We’re in the Washington Post. Several of us were interviewed by Michael E. Ruane, the Washington Post’s metro reporter today. Mike seems like a good guy and an honest reporter but we took exceptions to a few things so I sent him this e-mail:
Mike:
Hi, it’s jason Talley, we spoke on the phone this morning. I wanted to reach you as soon as possible so that you could correct an error in you report. You wrote:
“Oberwetter was among those ushered out and was arrested after she kept returning to the chamber.”
I don’t know the source who told you that Oberwetter left and then re-entered the memorial but that is 100% inaccurate. She entered to dance silently in the main chamber just before 11:55 with the rest of us, and didn’t leave until she was in handcuffs roughly 5 minutes later. She was ushered toward the outer chamber, but did not leave the inner chamber of the memorial of her own volition at any point.Also, I would imagine that other Jefferson scholars would disagree with the one that you selected. Jefferson wrote that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
We did something far less radical. We just danced, quietly.
It’s worth noting that we respect the differences of opinion out there but there are only one set of facts and we feel confident that those are on the side of the Jefferson 1.
I’d have to agree with the Jefferson scholar here, and not the dancers.
While the quite gathering was fine, the location was not designed for such a use.
Dancing and celebrating, quietly or otherwise, would have been acceptable (and legal) at any other location outside of the inner chamber.
I can understand the desire to be in the inner chamber to recognize and celebrate Jefferson’s birthday, but certainly we can also recognize the need to have order and permissible uses in such a location.
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if a reveler left and re-entered the inner chamber or not. The group was asked to leave and stop their disorderly conduct at that inner chamber location. They did not, and the law enforcement officials enforce the law.
Either disagree or agree with the laws in this instance. The option to disobey those laws comes with consequences.
By: Dave Mason on April 16, 2008
at 8:58 am
Can some define the law that was broken?
By: Muffler on April 16, 2008
at 9:56 am
Muffler: the charge is “interfering with an agency function.” So to answer your question, no.
By: blanksslate on April 16, 2008
at 10:34 am
Reporters should report the news based on facts instead of bridging gaps on assumptions.
By: MediaMisfit on April 16, 2008
at 11:09 am
“While the quite gathering was fine, the location was not designed for such a use.”
What do you need besides a floor?
By: Felix Ling on April 16, 2008
at 2:28 pm
http://www.nps.gov/thje/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm
By: Dave Mason on April 17, 2008
at 11:11 am
“What do you need besides a floor?”
I would imagine the answer is an “unrestricted” place.
http://www.nps.gov/thje/planyourvisit/permits.htm
—————–
Permits
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.
—————–
By: Dave Mason on April 17, 2008
at 11:21 am
The design of the place does not dictate whether it is restricted or unrestricted. That designation is artificially applied to it after the fact.
By: Felix Ling on April 17, 2008
at 4:43 pm
[...] wanted to thank the Washington Post for correcting the record regarding the incident. The Post had earlier reported that Ms. Oberwetter “was arrested after she kept returning to the chamber,” which was [...]
By: WaPo update « Free the Jefferson 1! on April 21, 2008
at 6:54 am