in France : yes you can speak up *BUT* :
* not about that
* not at that time
* not that type of speech
* and not at that place
making a long list of exception...

[The Fallen Serpent]

Watching the video the officer actually answers what crime is being committed the first time it is asked. It is easier to hear from the second camera which is played after the first camera's video.

"If you are dancing and demonstrating-"

"Dancing is not demonstrating."

"In here dancing is demonstrating."

For background, the Jefferson Memorial and a few other small memorials are closed to demonstrations. A permit can be obtained to demonstrate outside of it but not in a way that blocks the enterance.

[Quad4_72]

Same old story. Nutters go out looking for trouble and find it. Then when they find the trouble, they cry police brutality.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Isn't that the definition of thought crime ? The same exact action being legal normally, suddenly becoming a crime if you think/associate it with something special/some cause ?

No, the point I was making was that if a bunch of people actually decided to flashmob a danceathon at the Memorial, the authorities probably wouldn't know what to do and would likely look on rather bemused. But if you have a website called Adam vs The Man, have a history that probably has your site being monitored, and have been arrested a number of times for acts of civil disobedience, then you might have reason to think they'd be waiting for you.

It's not thought crime, it's actual crime. There's a statute against demonstrating in the Jefferson Memorial and a dance-in by a known protester/dissident is a form of demonstration.

Quote:

Not that I defend them , I have no clue whatsoever what all those names thrown in this thread are, but if dancing is legal, then people spontaneously dancing even if they agreed to it off site, should also be legal, should it not ? As long as they do not hold signs...

I'm a demonstrator from way back. And while I support people who perform acts of civil disobedience and are prepared to take the penalty, I entirely disagree with him, politically. He may have a few valid points about treatment of vets, but he's a big Ron Paul and Alex Jones fan and is quoted mouthing a variation of that line about the tree of liberty that I mentioned above.

On the one hand, he's an attention whore. On the other, he has some dangerous beliefs. If he wants to block traffic or trespass or smear red paint on walls or whatever act he wishes to commit to make his statement, then I think he has an obligation to himself to do so, if that's his hard cast moral stance. But, he has to be prepared to pay the price - that's what the coin of the realm when discussing civil disobedience.

Quote:

As time goes I see that the definition of free speech the US is about identical to our definition of freedom of expression in France : yes you can speak up *BUT* :
* not about that
* not at that time
* not that type of speech
* and not at that place
making a long list of exception...

Not really. Adam could've stood twelve feet outside the perimeter with a bullhorn and said anything he wanted. He does so on his website, I'm sure. He just can't break the law in so doing. I don't see this as a free speech/free expression issue at all.

[kedo1981]

what if you were holding hands and skipping?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

what if you were holding hands and skipping?

Or playing spoons?

Or hoola hooping - now there's an American tradition.


It doesn't matter. If it was actually spontaneous and someone(s) just decided to hold hands and skip through the Jefferson Memorial, the guards would probably look on. If Alex Jones (or Charlie Sheen or Abbie Hoffman) promoted a hold-hands-skip-a-thon on his website, it'd probably garner an order to stop and then arrests if they didn't comply.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

The part that troubles me is when they ask the officer at the beginning what law they'd be violating if they danced and the officer refused to answer.

I'm not sure what the legal obligation of the officer is, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has no need to supply an answer.

The officer is under no obligation to cite the law, people are presumed to know the law. And these asshats did know the law, they were just trying to be difficult.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I'm not comparing the seriousness of King's struggle with this group in any way, but I do think that breeches of freedom of assembly like this are ridiculous, and the only reason I can think that this sort of ban and "free speech zones" have been approved by the courts is that there is no wealthy lobby for it.

Your right to demonstrate doesn't trump other people's rights to use national park property. That's why you need permits, so both groups can use the parks.

And what do you think "free speech zones" are?

[TragicMonkey]

When I saw "Code Pink" and "Lincoln" and skimmed to see people talking about dancing....well, I can't be the only one who leapt to the conclusion that the statue of Lincoln suddenly came to life and gayed out, and the feds snapped into action with the plan they'd always had for that eventuality. I pictured Secret Service guys in suits and shades screaming into walky-talkies "Code Pink! Code Pink! Send a chopper! OMG, he's dancing to Lady Gaga! This is it, this is the end of all things!" It would all end in tears, violence, and a rainbow-hued mushroom cloud over DC. It's the only way. Despite all the casualties, it would have to be done. Lincoln must be stopped.

eta: Weird. It's Jefferson, but I totally read it as "Lincoln". I wonder why? That's pretty bad for someone living in Virginia.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Loony or not was what they were doing so terrible that they had to be arrested for it?

Yes.

