Once authority ceases to be respectable, the whole system is broken.
Posted by: jdtalley | April 25, 2008
Wow.
Responses
By: Jason Sonenshein on April 25, 2008
at 10:12 pm
Awesome.
By: jdtalley on April 27, 2008
at 11:30 pm
I wonder what right you believe is being violated. The right to assembly, you would say?
In the court cases I’ve read related to the First Amendment, the right to peaceful assembly is taken as:
“The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government…”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1efrag7_user.html#amdt1e_hd19
Now, it does not say I can assemble wherever I feel like, peaceful or otherwise, and claim that I have a right to be there. If you want to peacefully assemble in, say, the Oval Office, by all means try it.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be able to go wherever we please as human beings if we have no intention of causing harm, but perhaps your time would be better spent arguing about the Patriot Act, or the inordinate amount of searching that goes on at a typical airport, or speed limit laws, or any number of other statutes that limit you from doing something for the benefit of some “greater good”.
Yet first you must define this “right” you speak of. And don’t you dare quote the First Amendment: after all, it is the “tyrant’s will”, is it not?
By: Galen Rice on April 29, 2008
at 2:19 pm
And the next sentence: “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States.”
I’d say that gathering at the Jefferson Memorial to peacefully honor the contributions of the author of the Declaration of Independence to our republic–to celebrate his ideas and by extension to demonstrate objections to our government’s departure from them–pretty well fits the bill, wouldn’t you?
By: bob on May 2, 2008
at 10:39 am
“…for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.”
The gathering began as a celebration of an historical figure. That is neither a “consultation [on] public affairs” nor a “petition for a redress of grievances.”
What happened at the end of the gathering may be an example of the government’s departure from Jefferson’s ideas, but you’re claiming that we’ve entered a time warp of some kind: that the arrest caused the dance party to be held there in the first place.
So no, it does not “fit the bill.”
By: Galen Rice on May 2, 2008
at 1:33 pm
I love that quote from Jefferson. It is very similar to Paine’s harm principle.
By: Tom Bux on May 3, 2008
at 10:55 pm
The whole thing is just unbelievable. I wish you all the best, especially for Brooke of course. You are some sort of Liberty-heroes! 
Regards from Switzerland
By: Sisyphos on May 6, 2008
at 5:55 pm
With all due respect, Galen, it was his contributions to the republic, and not merely his status as a historical figure, that they were celebrating, it seems. It certainly wouldn’t have been just a “celebration of a historical figure” if they’d been neo-nazis at a Hitler memorial.
Just because the object, Thomas Jefferson, seems relatively benign to you and me doesn’t make the celebration any less political in nature. They weren’t at the Lincoln Memorial because as libertarians, they probably don’t like Lincoln all that much. It was indeed political speech and very much a consultation on public affairs.
By: bob on May 7, 2008
at 5:12 pm
Furthermore, Galen, it is NOT the place of the state under our form of government to decide what is legal OUTSIDE what is the written law. Things are not assumed to be illegal unless “allowed” (as you seem to suggest) by the state. It’s the other way around.
They were not doing anything illegal and therefore the police are the ones that had no right to interfere with _them_. It’s the age old “I’m the authority and I’m telling you to not do something, even though it’s legal. You question me and therefore I arrest you for resisting arrest, which I had no right to be doing in the first place.”
The circular excuse for illegally arresting people.
By: Colin on May 9, 2008
at 11:59 am
“[Sgt. Robert] Lanchase [, spokesman for the US Park Police,] notes that federal regulations designate certain areas that are ‘meant to be tranquil and quiet,’ including the inner chamber of the Jefferson Memorial. That precludes making too much noise—signs at the Memorial enjoin quiet—or any behavior that ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ ”
- from a report on the incident at ArsTechnica.com
The laws are there: it is illegal to cause a disturbance at national monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial. The question is whether the dancers caused enough of a disturbance to warrant the actions of the park police. Obviously, those officers drew the line differently than you do. The situation was much less black and white than you are painting it.
