I was very sorry to be missing this, as I'm out of DC for the weekend, but not as sorry as I am now--someone just got arrested.
The background: twenty people were at the Jefferson Memorial, dancing to the private groove of their own iPods so as not to disturb anyone. Apparently cops showed up and ordered them to disperse anyway, despite the fact that they were not doing anything obviously illegal. One of the libertarians joyfully (yet tastefully and quietly) celebrating the birthday of a favorite founding father questioned why they should have to move along--at which point one of DC's finest shoved them up against a pillar, cuffed their hands behind their back, and hauled them away.
As a resident of DC, I'm certainly overjoyed to hear that violent crime has fallen to a level where we can spare valuable police resources to fight the silent scourge of . . . dancing. Now that we have no more murders or muggings, it seems to me that we should also be looking at newsboys who smoke, women who attend the theater, and of course, the iniquitous habit of playing cards on the sabbath.
Update Julian Sanchez has more.
I wasn’t aware dancing at a public monument was prohibited by any statute—but given that my friend’s immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun, I predict hilarity.
Rule #1 of things like this: know who you're dealing with. Of course, respect for one's civil rights should not be predicated on happening to know a lot of troublemakers with podiums.
Update II Jason Talley offers his account:
First I’d like to make a few things clear. We decided to use iPods to be respectful of other people’s experience at the Jefferson Memorial. No music was heard by anyone other than those wearing headphones. We chose midnight so that we wouldn’t disturb anyone. There were about six other people there that were not with us or the police. If you were one of these people I’d like to hear from you to get your account of what happened.Perhaps six minutes into the event, security tried to stop us and kick us out of the memorial. Most of the Jefferson fans questioned the officers to try to understand what authority they citing to use force against us. Unfortunately I wasn’t near the “Jefferson 1” so I can’t tell you what she did or didn’t do but she was hauled away, handcuffed, in a police van and charged with disorderly conduct.
So in the 2008 version of the USA you cannot dance at the Jefferson Memorial without being disorderly it seems.
Radley Balko has a similar story.
Everyone I spoke with says there was no noise, there were no threats, and no laws broken (the park police I spoke with–including the arresting officer (who, oddly enough, denied to me that he was the arresting officer)–declined to say why she had been arrested).The police refused to answer any questions, referring all calls to the communication number of the Park Police, which at this hour is closed. They also refused to give their badge numbers.
I’ll post some video tomorrow morning of two flash mobbers who say she was doing nothing at all–she was barely even dancing. Her crime was apparently to ask “why?” when the park police told the group they had to disperse. Note too that this was at around midnight. No one was bumping into tourists, or obstructing anyone’s way. I guess the only conclusion, here, is that it’s apparently illegal to dance on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial–even with headphones. You know, post 9-11 world and all. Harmless fun will be interpreted in the most threatening context imaginable.
As Julian notes, the problem here is not that one of my friends, an educated white girl, had to spend five hours or so being harassed by the police. It is that the police think that questioning orders constitutes disorderly conduct. And that the result of questioning them is probably a lot more than moderate harassment when the questioner is not an educated white girl with a lot of camera toting friends.
Update III More from Peter Suderman.
This is really pathetic. It's like the police were deliberately trying to hand the Chinese an incident with which to destroy Americans' moral authority if we try to object to police repression of demonstrators at the Olympics.
Of course nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to dance at national memorials while listening to MP3 players, and to read such a right into the penumbra of the right to freedom of association would probably be "facetious" or "liberal judicial activism" or something. Jerks.
"but given that my friend’s immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun, I predict hilarity."
Given that his friend's circle is probably composed of folks who smoke pot, illegally download music, and are guilty of assorted other nuisance crimes, I predict hilarity as well, when the piss off the D.C. police force.
Fred Says: "I predict hilarity as well, when the piss off the D.C. police force."
Such as it is, anyway.
One person's spontaneous joyous moment is another person's threatening mob.
Hmmm. I wonder if there are actual visiting hours for the various monuments in DC, and which types of spontaneous groups of people we really want to see bopping around at midnight, and what range of activities should be permissible, and how late into the night we want to allow them to go.
Or is it a special thing for certain well employed connected types only?
The miracle of Google allows these and many more questions to be answered with the click of a button, if you're one of those "connected" types: The Jefferson Memorial is open to the public 24-hours a day. Though, of course, if you want to bop around without inconveniencing tourists, you might want to do so at an hour where almost nobody else is there -- say, midnight.
Brooksfoe,
That's right. We need the Supreme Court to establish a right to asking cops questions without being taken in. The current Bill of Rights fails to provide adequate protection to innocent people against police misconduct. However, discovering an absolute right to dancing to MP3 is going to fix all that.
What was it you called the DC cops?
OMG!! I didn't know that Megan and her libertarian friends were actually DFH!!! Welcome, Megan!
Libertarians celebrating a notorious slave-shagger? It's just a pity that the police don't celebrate irony.
Police officers tend to know very little about the laws they're supposedly enforcing, and they don't seem to care much, either. My local paper had a column today consisting of four questions about carrying weapons, with answers provided by the local police department. They answered three of the questions by saying, essentially, "We don't know what the law is, and if we don't like what you're doing, we might arrest you." The answer to the other question was, "There's no law on the books that covers this, and we might arrest you if you do it." And this was something they had to prepare in advance, presumably with no time pressure.
Finally, what the world's been waiting for: "Don't you know who I am?!" libertarianism.
