It seems they're now arresting people for dancing around midnight at the Jefferson Memorial. Offhand, one might think the legal issue here is that the Memorial is supposed to be closed to the public at that hour, but that's not the case, instead it's a vague disorderly conduct charge.
« Immovable Feast | Main | Bitters »
No Dance For You
13 Apr 2008 01:19 pm
Comments (27)
Sounds like a peaceable assembly to me, which does involve a pretty important right.
And I'm pretty sure than element of a disorderly conduct charge is refusing a police order while on a public street. I don't think it's applicable to public parks and memorials.
. . . pretty sure that an element of . . .
If this is the best free speech cause the young D.C. wonk community can come up, step away from the keyboard and find some actual injustice to get railed up about. To Libertarians, a public memorial isn't something that should even been maintained by the state. They should have just imagined it was owned by a corporate entity and sought to rent it for an hour for their lame flash mob.
Look, shouldn't they have gotten a permit?Posted by Joe Strummer | April 13, 2008 1:58 PM
Well probably, but they were not cited for assembly without a permit, they were cited for "disorderly conduct".
The people that also made the post are a bit confused. They think they were MPD, but they were really Park Police. You can tell by the insignia on their uniform and it is just obvious by the fact that the Park Police is responsible for the Mall and the monuments and stuff. Which reminds me to say that the Park Police is probably the absolute worst law enforcement agency in DC (out of the 20+ that are here) and I bet that these charges are going to get dropped tout suite.
They don't want to fight libertarians in court.
Hey. remember when Freedom-Loving Libertarian Megan McArdle got this worked up over all the people that we've killed in her splendid little war? Or all the people that John Yoo's thugs tortured while the media was looking the other way?
Yeah. I don't, either. Libertarianism for me, but not for thee.
Hey. remember when Freedom-Loving Libertarian Megan McArdle got this worked up over all the people that we've killed in her splendid little war? Or all the people that John Yoo's thugs tortured while the media was looking the other way?
Yeah. I don't, either. Libertarianism for me, but not for thee.
Precisely.
As for the specific charge, disorderly conduct might work depending on how "tumultuous" the conduct was and how the statute is worded. I wasn't there.
I'm not advocating that police go arresting 20 year olds dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, I'm marveling at how some of the same people who get worked up about what is an incredibly insignificant infringement on someone's rights can so CAVALIERLY DISMISS the gross violations of human rights that are happening in at Gitmo and in Iraq.
I don't get it.
Is this a gay thing?
"I bet that these charges are going to get dropped tout suite."
Probably will. The cops won't care. The cops wanted to clear them out of the memorial, and the libertarians got to spend some time seeing the justice system from the inside.
Everyone won!
I like to imagine that, every time a libertarian spends five hours in handcuffs, an overgrown elf loses her mind.
ML, so what you are saying is that, if someone has been wrong about one thing, they have no right to be correct about anything else? Because what your comment amounts to is: since McCardle was wrong about Iraq, anything, no bad that happens to her or her friends is justified.
Which, if you notice, is exactly the Bush administration position on torture. Aren't you proud?
As I understand it, you don't need a permit if you've got fewer than 25 people, and even if you have more than that, the criterion is whether you're doing something likely to attract a crowd of onlookers. Which doesn't really apply at midnight, a time they chose to avoid getting in the way of tourists. But I find it fascinating how many people will bend themselves in pretzels in an attempt to find some kind of rationalization for what was plainly a silly, unprofessional overreaction.
ML, so what you are saying is that, if someone has been wrong about one thing, they have no right to be correct about anything else? Because what your comment amounts to is: since McCardle was wrong about Iraq, anything, no bad that happens to her or her friends is justified.
Which, if you notice, is exactly the Bush administration position on torture. Aren't you proud?
No, actually: I'm saying that McArdle, like so many self-styled "libertarians," only seems to care about government coercion when that coercion might be directed against her.
There are plenty of sincere libertarians, like Jim Henley, who are genuinely interested in promoting human freedom. Libertarians like Henley should be admired for their strong stands against things like state-sanctioned torture and mass murder; these stands are, sadly, fairly courageous in American society today.
There are plenty of other libertarians, like Megan McArdle, who are really only interested in preserving their own privilege. They don't seem to mind so much when the government kills a couple hundred thousand people, as long as they know that they won't ever be among the dead--and as long as they don't have to pay too many taxes.
I think that McArdle's outrage at the way her friends were treated is justified, in isolation. But, when her outrage here is compared to her support for the Iraq War or her relative indifference towards John Yoo, I think that the selective nature of her outrage becomes shameful.
It's good to know that one's concern for what happens to people depends on their political views. I didn't know that until now.
And you don't know how worked up or not I get about this war, or the torture and the disappearances that have been committed in my name, or SWAT teams busting into an innocent family's house at 3 am because some thug fingered them as drug dealers (or because the cops got the address wrong), or a million other things, so allow me some small outrage at what in the grand scheme of things is a small injustice.
You don't look like Megan McArdle to me, Don.
Matt,
Remember how you asked your readers to let you know the next time Spencer or Megan or yourself or your dumbass buddies did something that made you all look like incredibly spoiled, privileged and provincial youth who have no business writing for grown-ups?
Guess what?
You've done again!
One day when you're older you'll look back on stuff like this and be very, very embarrassed.
They don't seem to mind so much when the government kills a couple hundred thousand people, as long as they know that they won't ever be among the dead--and as long as they don't have to pay too many taxes.
Wait! They mind! It's always a useful opportunity for a Six Sigma give-and-take about "what went wrong" (ignoring, of course, anyone who got it right) before going off to invade the next country.
