The Glade 4.0

Got a link to it?

These people are complete idiots. Is there anything wrong with dancing there late at night when almost no one else is there and there's just a few of you? No.

However, protesting a decision that yes, it is indeed disruptive to do that by coming with 3000 people and doing something definitely disruptive is moronic. The whole argument in the first place is that it doesn't interefere with anyone else when it's late at night and near-vacant.. so how is that position supported by showing up with a whole assload of people in the middle of the day and interefering with others who came there to see the memorial and probably have no idea (and don't care) about your dancing? All you're doing is supporting the idea that dancing there is disruptive to others.

Frankly, if this is the attitude of people who dance there it makes the decision not to allow it a lot stronger. The dancing itself isn't disruptive but the evidence seems to indicate that the sort of people who want to dance at public monuments don't have any respect for anyone else who shows up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Kind of like hackers that think they can free the internet by giving authorities excuses to crack down...

At least it's a non-violent protest.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Speaking of which...
Ars Technica highlights recent international discussions over whether cybercrime and cyberattacks are threats to national security or could invoke commitments to act in accordance with NATO treaties. Anonymous and WikiLeaks get called out by name in the discussions.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Anomymous, absolutely. Wikileaks is nothing but an alternative media outlet. The NATO governments are just crying that someone made them look bad.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Indeed. I don't see any action being taken against WikiLeaks at this point (beyond whatever harassment for prior offenses Assange might attract), but part of cracking down is going to be shoring up their ability to trace sources that contribute to WikiLeaks and persecute/prosecute them, too.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

How in the heck would you go after Anonymous? This smacks of the RICO act. We can't link you directly but with this little teather we can charge you together. I'd liken this to a cyber riot, not an overly organized attack.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

You can't go after Anonymous. The more you talk about them, the more you inadvertently glamorize hacking, which will produce even more people acting under their name.

That's the point. Just like the movie hackers raised interest in the same thing.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Can't find a link to it over a quick search, but I can look more later. There was a copy at work that I read about a week ago. The case was Oberwetter v Hilliard. Oberwetter is the girl that did this same thing a few years back that was arrested for demonstrating in the rotunda, and Hilliard was the arresting officer. The judge basically came to the conclusion that memorials in National Parks are nonpublic forums, and as such demonstrations and similar actions can be limited even if the public is allowed free access to the building.

There's also the fact that you can demonstrate anywhere on the monument grounds except for inside the rotunda itself. That's a couple hundred square feet compared to the over 18 acres of land that constitutes the memorial. You can even demonstrate on the steps leading up to the rotunda. The line is basically the columns of the building from what I've understood.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what the big deal is about here, really.

*edit: I'm also more than a little annoyed at the "we win" claim at the end of the video. You caused a huge disruption for people who were there to visit and revere one of the most important figures in our country's history. You caused the NPS to have to shut down the memorial for a short time and kick everyone out, even people who were just there to see the place and had no idea about your "protest."

How exactly is that a win for anyone?

Only cops and stupid politicians think the First Amendment has the phrase "... and shall be regulated in such a manner that doesn't offend our illiterate sensiblities" in it...

_________________

The SCOTUS has confirmed many times that the Bill of Rights are not absolute.

Dancing isn't a form of free speech.

Unless it's interpretive dance... or dirty dancing.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Dancing is not in the Constitution, and as such it can be prohibited, similarly to other physical actions such as lying down and sleeping.

There are actually a fair number of things that the courts have decided the First Amendment doesn't cover. You know this of course, so I would have to guess that you don't believe dancing in public memorials should be one of those.

It's cool if you disagree with what the courts have decided, but denigrating all those that don't see the problem or agree with the courts doesn't really help your position much.

symbolic speech Lex.

Then I guess by the same token you can interpret the Constitution however you want, regardless of the actual words, right?
If they meant dancing, they would have written dancing. It is definitely not speech-related.

And the Supreme Court of the United States has also been wrong on several occasions ...And, yet ...

We live in a country where you have to have permission to "assemble" ...

We live in a country where you have no mechanism to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" ...

We live in a country that abridges "the freedom of speech" ...

I don't give a flying **** what you think the Supreme Court Ruled on this matter.

The First Amendment says what it says; any policy, policy action, or juridical ruling contrary to the text above is criminal.

It's really that simple.

_________________

What's the fundamental difference between dancing and masturbation? Both involve manipulating your body in ways that don't affect others. Are both "speech"?

Except, the part of the First Amendment being violated here has nothing to do with Speech, Lex. There's a protected right of assembly ...

_________________

They were allowed to assemble, just without dancing.

Except they weren't ...

Even without the dancing they were dispersed because they were a protest group without a permit.

The First Amendment is pretty clear.

_________________

I thought it was from the obnoxious dancing. If you are correct about the permit then I agree.

If they were doing the macarena, they should have been shot.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Someone explain to me the logic in that the law says that the Federal Government can not make restrictions on speech. The courts then consider all forms of expression speech. The courts then say that the Federal Government can make restrictions on speech.

The monument is Federal property, the restricting agency is the Federal Government, the Federal government is specifically prohibited from barring peaceable assembly and speech.

Note that the Constitution grants no power to the courts to limit the restrictions it places on the Federal Government.

So the Federal Government is basically avoiding its restrictions because it got its own permission to do so.

Why don't more people see a problem with this?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville