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.

Best wishes for Brooke.

I have no words for how floored I am by this.

… 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.