I don't presume to know why the park police cuffed and, er, removed the one participant.
Nevertheless, it wouldn't have hurt anyone if the organizers had asked themselves in advance how people unlike them might have interpreted their spontaneous midnight celebration. Words like "odd" might come to mind, as might "suspicious" and "intoxicated."
Remember, the police have to make a snap judgment about what to do. They tend to err on the side of caution.
Of course, this, too, leaves plenty of room for error. It could be that the celebrants were as entirely harmless as described here, but the "tourists" visiting the monument were actually murder suspects with outstanding arrest warrants. Unbeknown to the police, the presumed tourists planned to leave the monument and perpetrate a violent home invasion later in the night...
Seems like a pittance doesn't it? Arrested for "disorderly conduct." And at the Thomas Freaking Jefferson memorial, of all places.
Didn't Thomas Jefferson commit the ultimate act of disorderly conduct?
The good news is that we're a nation of laws. It's against the law for the police to falsely arrest anyone. It's also against the law for them to withhold public arrest records.
The bad news is that few have the cajones of THomas Jefferson in this day and age to sue the Washington D.C. park police thugs for false prisonment.
We need to trim a few of the branches from the tree of liberty, folks.
I support this police action.
Dancing is and base and low form of entertainment and may encourage the Negros to revolt (as they are known to enjoy it also).
The DC cops get, and deserve, a lot of bad raps.
Yet this was the Federales, the Park Police. Are they one step up, or one step down, from the DC police?
Under the law the police are above the law. When a policeman yells at you He is above the law. He is God. You must do whatever He says. You may not ask questions. His Word is Law.
Um. If the Memorial is closed and people refuse to leave, why NOT arrest them for disorderly conduct? Isn't this a microcosm of libertarianism philosophy? Weren't these libertarians confusing license with liberty?
The place was closed. Come on.
The First Continental Congress fretted muchly about the evils of public dancing. It certainly saved them from the burden of worrying about trivia, like how to raise money to pay Gen. Washington's troops. Fortunately for all involved, we didn't have police forces back then.
The Memorial was not closed, as ten seconds Googling would have told you.
Moron.
Jeff exposes the fact that like many antilibertarians he is both an idiot and too lazy to use Google. How typical.
MarkG exposes that like many antilibertarians he at the core of his being believes that anyone who commits any action that would be out of place in a Hopper painting should know in advance that they will be arrested for it.
Perhaps, MarkG, whatever the purpose of this action and whatever questions the organizers may have asked themselves, it at least demonstrated that the Park Police is composed of worthless bastards who define any momentary deviation from rote and mechanical conformity as "disorderly conduct".
I don't know what's surprising about this.
This administration has used the bogeyman of Terra to create authoritarian policies, and to remove constitutional protections from Americans, as a matter of course. There are now 'free speech zones' set up well away from appearances by elected officials. Petty bureaucrats at airports can order anyone strip searched, and can deny travel to anyone on their own say-so. Police infiltrated knitting circles in New York before the Republican convention. Communications are monitored by the NSA, using the same techniques the Chinese governmnt uses.
Mr. Wove wrote,
I see the reasonableness of his first sentence. There are different senses of 'closed.' The memorial is closed to certain kinds of group events. Group dancing outside the hours of park ranger supervision may well be one of them.
As for his second sentence, Mr. Wove is shown to be an impetuous ass.
Huh. From the Memorial's permit-page above:
"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."
So... there are "group activities" that require a permit, but they won't tell you what they are? How are you supposed to know whether you need to call for a permit?
That said, "showing up with 20 friends" is manifestly not one of the aforementioned permit-requiring activities. Presumably this is the case even when your friends all have iPods. So I'm wondering how much bounce in one's step is permissible before you cross the line into dancing, requiring park ranger supervision or intervention by John Lithgow.
Didn't Thomas Jefferson commit the ultimate act of disorderly conduct?
No, those of the Founders who actually fought get that honor.
I think someone said Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
(And yes, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that)
Whether they were a group participating in a group activity or not, please tell me what real harm they were doing? What happened to tolerance of people and their behavior? Why is it that the burden lies on individuals to explain their activities and not the state? The problem is also that there are now so many laws (which we all break at some point) that are arbitrarily in-forced. Not far from totalitarianism now is it?
Live free or die!
I think a peaceful gathering at midnight on every Saturday from now on is in order. I predict that the government will change the rules to ban protests there once this starts.
I can't think of a better way to re-enforce the Founding Fathers views than to start the push back at the steps of the man who expressly demanded we do it.
What is most damaging and scary for me is the fact that a pattern is emerging. Someone protests at a political event or speech, they're arrested on bogus charges, and then quickly enough the charges are dropped. Then people say "The charges are dropped, what's the big deal?" The big deal is that the protesters' free speech has been curtailed; dropping the charges is an admission that the activity wasn't illegal, but hey, we shut them up, so we got what we wanted. And it keeps happening. People get arrested for wearing t-shirts or holding signs. Arresting with no intent of actual prosecution is becoming a major problem.
I'll gladly take the other side on this issue.
You allow silent dancing, how far behind that are mimes? What next, a mime pretending to fry eggs in front of the Kennedy perpertual flame?
These dancers could have backed into and knocked over an old lady. The defenses of consent and assumption of risk to involuntary contact on a dance floor is predicated on the fact that it takes place ON A DANCE FLOOR. This was not a dance floor.
I say they were being disruptive and were asked to leave and refused. Lock 'em up.
Words like "odd" might come to mind, as might "suspicious" and "intoxicated."
Jesus.
We can't allow government agents, at whatever level, to be in the business of determining what they feel is "odd" or "suspicious", nor can we allow them to decide that that behavior enables them to arrest without charge. The police have to enforce actual laws, and they have to have just cause to do so. "Intoxicated" is an empirical claim and one that can be backed up by evidence. There are specific statutes telling the police how they should determine if people are intoxicated or not. Dancing with Ipods at the Jefferson memorial as part of a organized group is not one of them.
Mr. Sanchez, the website you quoted contains the answer. You need only call the aformentioned telephone number, "specific areas within the individual memorials are considered restricted space. For more information please contact the Park Programs office at 202.619.7225."
That's simply not clear in a city with property crime rates as high as DC's, during hours without park ranger supervision.
License is not liberty, sir.
I was actually reading something very similar last night in Peter Moskos's "Cop in the Hood." He was patrolling Baltimore's Eastern District, but he says that one of the main things that a cop will do is always assert the right to control public spaces. So, on a drug corner, if a cop demands that everyone disperse, he will force them to, even if they aren't doing anything obviously illegal. They use charges like loitering and disorderly conduct so that they have a valid cause to arrest people who refuse to follow their orders.
It's not immediately clear why park police would be treating the Jefferson Memorial like a drug corner. Could just be that the cops are tough guys who like to boss people around. Or maybe these particular cops usually patrol tougher areas, like the Mall at night, and usually have valid reasons to want to disperse people without clear cause?
Either way, pretty clearly inappropriate as it happened.
I apologize for interrupting this discussion, but if this incident in D.C. had involved young Blacks rather than cuddly libertarians, it is unlikely that Megan McArdle could have managed to devote any of her time to the story (or she might have typed out a blurb in defense of the D.C. police). Unfortunately, this incident involving the D.C. police is routine, but Megan McArdle does not want this incident to overshadow her concern for the Iraqi refugees who are unable to come to the United States. Those who are upset by this incident in D.C. should show some respect for Megan McArdle by directing their attention to the Iraqi refugees.
With reference to the response of the United States to the plight of Iraqi refugees, Megan McArdle stated three days ago: "(F)or the first time in my life, I'm utterly ashamed of my country." Normally, a libertarian such as Megan McArdle would tell these Iraqi refugees to channel some rugged individualism and pick themselves up by their own sandal straps. Of course, individuals in the United States are free to donate to the Iraqi refugees. Because Megan McArdle entreats U.S. taxpayers to help the Iraqi refugees, it would be interesting to know if she exhibits this same zeal for the welfare of the Iraqi refugees in her personal donations to charity. This issue is the only issue that ever made Megan McArdle ashamed of her country, and she probably will want to tell us how much she has donated to the Iraqi refugees during each of the last five yerrs. Or maybe because she chose journalism rather than a successful career in high finance, Megan McArdle thinks that she has already given at the office.
Megan McArdle states: "I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions," and it could not be expected that she was going to say that the muggers are "lessally" culpable than the person who gave the bad directions. One thing that was not clear regarding Megan McArdle's comparison of a Iraq to a mugging in an alley: Is she the person with the bad advice, or is she the mugger? Just kidding; we all know she is the person with the bad advice.
One more caution: Megan McArdle has expressed her disapproval of name-calling. I have already been called ignorant and slow by Megan McArdle's fan-base, and I can survive these personal attacks, but Ms. McArdle has been upset by such behavior from her defenders.
Curmudgeonly Troll beat me to the most appropriate quote.
I think midnight dancing at the Jefferson Memorial should be a nightly or weekly event.
Damn. It's a shame the cops didn't have 2x4s and didn't beat the "educated white girl" about the skull out with them.
That's how a real libertarian deals with those who question orders. And illegal wars.
Were they, Mr. Beard? You're using loaded language, but on the principle of charity I'll take it seriously. You want to question the principle upon which there could be public concern over a gathering of youths at the memorial. I agree that it isn't immediately clear, but the answer emerges with a smidgen of reflection. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial is a national treasure in a city with rampant property crime rates.
The concern is legitimate.
FREE BROOKE!
FREE BROOKE!
FREE BROOKE!
Of course nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to dance at national memorials while listening to MP3 players, and to read such a right into the penumbra of the right to freedom of association would probably be "facetious" or "liberal judicial activism" or something. Jerks.
Posted by brooksfoe
Don't be silly. There's a big difference between something that's not in the constitution at all and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". The constitution Jefferson helped establish is too important to simply make it say whatever whatever happens to be popular at the time.
Remember, "penumbras" can take away rights as easily as grant them. Remember Gonzalez v. Raich, or Wickard v. Filburn?
Constitutional dudes:
The Constitution does not enumerate all the rights of the people, it enumerates the powers of the government! Isn't there a part in it that says to the effect, "if we did not say it, the power/right belongs to the states and then to the people"? The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a failsafe for when the bureaucrats ignored the implied freedom in the rest of the Constitution. I mean, after all who could not understand the plain, direct, and simple English in the Bill of Rights? :-)
Here are the permit requirements, from the Code of Federal Regulations, 36CFR7.96.
First, section (g) defines what a "demonstration" is
But it is (g)(2)(i) that says that no permit was required:
You can read it all yourself here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03jul20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/36cfr7.96.pdf
By the way, if you go all the way down to (3)(ii)(C), it says that demonstration are never allowed at the Jefferson Memorial, except for his official birthday celebration. These folks were just jealous of possible competition!
I'm assuming at this point that Jeff is engaging in parody, though I suppose it's not totally impossible he's serious, which would be depressing.
If this was fiction I'd say this story was a ripoff of the Plain Janes by Cecil Castellucci and Jim Rugg.
This book is about a bunch of high-school girls who get together to sneak out at night and create artistic, and mostly harmless acts of 'vandalism'. (Rearranging construction debris into pyramids, putting soap into fountains to make bubbles, etc.)
The authorities overreact at every step. At times I think the possible flaw in the story is the degree to which certain authority figures seem to take it all too seriously. Then news stories like this one come along, reminding me that the book had it all to true to life.
Those (who are not enlightened progressives) who read the comments will notice the shift in attitude among the modern liberal mindset in the last 3 decades. What started out as a counter-culture movement, aligned against state control over societal attitudes, has turned into an obsequious pro-government position (while vehemently hating the current administration, it is the personality and their choices that bother them, not the use of power over others per se). When you get your wish with regard to social redistribution schemes, which of course requires an all-encompassing government to centralize the "management of resources", you then can't bite the hand that feeds you by criticizing the Leviathan. If people question the State when it comes to late-night dancing, they may question the State when it comes to a 40+% (and growing) tax rate.
Yah, yah, yah...
Of course, as far as I can see, no one has determined whether or not said young woman was out to provoke a reaction from the authorities.
Crap like this tends to up the noise and lower the signal when discussing whether or not we have the jackboots of authority coming down on our necks.
...and while I'm being curmudgeonly, whats does being an "educated white girl" have to do with this?
Would it be OK if the park police arrested a piss soaked black homeless man for dancing *without* an iPod?
This stinks more and more like a self-indulgent group of poli-sci studets version of agitprop.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. . . ."
Megan's final paragraph contains a logical fallacy. Just because one thing is LESS important than another thing does not make the first thing UN-important.
She seems to be arguing that a) murder is the most serious crime; and b) all less-serious crimes should not be investigated until all murders are resolved. By this logic, rape is less serious than murder, and thus rape cases should not be investigated unless all murders have been solved. Similarly kidnapping, home invasion, assault and battery, etc. are also less serious than murder, and thus unworthy of police attention.
The next time you get a speeding ticket, try complaining that there are other, more serious crimes and that the officer shouldn't be wasting his time on you, and see how far it gets you.
None of this should be read as a defense of the police action in this case. If there was no crime, than the woman should not have been arrested. On the other hand, if there WAS a crime, then the woman SHOULD be arrested, regardless of whether there other, more serious crimes are going unpunished.
In public place and often despite appearances to the contrary, there are certain unspoken behavioral standards -- "expected behavior." You can certainly choose to dance outside these standards, so to speak, but the response by others may not consist of politely ignoring you. Others may feel threatened by what you do, even if you mean no harm. You cannot assume that others know you personally, can see or correctly interpret your motives -- even if you announce them in advance.
There is still an appropriate time and place for everything. And holding an unusual, unique performance with a clutch of friends at the focal point of a public park at midnight is a poor choice of venue. The police had the discretion whether or not to let it proceed; the activity may potentially have made other visitors feel threatened in some way, and the police also have to look out for those other visitors -- the ones night dancers either thought would be a like-minded audience or about whose approval they did not care, preferring instead to shock and offend those who disapproved. In the latter case, the performers arguably got what they had coming to them.
Um, there's also the Thomas Jefferson National Forest that they might have chosen as a venue. Or perhaps the roads around Monticello. Hell, if they'd held their ceremony on the grounds of Jefferson's University of Virginia, others probably would have joined in, as the behavior might have seemed anything other than out of the ordinary.
It's safe to assume they would never have chosen to iDance in Jeferson Nat'l Forest with the squirrels, deer, and bears. No, leaving the safety of the urban setting -- the safety assured by the police you denounce -- was also something the performers relied on. It was the behavior they expected from society to provide them with a safe venue.
"No, leaving the safety of the urban setting -- the safety assured by the police you denounce"
LOL. Someone needs to check the crime stats for DC, and compare them to the crime rates at national parks.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting too upset about this. Of course police use a lot of discretion about how to enforce laws and safety. As Robert Beard pointed out, "maintaining control" is absolutely essential for doing so, and is not done by simply enforcing the laws.
Of course, this means that (horrors!) discretion is involved rather than strict adherence to the letter of the law. And of course, having discretion means that it *will* get abused. What's the solution? Pushback. And I can guarantee there's going to be a fair amount of pushback on this issue :-). (And why simply ignoring it is wrong.)
As usual, the only thing that would be worse than allowing for discretion that will occasionally be abused is not allowing any discretion at all. We've all dealt with organizations that have removed any discretion on the part of the employees (in order to avoid any possible abuse), and we all know what sort of massive inefficiency and bureaucratic hell it is to deal with them.
So, I accept that the police will have to deal with many issues in a not-strictly legal fashion and also accept that pushback in the form of adverse publicity and disciplinary actions will have to regularly occur in order to stop the police's natural incentives to take this discretion too far.
No conspiracy - no society becoming wildly authoritarian. Simply the overshoot followed by the correcting mechanism that occurs in any working system.
