This is a DISGRACE!!!!!!!!

[Lonestar_logic]

They shouldn't have been arrested because it shouldn't be a law.

Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't give you a right to violate it. Don't like the law? Work to have it changed!

Demonstrating is one way to do that. Demonstrations call public attention to laws and the means of enforcement thereof.

Yea well it also gets you arrested. And in this case they law still exists and is still being enforced so the only thing they accomplished was a youtube video.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry man, I have trouble getting worked up about this.

On May 28, 2011, Kokesh and other activists participated in a flash mob-silent dance at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. in protest of a recent ruling against dancing at federal monuments; the activists were arrested through the use of physical force by U.S. Park Police officers.

Adam Kokesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

A flash mob? I saw 5 people being arrested. The rest were all standing there getting it on video.

why can't we dance at a public monument. It's public for goodness sake?

Our country has become a fascist state and most people never even noticed. The rest don't seem to care.

Good Grief Sheila...are you invoking the slippery slope doctrine?

First there's no dancing at National Monuments...and the next thing you know, we're all in detention camps for our "reeducation"?

Give me a break.

No one is saying you can't protest.

The U.S. Park Service is saying you need a permit to protest there.

Absolutely legal and constitutional.

The first amendment permits the government to impose a permit requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activity on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks.

Any such permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication.

Controlling public protest: First Amendment implications | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET
​

If you oppose this, you should fight to change it using legal forms of redress.

But if you break the law...you should expect to be arrested for it.

Where does the first amendment say the federal government can force us to get a permit before we can peaceably assemble?

"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."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A flash mob? I saw 5 people being arrested. The rest were all standing there getting it on video.

why can't we dance at a public monument. It's public for goodness sake?

Our country has become a fascist state and most people never even noticed. The rest don't seem to care.

You can if you can get the proper permit.

Personally I don't want to go to a memorial and see idiots dancing around. They have places for that ie clubs and the like.

Personally I don't want to go to a memorial and see people just standing around. They have places for that, ie the DMV and the like.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you are an idiot.

 

[Tech_Esq]

“[d]emonstrating without a permit” in violation of the National Park Service Regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(3)(ii)(C).

This would be a branch of the federal government, correct?

Since the National Park Service is indeed a federal agency, and since the Constitution restricts the federal government from abridging our right to peaceably assemble I'm forced to conclude that this is unconstitutional.

Every part of the First Amendment has been subject to "reasonable regulation" I would suspect upon investigation to find the right of assembly has too. ( See Missourian's post above)

Now, you can argue that the rule, (because the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR) deals with rulemaking power of the federal agencies), is either "arbitrary and capricious" or that it exceeds the authority of the agency. These are legitimate challenges to rulemaking authority and can be appealed to the federal court system.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can if you can get the proper permit.

Personally I don't want to go to a memorial and see idiots dancing around. They have places for that ie clubs and the like.

Personally I don't want to go to a memorial and see people just standing around. They have places for that, ie the DMV and the like.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you are an idiot.

That would be subjective.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Personally I don't want to go to a memorial and see people just standing around. They have places for that, ie the DMV and the like.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you are an idiot.

That would be subjective.

No that's a fact!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This would be a branch of the federal government, correct?

Since the National Park Service is indeed a federal agency, and since the Constitution restricts the federal government from abridging our right to peaceably assemble I'm forced to conclude that this is unconstitutional.

Every part of the First Amendment has been subject to "reasonable regulation" I would suspect upon investigation to find the right of assembly has too.

Now, you can argue that the rule, (because the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR) deals with rulemaking power of the federal agencies), is either "arbitrary and capricious" or that it exceeds the authority of the agency. These are legitimate challenges to rulemaking authority and can be appealed to the federal court system.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

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

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you are an idiot.

That would be subjective.

No that's a fact!

The person who can't tell an opinion from a fact calls somebody else an idiot?

 

[Missourian]

A flash mob? I saw 5 people being arrested. The rest were all standing there getting it on video.

why can't we dance at a public monument. It's public for goodness sake?

Our country has become a fascist state and most people never even noticed. The rest don't seem to care.

Good Grief Sheila...are you invoking the slippery slope doctrine?

First there's no dancing at National Monuments...and the next thing you know, we're all in detention camps for our "reeducation"?

Give me a break.

No one is saying you can't protest.

The U.S. Park Service is saying you need a permit to protest there.

Absolutely legal and constitutional.

The first amendment permits the government to impose a permit requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activity on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks.

Any such permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication.

Controlling public protest: First Amendment implications | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET
​

If you oppose this, you should fight to change it using legal forms of redress.

But if you break the law...you should expect to be arrested for it.

Where does the first amendment say the federal government can force us to get a permit before we can peaceably assemble?

"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."

Where does it say we have freedom of expression?

That's what this is about...so find it for me.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That would be subjective.

No that's a fact!

The person who can't tell an opinion from a fact calls somebody else an idiot?

I know the difference and I know for a fact that you are an idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good Grief Sheila...are you invoking the slippery slope doctrine?