They probably would have turned cartwheels.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Loony or not was what they were doing so terrible that they had to be arrested for it?

They were willfully disobeying the law in a blatant attempt to illicit a reaction from the police. Yes, they needed to be arrested.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your right to demonstrate doesn't trump other people's rights to use national park property. That's why you need permits, so both groups can use the parks.

And what do you think "free speech zones" are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

I asked you what your understanding of free speech zones is. Can you do that, in your own words?

[Emet]

News coverage:

Fox:

Quote:

Five People Arrested in D.C. for Dancing At U.S. Monument
(...)
MyFoxDC reports that a spokesman for Park Police says the agency is investigating complaints officers overreacted.
Despite the court ban on dancing in certain areas of national monuments, the protestors say they plan to be back next Saturday at noon.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/29...cing-monument/

NBC:

Quote:

Park Police Slam Dancers at Jefferson Memorial
(...)
A court recently ruled that expressive dancing was in a category with picketing, speech making, and marching - a banned activity at national memorials.
(...)
Some visiting from out of town were less than impressed with the protesters' interpretive moves. "I think its ridiculous," said Edward Kelly of Richmond. "We just traveled up the steps and we've been waiting for 15 minutes."
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...122778309.html

WTOP (local):

Quote:

Dancing protestors arrested at the Jefferson Memorial
WASHINGTON - Several people were arrested Saturday afternoon at the Jefferson Memorial, protesting the recent court decision that upheld a ban on dancing at the memorial.
(...)
The group that gathered at the monument Saturday was there in protest of the upheld ban.

Andrew Sharp, one of the protesters, says they were told they would not be given a warning and would be immediately arrested if they started dancing in the monument.

"I think some people thought it was a joke at first, and then they started putting handcuffs on people and were very, very serious about it," says Sharp.

Sharp says there were about a dozen protesters, and five of them were arrested.

"It's good that only five people got arrested, but there were many more than that there that were supportive and were there to protest the ruling," adds Sharp.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2401484

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I asked you what your understanding of free speech zones is. Can you do that, in your own words?

I'd love to hear that without the condescension.

I think it is what it actually is, and your suggestion otherwise is smarmy and unevidenced.

"Free Speech Zones" are based on supreme court opinion that the first amendment does not stop the government from placing limits on the time, place and manner of expression so long as they don't discriminate on content.

In practice, they are often fenced-in areas where free speech is allowed, set aside during events such as presidential appearances where protests seem likely. They are often far away from the main event, and thus out of the public eye.

Curiously, I have never heard of anyone being arrested or detained for engaging in speech that was positive about a President outside of the designated zone. While the decision of what speech must be segregated to these zones is supposedly content blind, the timing and enforcement serve pretty much exclusively to segregate voices of dissent.

[Emet]

The court decision in this case:

Quote:

Jefferson Memorial Dancing a No-No
(...)
In papers filed by Alexandria attorney Alan Gura, she argued that the low-key dancing was protected free speech, surely allowed at the feet of Thomas Jefferson, of all places.

The suit also noted that routine groups of noisy school kids disrupt the quiet mood of the Jefferson far more than silent dancing.

The courts didn’t buy it.

They agreed with the U.S. Park Service that it has a duty to maintain “decorum” at the nation’s monuments and that any demonstrations, whether one person or many, are not allowed inside the nation’s memorials.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia firmly agreed.

It said that “expressive dancing falls within the spectrum of prohibited activities” and that “the Park Service has a substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our national memorials.”

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...122190509.html

[Tiktaalik]

Title 36 CFR (Code of Federal REgulations), Part 7.96 (g)(3)(ii):

"No permits may be issued authorizing demonstrations or special events in the following other park areas:

...(C) The Jefferson Memorial, which means the circular portion of the Jefferson Memorial enclosed by the outer-most series of columns, and all portions on the same levels or above the base of these columns, except for the official annual commermorative Jefferson birthday ceremony."

FYI.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I'd love to hear that without the condescension.

Then maybe you should have answered the question instead of posting a wikipedia link.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I think it is what it actually is, and your suggestion otherwise is smarmy and unevidenced.

"Free Speech Zones" are based on supreme court opinion that the first amendment does not stop the government from placing limits on the time, place and manner of expression so long as they don't discriminate on content.

Really? That's the only criteria? So they could declare free speech off limits except in a 10' x 10' area in central North Dakota?

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

In practice, they are often fenced-in areas where free speech is allowed, set aside during events such as presidential appearances where protests seem likely. They are often far away from the main event, and thus out of the public eye.

In practice security has to be balanced with the right to protest. And do you have any examples of a protest that was "out of the public eye"? Seems quite impossible in the information age.