Students confronted, silenced for singing anthem @Lincoln memorial

[rbell]

You can't make this garbage up...

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ing-Anthem-at-Lincoln-Memorial-100443134.html

Imagine...students confronted by security, yelled at, and silenced. They were told...

"...that they were "were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain 'completely content neutral'..."

Maybe some intellectually challenged government personnel should remain "completely employment neutral"--for at least as long as it takes for them to remove their heads from their behinds.

Man, do we have some idiots in our country, or what?

The group had the last laugh, though:

A spokesman for the group, said, "I was taken aback. You wouldn’t expect a display of national patriotism to be censored." At that point, he said, it had become political -- and the group kept singing as an act of civil disobedience.

"If their idea of civil disobedience is singing the national anthem, then so be it," the spokesman said. "Let them disobey."

 

[Robert Snow]

It must be the fault of the police officer's union. :laugh:

 

[preachinjesus]

What a weird thing this country is becoming.

 

[Alcott]

If I ever go to that memorial again, I think I will take my harmonica and play Dixie and see what happens.

 

[rbell]

It must be the fault of the police officer's union. :laugh:

Dunno about that....but I bet you anything they defend him if he has a hearing...

 

[Salty]

The title of the thread is: Students confronted, silenced for singing anthem @Lincoln memorial

That is incorrect! They were silenced for singing - period. My understanding is that that area of the park is for a time of reflection and reflection. Those in meditation may not want to be disturbed by singing - of any kind.

And I respect that decision. Now, if the only thing you could not do was to pray - now that is an entirely different subject.

Salty

 

[matt wade]

The title of the thread is: Students confronted, silenced for singing anthem @Lincoln memorial

That is incorrect! They were silenced for singing - period. My understanding is that that area of the park is for a time of reflection and reflection. Those in meditation may not want to be disturbed by singing - of any kind.

And I respect that decision. Now, if the only thing you could not do was to pray - now that is an entirely different subject.

They didn't stop Martin Luther King, Jr. from making a speech to 250,000 in front of the monument.

 

[Robert Snow]

They didn't stop Martin Luther King, Jr. from making a speech to 250,000 in front of the monument.

Perhaps he had a permit.

 

[matt wade]

Perhaps he had a permit.

No, he didn't.

 

[Salty]

They didn't stop Martin Luther King, Jr. from making a speech to 250,000 in front of the monument.

This is just a bit off topic, and I may start a new thread, but when is it ok to purposely break the law?

 

[matt wade]

This is just a bit off topic, and I may start a new thread, but when is it ok to purposely break the law?

I don't believe there is a law in regards to the "silence" at that memorial you speak of. Can you reference the law?

 

[Robert Snow]

No, he didn't.

How do you know this?

 

[matt wade]

How do you know this?

Because I know. Why do you think he did obtain a permit?

 

[jaigner]

Because I know.

Whoa! This from a guy who always pressures me for a reference because he thinks I'm a liberal.

 

[matt wade]

Whoa! This from a guy who always pressures me for a reference because he thinks I'm a liberal.

I'm not the one that needs to provide the reference. Mr. Snow is the one that brought up the subject of a permit. Since he brought it up and stated that Mr. King had a permit, the burden of proof is on him.

Also, I would never pressure you for a reference because you are a liberal. I would pressure you for a reference for truth's sake. It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or not. I've pressured plenty of conservatives on this board for references on items as well.

 

[Nonsequitur]

The title of the thread is: Students confronted, silenced for singing anthem @Lincoln memorial

That is incorrect! They were silenced for singing - period.(Oh, no!!!! Not SINGING!) My understanding is that that area of the park is for a time of reflection and reflection. (Reflection and reflection?.....Since when does the entrance to a public area negate the First Amendment rights of citizens?) Those in meditation may not want to be disturbed by singing - of any kind.(What kind of 'meditation' does the singing of the anthem disturb? The 'meditation' for the demise of the U.S.?)

And I respect that decision. (Of course you do.)Now, if the only thing you could not do was to pray - now that is an entirely different subject.

Salty

But...what if my prayer was in the form of....'singing'? Sort of like they did in psalms?

 

[Robert Snow]

I'm not the one that needs to provide the reference. Mr. Snow is the one that brought up the subject of a permit. Since he brought it up and stated that Mr. King had a permit, the burden of proof is on him.

I said "perhaps" he had a permit. This happened decades ago; I don't know how to find out for certain that he did or didn't have a permit.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Whether or not MLK had a permit or not does not change the fact the currently, a permit is required for a demonstration of 25 people or more at the National Mall. Here is a link to the guide to the application process (link).

Was the singing of the national anthem a demonstration or special event?

Here is the definition under the Code of Federal Regulations.

Code of Federal Regulations - Specific regulations pertaining to permitting process (36 CFR 7.96) (PDF)
...
(g) Demonstrations and special events—
(1) Definitions. (i) The term ‘‘demonstrations’’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.

(ii) The term ‘‘special events’’ includes sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events (including such events presented by the National Park Service), which are not demonstrations under paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, and which are engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term also does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.
...
(2) Permit requirements. Demonstrations and special events may be held only pursuant to a permit issued in accordance
with the provisions of this section except:

(i) Demonstrations involving 25 persons or fewer may be held without a permit provided that the other conditions required for the issuance of a permit are met and provided further that the group is not merely an extension of another group already availing itself of the 25-person maximum under this provision or will not unreasonably interfere with other demonstrations or special events.

 

[Jerome]

Oops.

Kansas City Star, Aug. 9, 2010: National parks can't require permit for free speech, judge rules

In an expansive First Amendment decision, a key appellate court struck down a longstanding National Park Service requirement that activists obtain permits before they demonstrate, distribute brochures or engage in other "expressive" activities in parks.
"These regulations penalize a substantial amount of speech that does not impinge on the government's interests," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

:applause:

 

[Gold Dragon]

Oops.

Kansas City Star, Aug. 9, 2010: National parks can't require permit for free speech, judge rules


:applause:

Interesting. This ruling occurred months after the singing incident at the National Mall and was made by the D.C. circuit. So if this group had sung this month instead of two months ago, they wouldn't have been bothered and it would have been a non-issue. I guess it is too recent of a ruling to have been updated on the National Park Service website.