To Libertarians, a public memorial isn't something that should even been maintained by the state.
Touché.
Didn't see much libertarian outrage at the mass-arrests of Republican convention protesters. It's a testimony to liberals like MattY that he's willing to extend his sympathies at injustices suffered by those who, frankly, don't deserve any sympathies. But that's why we're liberals and not conservatarians.
Hey. remember when Freedom-Loving Libertarian Megan McArdle got this worked up over all the people that we've killed in her splendid little war? Or all the people that John Yoo's thugs tortured while the media was looking the other way?
Yeah. I don't, either. Libertarianism for me, but not for thee.
So the actions of one libertarian represents the priorities of all libertarians? Classic non-sequitur.
My response: Death to cops.
Anybody doesn't like it, here's my response to you: Fuck you.
Everybody happy now?
By the way, in a rational society, there wouldn't be such a thing as "public memorials" because by definition memorials are bullshit and public ones are doubly so.
"Didn't see much libertarian outrage at the mass-arrests of Republican convention protesters."
Where did you look? Somehow I don't think you frequent libertarian sites. And when was the last time any libertarian commentary made it into the MSM?
Stupid remark, then, right?
"Look, shouldn't they have gotten a permit? Just a little dancing? Dig a little bit down and it sounds like this was an organized activity - "flash mob" - that requires a permit."
You appear to have concluded they did in fact need a permit, but you seem to have done so based on only a guess about the policy.
Here is what it actually says on the National Park Service's website:
"National Mall & Memorial Parks is a unique and bustling park visited by over 25 million visitors per year and issuing approximately 3000 permits per year. As such a permit is required for many activities to assure that various activities will not conflict with each other or with general visitor activities. Specific areas within the individual memorials are considered restricted space. For more information please contact the Park Programs office at 202.619.7225."
http://www.nps.gov/thje/planyourvisit/permits.htm
So was a permit required? I don't know. The statement is pretty vague. Maybe someone needs to call and find out. Perhaps the Park Service should also change the statement on the website to notify people that asking the police questions about the policy makes you subject to arrest.
I think the fact that Megan McCardle sucks is making people lose sight of the real issues here.
What, were the cops extras from Footloose or something? It reminds me of the time I was in New York and saw the NYPD hassling some Tibetan monks outside the Chinese consulate and some guy decided to take the opportunity to blow marijuana smoke at their backs. He just stood their for like five minutes smoking a joint while the cops were too stupid worrying about bald old monks with a permit to notice.
Mr. Hack,
If you succeeded in your wish of 'death to cops', then it would very quickly be followed by your own death at the hands of the lawless elements who would come out of the Hobbesian woodwork omnce the cops were gone.
Honestly, I don't understand the people who don't like the police. There are many things wrong with our society. Cops aren't one of them. A strong and ubiquitous police force is necessary to a safe and healthy country. They deserve our support, admiration, and deference for keeping society at least reasonably safe. Any force that has ever tried to get rid of the police has very quickly been forced to become an even more powerful police force itself.
The only problem I have with the United States police is that there are too few of them.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a liberal, and I have a problem with this. It's not going to crack my top 100 list of political problems, but the right to assemble is a constitutionally guaranteed human right. Permit requirements for some gatherings may be necessary for maintaining public safety, but this wasn't any form of conceivable danger to the public.
They weren't arrested because they were a threat, they were arrested because they weren't liked, weren't easily understood, weren't normal. Who the hell dances at midnight in public park? Weirdos. There ought to be a law....
"They weren't arrested because they were a threat, they were arrested because they weren't liked, weren't easily understood, weren't normal. Who the hell dances at midnight in public park? Weirdos. There ought to be a law....
Posted by Anthony Damiani | April 14, 2008 2:59 AM"
Right on. The Mrs. Lovejoy's out there are just annoying. They were on their freakin' iPods. If they weren't standing near each other and looked all alone, would they have been bothered? Probably not, so why should it matter if they are closer together?
Hector, I think it's already been established by you numerous times here that you're an idiot.
Your cop worship merely reinforces that.
"If you succeeded in your wish of 'death to cops', then it would very quickly be followed by your own death at the hands of the lawless elements who would come out of the Hobbesian woodwork omnce the cops were gone."
Only because most of the human race is incapable of assuming responsibility for their own lives and also incapable of acting rationally. And I expect I'd survive reasonably well in an anarchy situation more than you would.
In any event, we Transhumans are going to resolve that problem, whether you like it or not.
And when we're done, there will be no cops. Anywhere.
No Christians, Muslims or Jews either, probably.
No politicians, either.
How many of the rest of you chimps are around depends on your reaction to that reality.
Comments closed April 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Look, shouldn't they have gotten a permit? Just a little dancing? Dig a little bit down and it sounds like this was an organized activity - "flash mob" - that requires a permit. Do I think that permits to join up with 20 of your friends at the Jefferson Memorial are fairly ridiculous? Yes.
But that's the state of the law, and time, manner, place restrictions are constitutional.
In a sane world with properly trained police, here is how this event could've been handled:
Police: "Are you guys all part of the same group?"
Participant: "Yes"
Police: "I'm sorry, but you'll need a permit to gather here for activities such as this."
Participant: "Where do we get a permit?"
Police: after explaining where to go, "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
And if the participants leave, then fine, no harm, no foul. If the participants don't leave, then they get arrested on disorderly conduct.
In this world with cops who act like thugs, this is what you get.
That said, I don't think some great right has been trampled upon.
Posted by Joe Strummer | April 13, 2008 1:58 PM