It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by octotom
I don't think the first amendment has a clause for preservation of a monument, or clause for when and where.
The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not yelling fire in a crowded theater either. I think we'd all agree that that's not a good idea though.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Wrong. Their authority is derived from the laws. When they start arbitrarily making stuff up and claiming dancing is demonstrating or in any way illegal at all, then they have stepped outside of the bounds of their authority and should be arrested.
Originally posted by expo15
In the 2008 case involving Mary Oberwetter, the courts ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum, and therefore people do not have the right to demonstrate there. Therefore, demonstration is grounds for an arrest. Are you just arguing that the court's interpretation is incorrect?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by expo15
In the 2008 case involving Mary Oberwetter, the courts ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum, and therefore people do not have the right to demonstrate there. Therefore, demonstration is grounds for an arrest. Are you just arguing that the court's interpretation is incorrect?
First of all I have no qualms about disagreeing with a court, just as I have no qualms disagreeing with any other politician, and as an American citizen that is my right.
Secondly can you tell me how dancing is a form of demonstration?
What is dancing demonstrating? That it's okay to be happy and have fun? Is that what's against the freaking law now?
Originally posted by KEMIK
Why do I get the feeling that there is more to the story? Seems highly edited? I agree that for face value it is an outrage that they would be treated this way. But the puzzle pieces just don't fit.
ps. I didn't have a chance to read all of the previous posts, so if I'm wrong I apologize.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by KEMIK
Why do I get the feeling that there is more to the story? Seems highly edited? I agree that for face value it is an outrage that they would be treated this way. But the puzzle pieces just don't fit.
ps. I didn't have a chance to read all of the previous posts, so if I'm wrong I apologize.
Yes, you are right. They were dumb enough to wear their pink shirts and t shirts that say CODE PINK. That means anyone can identify them as not spontaneous couples in "love" but activists who are determined to prove that the US is a fascist, Imperial State. SDS and the Weathermen, and Jerry Rubin did this at Kent State University just before May day. Only they were more violent and set fires. Their talk and rhetoric was about using guns to shut down Universities. The issue ? War in Viet Nam. The agenda? Communism.