I am always continually amazed by all the patriotic talk about how we are a "free country", but as soon as somebody does something a little bit different, they all come out of the woodwork to justify police state action.
A freedom to be just like everybody else is not "freedom".
I know the people in question, and no one was trying to provoke a reaction from the authorities; they're not the rabble rousing types. I've probably attended more demonstrations than all of them together. They were just dancing. When they were told to stop dancing, the person in question asked "Why", and was arrested for doing so. I hope that questioning the government is not yet a federal offense.
The other Jeff sucks.
I suspect the cops were offended by the sight of youth having having fun at a national monument. Quite understandable. Ask for names and badge numbers. No guarantees, but I've seen this work wonders.
Crap like this tends to up the noise and lower the signal when discussing whether or not we have the jackboots of authority coming down on our necks.
Posted by Moose | April 13, 2008 12:13 PM
X2
I'm sure there were many places in DC that they would not have chosen for dancing with their ears plugged -- day or night. And I believe the Jefferson Memorial to be a national park. ;-)
I may have missed someone making this point, but the DC Metropolitan Police are not the United States Park Police. The Park Police would have been the ones doing any arresting at a federal monument.
Please be sure you sue the correct department for false arrest.
Nevertheless, the lady was not arrested for dancing, but merely for questioning the police action. I suppose she might have shown some attitude, but it's not a crime to arch one's eyebrows while asking "why?"
Some of the commenters who are disparaging the arrestee would probably be screaming "injustice!" or "fascism!" if the arrested person had been protesting on behalf on some pet political cause, instead of merely having fun.
Well said, Moose.
Only in this country can one march in the streets of the capital obnoxiously protesting "the oppression inherent in the system" without fear of retribution.
I'll bet a courtesy call to the Park Police to ask if such an event would be considered disruptive or require a permit is too much to ask.
If I really wanted to dance at midnight with 20 friends at a National monument undisturbed, I'd have made that call.
If I wanted to show up at Midnight and dance with 20 friends just to see what happened, I wouldn't bitch when the police aren't amused. There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. "Why" isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene. She knew why: She just didn't think she could be busted for it.
Its late, and 20 people dancing to no apparent music at a National Monument at midnight requires somebody be dispatched to investigate. Meanwhile other areas of the Park are unprotected. Thanks for giving the real vandals and criminals some breathing room.
I just hope at least one of them had the Footloose soundtrack on their iPod.
It was not long ago that there was a rash of assaults and muggings in the area of the memorials and Washington Monument. There was an outcry for the Park Police to provide more patrols and enforce the laws.
I suppose it depends upon what laws you wnat enforced.
"I'll bet a courtesy call to the Park Police to ask if such an event would be considered disruptive or require a permit is too much to ask.... There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. 'Why' isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene."
I hear if you fill out a form in triplicate, you can apply for the return of your testicles. Be sure to ask nicely.
Har, har! People's Republic of Korea, here we come.
Or was it, If you can't do the time, don't commit the, er, crime...
If it's any consolation, a now outed authoritarian apologist like myself will spend the next 48 hours or so in home detention for the purpose of doing my taxes. This is the punishment we citizens receive for the infraction called "gainful employment." Then I'll dance a jig down to the post office to send the authorities a check to cover the pecuniary fine for same infraction.
Bwahahaha! Help! We're being oppressed!
"There are lots of ways to deal with Police when responding to an order to disburse. "Why" isn't one of them, unless you want to make a scene. She knew why: She just didn't think she could be busted for it."
Why is a perfectly valid question that should not get you arrested by the police. The police should be able to explain why you have to disperse, if they can't they shouldn't resort to just arresting people. The police should have headed over there, asked nicely what they were doing and then went on their way after seeing they were completely harmless. It would have A) Been the right thing to do and B) wasted far less time on 20 people who weren't breaking the law.
I understand that they looked suspicious over there, but 5 seconds listening to them would have nearly anybody thinking they were harmless, but weird people.
You can predict all the hilarity you want, Julian. The hilarity will ensue the minute we get to see the looks on your friends faces when they find out that there is nothing in the BoR that makes an order from the police a "negotiation" if the cops are in the mood to be dicks. You've been right wing so long it looks like left to you and you got the gummint you asked for, you dumb fucks. Radley Balko! What a schmuck.
Any one of you libtardian geniuses got a handy definition of police, and I don't mean from a dictionary, something more robust and comprehensive, academic? I thought so.
LWM,
start here: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=night-watchman+state
also, to be clear, the Police State, runamok, is hardly anything resembling 'libertatian'
Posted by JordanT
Now who's the dingbat hippie?
Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument. That's reserved for barricaded armed suspects with hostages. Probably the sense of entitlemnt and arrogance common among this group of right wing libertarians pissed the cops off. They just didn't like you. Can't say I blame them much. They found you in contempt of cop. No reprieve. Good luck with the judge. Snort!
It's nice to see Stacy McCain here. Apparently he has a lot of free time on his hands since the Washington Times shitklanned his pale ass.
Stacy's a fake libertarian, as evidenced by his belief that "the civil rights movement, to a great extent, represented a direct assault on tradition and law." A true libertarian might agree with that statement, but would offer it as praise, not with a tear in his eye and sheet over his head.
MEH,
I majored in CJ. I know the definition.