“With all due respect, Galen, it was his contributions to the republic, and not merely his status as a historical figure, that they were celebrating, it seems. It certainly wouldn’t have been just a ‘celebration of a historical figure’ if they’d been neo-nazis at a Hitler memorial.”
You assume their celebration would be different because it’s Hitler? Say there was a dance party at a Hitler memorial, and the same thing happened to them as happened to Oberwetter. Would that even be an issue of free speech to you?
“Just because the object, Thomas Jefferson, seems relatively benign to you and me doesn’t make the celebration any less political in nature. They weren’t at the Lincoln Memorial because as libertarians, they probably don’t like Lincoln all that much. It was indeed political speech and very much a consultation on public affairs.”
What public affairs were they addressing? What issues were they taking up? Simply showing that you agree with an ideal by celebrating the founder of that ideal is not a statement on public affairs: it is a show of support for a philosophy, nothing more.
Besides, if the dancing itself was meant as a political demonstration, it clearly failed. An onlooker would just see a bunch of youngsters having a good time in a public place, one gets arrested and her friends say “WTF?”
Again, I am not opining that it was right or wrong to arrest Oberwetter: I am merely questioning your assumptions about the incident.
By: Galen Rice on May 14, 2008
at 2:48 pm
I’m unconvinced that dancing quietly in a memorial at midnight ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ Noon, maybe; midnight, no. Wasn’t that the point of them going at midnight, so they wouldn’t disturb anyone?
As for Hitler, you’ve made my point for me. Of course it would be free speech. Celebrating a political figure is, quite plainly, political, protected speech. You can talk around that all you want, but I think most people would see it that way. Just because it wasn’t successful in your estimation doesn’t make it any less political in nature.
If you don’t get the connection between celebrating Jefferson’s ideas as a statement about the current state of public and political affairs in this country, I’d recommend you do some reading about the man.
By: bob on May 15, 2008
at 11:26 am
TO Galen: “The laws are there: it is illegal to cause a disturbance at national monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial.”
… So when are they arresting the hoards of unruly elementary children that plug up the experience for the rest of us during daylight hours? I mean THAT is a disturbance.
I’m just saying.
I’m sorry you can’t see the free forest for the big government tree in front of you.
By: Penny Taylor on May 16, 2008
at 8:53 pm
“I’m unconvinced that dancing quietly in a memorial at midnight ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ Noon, maybe; midnight, no. Wasn’t that the point of them going at midnight, so they wouldn’t disturb anyone?”
Now there’s an interesting question. Do the signs that ask you to be quiet have a timeframe written on them? If they knew it would be causing a disturbance in the middle of the day, does that not make it a disturbance, period? Common sense says no (and I agree with you: I don’t think it did), but then law does not know common sense, does it?
“Celebrating a political figure is, quite plainly, political, protected speech. You can talk around that all you want, but I think most people would see it that way.”
Protected speech, yes (within limits, as always); political, not necessarily. I usually celebrate President’s Day with a backyard barbecue. Are steaks and potato salad a political statement? Of course it could be seen that way, and I imagine you would see it that way, but I do not.
A celebration of Hitler could be seen as political, sure, but it would more likely be seen as violent and racist. In actuality, they could be dancing at a Hitler memorial to celebrate his death, the fall of Nazi Germany and the end of the Holocaust. Your perception is being colored by the nature of the figure they’re bopping around.
All three of these examples - the Jefferson memorial incident, a President’s Day BBQ, and the hypothetical Death of Hitler Danceathon - are celebrations. Do they involve political subjects? Yes. Are they, themselves, political statements on current affairs? I do not think so.
“So when are they arresting the hoards of unruly elementary children that plug up the experience for the rest of us during daylight hours? I mean THAT is a disturbance.”
If you want the park police to arrest the kids, by all means write them a letter and suggest it. Probably won’t go very far, but it’s worth a shot, right? I mean, that’s how a democratic republic is supposed to work: we tell the people in power how we want them to govern us.
By: Galen Rice on May 21, 2008
at 5:14 pm
raylehmann
blanksslate
peteeyre
From the comments:
Hmm, there was some guy one time who took a different view. What was it that he said?
Who was that again? Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson.
Posted in On Thomas Jefferson, Personal Comment