Student Choir Stopped from Signing the National Anthem @ The Wall

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

 

[bucs90]

Wait....I'm ok with this. They need to get the permit.

Because if they aren't required to....it's a matter of time before a herd of liberal freaks show up to desecrate and dishonor the site because they wont need a permit either. Doing queer shit and anti American shit.

It sucks. But that's becoming the only tool we'll have to keep these liberal mutants from infecting our honorable sites.

 

[Camp]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?




Here's the whole issue -- the title of the thread, and the article it links to, is dishonest.
This choir wasn't "stopped from singing the national anthem". The choir was stopped from singing. Period. Attaching "the national anthem" as a conditional direct object is simple Appeal to Emotion, and as such, bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Well that sure quieted the room, didnit?

It's a serious question. Let's phrase it another way -- can anyone justify jingoism for its own sake?

Is there something positive to be gained in ignoring public regulations for the noble advancement of mob mentality?

Does chanting "USA! USA!" serve any purpose at all? That is, any rational purpose beyond a masturbatory in-you-face taunt?

You are asserting that singing the anthem is jingoism, which means extreme patriotism. That is your whole case and point. It is a subjective opinion on your part, nothing else. Most people would not consider singing the National Anthem as some sort of extreme patriotism.

Nope. I'm asking a specific question about the purpose of it. And specifically how that purpose supersedes established permit regulations.

 

[Camp]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Sure it does. If they would have issued a citation it would have been thrown out because a verbal permit was given.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Well that sure quieted the room, didnit?

It's a serious question. Let's phrase it another way -- can anyone justify jingoism for its own sake?

Is there something positive to be gained in ignoring public regulations for the noble advancement of mob mentality?

Does chanting "USA! USA!" serve any purpose at all? That is, any rational purpose beyond a masturbatory in-you-face taunt?

Idiot

Thank you -- this is exactly why I specified "rational". As opposed to ---- whatever this is.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Sure it does. If they would have issued a citation it would have been thrown out because a verbal permit was given.

"Verbal permit"

There is no "verbal permit". If there was ---- nobody would need a permit.
They were misinformed. Not their fault.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

"Sauntering". I like it. Points for working in the word "sauntering". And even more points for working in the Malvina Reynolds reference.

But this is a choir, being conducted, in a regimented structure. That's a "performance".

Now if these authorities declared "you can't perform that particular song", you'd have a point. That's why the headline is dishonest.

 

[Camp]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

"Sauntering". I like it. Points for working in the word "sauntering". And even more points for working in the Malvina Reynolds reference.

But this is a choir, being conducted, in a regimented structure. That's a "performance".

Now if these authorities declared "you can't perform that particular song", you'd have a point.

It's a structured homage. No audience was required or expected. Therefore, not a performance. Just a ticky-tack opportunity for anti-Americans like you.

 

[Pogo]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

According to this, a marching band and/or a crowd at a high school football game would require a performance permit to sing the national anthem before a game at a public school.

 

[Pogo]

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

"Sauntering". I like it. Points for working in the word "sauntering". And even more points for working in the Malvina Reynolds reference.

But this is a choir, being conducted, in a regimented structure. That's a "performance".

Now if these authorities declared "you can't perform that particular song", you'd have a point.

It's a structured homage. No audience was required or expected. Therefore, not a performance. Just a ticky-tack opportunity for anti-Americans like you.

If there's no audience ----- who's videotaping it? Robot-Americans?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If I was conducting the choir and we were interrupted for this very reason, I would let whoever needed to have their say have their say and then once they were done having their say, I would turned to the choir and call, "From the beginning!"

God bless you and them kids always!!!

Holly

P.S. I let the person have their turn, then its back to the choir's turn.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

They certainly were shut down due to content. The denied content was the ostensible coordination of melody, meter and lyrics. What if instead they all applauded? Or they all prayed? There needs to be an audience to constitute a performance.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The choir director had actually asked a security guard if singing the anthem was OK and told yes, it was OK, making the actions of the superior security person even more shameful.

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

"Sauntering". I like it. Points for working in the word "sauntering". And even more points for working in the Malvina Reynolds reference.

But this is a choir, being conducted, in a regimented structure. That's a "performance".

Now if these authorities declared "you can't perform that particular song", you'd have a point.

It's a structured homage. No audience was required or expected. Therefore, not a performance. Just a ticky-tack opportunity for anti-Americans like you.

If there's no audience ----- who's videotaping it? Robot-Americans?

They weren't singing for bystanders.
You're wrong on this. Why so bitter?

 

[Pogo]

According to this, a marching band and/or a crowd at a high school football game would require a performance permit to sing the national anthem before a game at a public school.

Would this marching band be marching to New York to do it at the 911 Memorial?

That'd be kinda hard to hear back at the game, would it not?