The key phrase is "non-negotiable, coercive lethal force in accordance with situational exigencies" and the rank and file cop on the beat has a greater degree of discretion in the performance and dischrge of his duties than do his superiors in theirs. In that respect, it is an upside down world from a corporation or law firm.
This is not a police state. If it is, it is the first one on the planet that more people are trying to get into than get out of. It is a National Surveillance/Security state. But that's another kettle of fish.
Anyway, I'm sympathetic, but I couldn't resist a little Schadenfreude. I'm only human. Back to your kvetching unmolested. Hopefully the mood of LE, and the nation, will loosen up as we get away from the current regime and its after effects but next time, do this at lunch time on weekday or something. Middle of the night is just asking for it.
LWM sez Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument.
You of course apply that same rule to anti-capitalist, anti-globalism demonstraters, right?
The Jefferson Memorial at midnight is a fun place. In fact, I recommend to anyone visiting DC to go to the Lincoln, Jefferson and Vietnam memorials late at night. The park rangers aren't so busy, and they have some great stories--and time to tell them.
But I understand why they might be worried about 20 people showing up at midnight and dancing to inaudible music. Remember, the rangers didn't know what was going on. They have to keep peace and order, and here they have a bunch of people acting strangely.
The rangers are outnumbered. They're worried. They don't know what's going to happen next.
Sure, the dancers knew, and had no intention to cause serious harm. But they didn't share that information with the rangers. They didn't call in advance, or even talk to the rangers on the spot.
"But they don't have to!" Well, not really. But as any serious, experienced protestor will tell you, you DO talk to the cops in advance--because not doing so may get you hurt.
And walking up to cops who are busy making arrests and asking, "But why?" is just plain dumb. It's like asking a quarterback, two seconds into the play, why he chose that play. He's a little busy right then, and he's not going to appreciate the distraction.
I'm sure the courts will dismiss all charges. That's why we have courts, which are deliberative bodies. They have the time in which to deliberate. Cops, on the spot and in the heat of the moment, have to react.
This is worthy of a good, old-fashioned Nixon-era march on Washington protest like we used to have. But it's just one of thousands. Don't you wonder how many others are as frustrated and pissed off at our governments as we?
--Cop says you go, you go. Period. No discussion, no debate, no argument.-- LWM
This _is_ how the real world works, in practice. Even if the cop is acing totally illegally, if you and he argue, you lose automatically. Any option that would enable you to 'win' on the scene is itself illegal.
(For ex: if you resist a cop who acting illegally with force, you've _both_ broken the law unless it was self-defense of your life, or something that fundamental.)
If the cop is seriously out of line, and you have witnesses or videotaped evidence or whatever, you _might_ be able to get him in trouble afterwards, but you still lose on the scene.
That's the way things have always been and probably will always be. Which is not to say that we couldn't demand higher standards of training and behavior from the police, and if the public really wants them it'll happen.
But you still lose if you argue with a cop.
Someone should ask the DA in the Duke rape case about how easy it is to hide behind the discretion of one's office when one screws with the wrong people.
It may be "Don't you know who I am?" libertarianism, but hey - at least somebody can break these f*^&ers when they need to be broken.
Hopefully someone will decide to ride this park police d*%^head to an early retirement with every legal form of harassment a lawyerly mind can think up.
The police had the discretion whether or not to let it proceed; the activity may potentially have made other visitors feel threatened in some way, and the police also have to look out for those other visitors -- the ones night dancers either thought would be a like-minded audience or about whose approval they did not care, preferring instead to shock and offend those who disapproved. In the latter case, the performers arguably got what they had coming to them.
In the absence of audible music, they weren't even really "dancing". Without music, they were just "walking funny".
If I don't like the way you walk, can I declare myself "threatened" and have you beaten with truncheons?
Guess what: I don't give a rat's ass about anyone who would feel "threatened", or feel "shocked or offended" by people moving strangely. Get different feelings.
And the entire point here is that the police should not have the discretion to decide whether or not to let it proceed. I don't really believe in "time, place or manner" restrictions on public assembly, for the simple reason that no such qualification on the right of assembly is described in the Bill of Rights, however closely our corrupt judiciary squints at it. But let's say I did accept that you could place a restriction on public assembly in order to facilitate access to our public spaces by everyone. In that instance, you'd have to show me that these people in some way damaged the access of others to the monument in a way materially greater than they would have just by walking around and looking at things like the "normal" visitors. And you can't possibly show me that.
Buses unload groups of 45 people at these monuments every few minutes all day every day. Those "groups" then get out and "walk around" the monument. This was a "group" of 20 people who "silly walked" around the monument. No permit should be necessary for the latter if none is necessary for the former.
Here's how it should have gone down...
Park Police: Hi, what are you doing?
Citizen: Hi officer, we're silently dancing to celebrate the third president's birthday.
PP: Ok. Well, there have been some muggings in this area late at night but I don't think a mugger's going to take on all of you, so just be careful. And don't trip on the steps. Have a nice night.
Well at least the young lady is probably comfortably home and now we know that if sufficiently harmful or even dangerous people (M13 DC chapter) decided to flash mob, they too would feel the park police fist. Hopefully.
This whole event kind of reads like it should be on "Stuff White People Like", a site Julian seems to be not terribly fond of. All the elements are there: outraged libertarians, Twitter, Facebook, Flash Mobs, friends with cameras, cute chicks, supportive blogger friends with blogs linking to ponderous book titles, public performance art, getting sophistic with cops, police action without use of bullets, molehills into mountains.
