Comments on: Washington Post Story Correction

By: WaPo update « Free the Jefferson 1!

WaPo update « Free the Jefferson 1! — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:54:07 +0000

[...] 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: Felix Ling

Felix Ling — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:43:59 +0000

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: Dave Mason

Dave Mason — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:21:11 +0000

“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

Dave Mason — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:11:49 +0000

http://www.nps.gov/thje/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

By: Felix Ling

Felix Ling — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:28:13 +0000

“While the quite gathering was fine, the location was not designed for such a use.”

What do you need besides a floor?

By: MediaMisfit

MediaMisfit — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:09:19 +0000

Reporters should report the news based on facts instead of bridging gaps on assumptions.

By: blanksslate

blanksslate — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:34:56 +0000

Muffler: the charge is “interfering with an agency function.” So to answer your question, no.

By: Muffler

Muffler — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:56:49 +0000

Can some define the law that was broken?

By: Dave Mason

Dave Mason — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:58:50 +0000

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.