First there's no dancing at National Monuments...and the next thing you know, we're all in detention camps for our "reeducation"?

Give me a break.

No one is saying you can't protest.

The U.S. Park Service is saying you need a permit to protest there.

Absolutely legal and constitutional.

The first amendment permits the government to impose a permit requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activity on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks.

Any such permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication.

Controlling public protest: First Amendment implications | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET
​

If you oppose this, you should fight to change it using legal forms of redress.

But if you break the law...you should expect to be arrested for it.

Where does the first amendment say the federal government can force us to get a permit before we can peaceably assemble?

"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."

Where does it say we have freedom of expression?

That's what this is about...so find it for me.

Then why bring up a First Amendment argument? The Ninth Amendment is where you'll find the freedom of expression.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No that's a fact!

The person who can't tell an opinion from a fact calls somebody else an idiot?

I know the difference and I know for a fact that you are an idiot.

I don't think that you do, as you continually demonstrate.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Since the National Park Service is indeed a federal agency, and since the Constitution restricts the federal government from abridging our right to peaceably assemble I'm forced to conclude that this is unconstitutional.

Every part of the First Amendment has been subject to "reasonable regulation" I would suspect upon investigation to find the right of assembly has too.

Now, you can argue that the rule, (because the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR) deals with rulemaking power of the federal agencies), is either "arbitrary and capricious" or that it exceeds the authority of the agency. These are legitimate challenges to rulemaking authority and can be appealed to the federal court system.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

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

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Every part of the First Amendment has been subject to "reasonable regulation" I would suspect upon investigation to find the right of assembly has too.

Now, you can argue that the rule, (because the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR) deals with rulemaking power of the federal agencies), is either "arbitrary and capricious" or that it exceeds the authority of the agency. These are legitimate challenges to rulemaking authority and can be appealed to the federal court system.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

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

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

The fact that the government violates the Constitution elsewhere doesn't mean we should accept them violating it here. The Constitution says nothing about "reasonable regulations." It says "The Congress shall make no law..." Period.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The person who can't tell an opinion from a fact calls somebody else an idiot?

I know the difference and I know for a fact that you are an idiot.

I don't think that you do, as you continually demonstrate.

That's your opinion.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

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

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

The fact that the government violates the Constitution elsewhere doesn't mean we should accept them violating it here. The Constitution says nothing about "reasonable regulations." It says "The Congress shall make no law..." Period.

I believe I addressed that in my post. You can fight it if you want to but the system of Constitutional interpretation is well settled in the law. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it does mean that short of a Constitutional Amendment changing it, it will not be.

 

[Missourian]

Where does the first amendment say the federal government can force us to get a permit before we can peaceably assemble?

"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."

Where does it say we have freedom of expression?

That's what this is about...so find it for me.

Then why bring up a First Amendment argument? The Ninth Amendment is where you'll find the freedom of expression.

Nice try...freedom of expression is extrapolated from the right to freedom of speech.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Permit regulations are analogous to proscriptive regulations on free speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The permit regulations allow law enforcement adequate time to make preparations for protests that may easily get out of hand and endanger the public.

Many protests and anti-portests, by there very nature are extremely volatile, and prone to violent clashes.

Not this one of course...but the supreme court does not allow permits to be required only of certain groups...it must be required of ALL protests.

If the U.S. Park Service allows one group to protest without a permit...it MUST allow ALL groups to protest without a permit.

So these demonstrators being arrested is not only justified...it is required.

 

[bodecea]

Every part of the First Amendment has been subject to "reasonable regulation" I would suspect upon investigation to find the right of assembly has too.

Now, you can argue that the rule, (because the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR) deals with rulemaking power of the federal agencies), is either "arbitrary and capricious" or that it exceeds the authority of the agency. These are legitimate challenges to rulemaking authority and can be appealed to the federal court system.

The First Amendment is pretty clear, "Congress shall make no law..." Yes, there are legitimate challenges, civil disobedience being one of them.

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

Something tells me Jefferson would support the freedom of expression over "reasonable regulation."

Read Missourian's post concerning what the reasonable regulations might be.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion or the free exercise thereof....." and you can't say a prayer in a public meeting any more. Tell me how that's "no law."

Their are several important aspects to Missourian's quote. One is that content can't be limited only "times, places and manners." The other is the standard of review for the regulation, it must serve an important state interest. That is a mid-range heightened review standard. Now, you might want to attack the standard of review and say that the feds should have to show a "compelling state interest" to curtail a Constitutional right, but the fact is there is regulation of Constitutional rights.

You can not like it and you can fight to change it, but that is the fact currently.

Sure you can...as long as you are not doing it under the umbrella of governmental authority. Show me any private citizen who has prayed in public who has been shut down and arrested for that.

 

[Nosmo King]

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Carved beneath the dome of the Jefferson Memorial.

ironic, ain't it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I know the difference and I know for a fact that you are an idiot.

I don't think that you do, as you continually demonstrate.

That's your opinion.

You're getting there.