(Not that other ethnicities don't do the above. They just tend not to be the genesis and revolution of such cultural creations).
While the arrest may have been right, you really need to realize that park police (ie, Ranger Smith) DON'T INVESTIGATE MURDERS. They aren't even in the same jurisdiction as DC Homicide cops. That argument is ridiculous.
Well at least the young lady is probably comfortably home and now we know that if sufficiently harmful or even dangerous people (M13 DC chapter) decided to flash mob, they too would feel the park police fist. Hopefully.
This whole event kind of reads like it should be on "Stuff White People Like", a site Julian seems to be not terribly fond of. All the elements are there: outraged libertarians, Twitter, Facebook, Flash Mobs, friends with cameras, cute chicks, supportive blogger friends with blogs linking to ponderous book titles, public performance art, getting sophistic with cops, police action without use of bullets, molehills into mountains.
(Not that other ethnicities don't do the above. They just tend not to be the genesis and revolution of such cultural creations).
Disobeying a "lawful order to disperse" is boiler-plate disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, as it is under the DC code. If you're ordered to disperse and you mouth off about it before you do so, the cop has a judgment to make. So does the citizen. How big a hassle is this likely to be? How much is at stake?
A pretty small hassle here, all told. And very little at stake. Big principles, yes ("the right of assembly") applied for the protection of small private purposes. A bunch of white people shaking their booties in a public place. Sounds fairly disorderly to me. But put a call in to the ACLU (who probably have other things to do) and see how it all shakes out.
It works that way for educated white girls, too. Whether they call themselves libertarians or not, or have "an immediate social circle composed of..." people with enough money and influence to "sue the government for fun."
People who don't generally duck when they see this kind of hassle coming down. Like, outside a club or a house party in neighborhoods where this kind of thing goes down night after night, year after year. And where the consequences more typically drag on through arraignments and court appearances and all the rest of it.
The phrase is "voting with your feet." Which doesn't necessarily mean "Gotta dance! Gotta dance!" But, sure. Liberty is such a damn funny word. Maybe even a farcical one.
Ah, this has all the proper ingredients for a kerfluffle: Privileged white folk making nusiances of themselves, check. Abuse of other people's patience to make a stupid point, check. Gratuitous proclamations like "police state" as an excuse for not understanding the rules.
And as an aside, if the jackboots were really in good form did they only arrest one of the happy travelers? Was it perhaps she was the only one who didnt have the common sense to disperse when ordered? Maybe started arguing with the officers?
Tell you what - get into a TSA and start joking about the TSA - you'll find out that's against the rules. Then try to argue with them.
That'd be good comedy!
While the arrest may have been right, you really need to realize that park police (ie, Ranger Smith) DON'T INVESTIGATE MURDERS. They aren't even in the same jurisdiction as DC Homicide cops. That argument is ridiculous.
Sorry Wydok:
The park police are not rangers.
Established by George Washington in 1791. "Originally, the authority of the "Park Watchmen", as they were known, was restricted to Federal property in the District of Columbia. In 1882, the Park Watchmen were given the same "powers and duties" as the Metropolitan Police in the District. Since then, the duties of the U. S. Park Police have been synonymous with that of an urban police department."
(Including investigating serious crimes).
Cops that act like this are the rule rather than the exception nowadays. This is why cop-killings don't bother me anymore. Yeah, it's terrible, but they brought it on themselves by abusing their power.
The problem is, because this site has been infested by so many left-wing trolls (SadlyNo, Glenn Greenwald), it's impossible to tell how many of the above police defenders are just trolling because they don't like libertarians and how many are actually right-wing authoritarians.
So it's impossible to tell whether to be outraged that some people feel like wasting everyone's time by trolling this site, or outraged that some people have no grasp whatsoever of what freedom means.
Brian protests:
vs.
So which applies? Your impressively doughty sense of self-righteousness and entitlement for which the rest of us should stand back in sheer awe, or is it something about free assembly?
Something tells me that in our wealthy, leisure society, not everyone has figured out that there are better and worse uses of all that spare time. Blogging or holding private parties on private property: safe. Organizing instaprotests at midnight on the grounds of a federal monument: less so. Learning to tell the difference: priceless.
Bullies are bullies, even if they wear a uniform. Just so, wearing a uniform doesn't make you a bully. I'm more interested in the comments here than the actual incident. I'm not surprised these cops were twats. I've known enough police, including immediate family, over my life to see the full gamut from straight up good guy hero to complete chicken-shit bully. I'm more surprised to see so many people tripping over themselves to not simply admit the cops were dicks and then say BUT the fact they were dicks doesn't necessarily follow through to "police state." Still, these cops are pretty vile, petty little creatures and cops like them are the main reason you'll never see me donate money to anything cop related. They can live on my tax dollars, thanks.
A lawful order to disperse requires, logically enough, a lawful reason for the order. Broad discretion is not infinite discretion.
Were the dancers engaged in activity that reasonably could be construed to pose a risk to life or property? No. Were the dancers engaged in an activity which obstructed other visitors, or actively harassed them? No.
Then there was no grounds for a lawful order to disperse; accordingly there was only an unlawful order to that effect.
It is, of course, imprudent to challenge a cop who issues an unlawful order. That it is imprudent does not make it illegal.
Didn't Thomas Jefferson commit the ultimate act of disorderly conduct?
No, those of the Founders who actually fought get that honor.
There are many definitions of "fought". By most of them, Jefferson certainly qualified.
"I suppose it depends upon what laws you wnat enforced." Posted by davod
How about, just the laws that actually exist?
"Disobeying a "lawful order to disperse" is boiler-plate disorderly conduct." Posted by Praxis
And how was that a lawful order?
And walking up to cops who are busy making arrests and asking, "But why?" is just plain dumb. It's like asking a quarterback, two seconds into the play, why he chose that play. He's a little busy right then, and he's not going to appreciate the distraction.
1) The cops were not making arrests. They only arrested the girl who asked "why", after she asked "why"?
2. The thing about cops is that they have the power to arrest poeple and make the next few hours a massive hassle. This is a rather stronger power than a quarterback has. They should have more rational control.
If you're ordered to disperse and you mouth off about it before you do so, the cop has a judgment to make. So does the citizen. How big a hassle is this likely to be? How much is at stake?
What sort of cop is it who can't answer why they gave an order to disperse?
Perhaps under our upcoming Democratic President, our Ivy League academic overlords will devise a system of mutually self-affirming arrest procedures...
Just a poll here, how many commenters here have any experience as law enforcement? There's a lot of talk about what the cops should or shouldn't do, but is there any firsthand experience?
Where's the video? For all the chatter from your social group I'd think there would be a rush to get the video posted. Hope there isn't anything unseemly that needs editing out. ;p
So. Do you have to be a moron to be a cop?
You fools!
Don't you know it is Tibet appreciation day?
The Police is applying Chinese Police methods to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of overtime.
"What sort of cop is it who can't answer why they gave an order to disperse?"
Most probably the sort of cop who just repeats himself ("I asked you to disperse") and then more or less does what his or her judgment suggests is needed to get the situation under control. Which may be bad judgment, but hey. You don't need to be a right-wing nut-job or a left-wing nut-job to see that there are many opportunities for disappointment here. But as a purely practical matter, asking a cop to explain why he's doing what he's doing when he's not entirely sure why he's doing it is a sure-fire way to make him feel like the situation is out of control.
You know, people are laughing at this and saying it's no big deal, and mocking the attitude that this is "the beginning of totalitarianism." Well, no, I don't think that the government is making this the first step towards declaring martial law and putting tanks in the streets. I do think, however, that free societies tend to lose their liberties not by one swift oppressive action but by the gradual, subtle elimination of rights. The threat to liberty in the United States isn't really threatened by black helicopters or the Illuminati seizing control and declaring a despotism; it's through the gradual accumulation of laws that eventually make everyone illegal. It is utterly terrifying to me that so many people in this thread believe that the people have only the rights the government gives them. The bedrock of American democracy is the notion that the people have the right to do whatever they want, so long as there is no law that expressly forbids them to do it. The burden is on the government to enact laws and restrict freedom, not on the people to make a positive case that they deserve or need certain rights.
Also, this incident by itself is an affront and positively unAmerican. Forget about the slippery slope, forget about the symbolic meaning. If it is a truly unique incident, one which says nothing about our civil liberties in general, it still sucks and still needs to be denounced. The right to peaceably assemble is one of our most basic and most important, and the burden is on the government to prove that an assembly is not peaceable or unlawful. Dancing and asking why someone is being arrested doesn't qualify.
Hey--Anything to get Megan's readers distracted from her bold faced lie that she always maintained that torture was wrong.
My take: the police were being total jerks, and they had no reason or right to be harassing these people. They don't like people to publically question their authority, and if it looks as if they can be jerks without suffering reprisal themselves (these dancin' fools come across as pretty wimpy and physically harmless.)
Also: anybody who has had first-hand experience with The Man knows that this sort of behaviour was grade-A stupid. Hasseling people who can't hassel back is what they do, in fact, to large degree pretty much defines who they are. _Everybody_ in my social circle knew that when a cop sticks his nose in your affairs, you say yes sir, no sir, thank you sir, keep your head down, your tone respectful. Saying that your standing on "your rights" will get you run in, if you're lucky; saying that "You're taxes pay his salary" is even better - the cops love that line so much they just might beat on you for a while in the soft tissues where it doesn't show, or claim that you assaulted one of them when no one but other police were around.
So yeah, these people may have been subject to a little 'unfair discrimination', but so what? That's life, and not knowing this, or how to handle these sorts a situations (which takes _minimal_ common sense) isn't going to earn you a whole lot of sympathy.
Now, on to something new: Arlo Guthrie once had a stencil on his guitar case which read: "This Machine Kills Fascists".
Why didn't these people have their phones on video recording the whole incident? If you've got the video, you've pretty much got them between a rock and a hard place on this one (so long as it didn't turn out, for example, that the girl who asked why tried to slap one of the officers.) I predict that as phones get better and better, it will become a standard response of most citizens in an encounter with the police to inform them that they are recording the entire interaction.
Note that right now, if there is no such evidence - even if there are still photos - the presumption will be with the police. That's not to say that the judge believes the police and disbelieves you, btw, (in fact, depending upon the badge numbers just the opposite), that's just what he will find in any sort of altercation. He knows which side of the bread is buttered.
But with those fascist-killing phone videos . . . ah, that's another story. Another factoid (that is, I've been told by people famaliar with the apparatus of the law) is that while people tend to go with the cop's version in a jury situation, the jury also tends to take a very, very dim view of a 'bad cop'. If everything went down the way the initial reports say they did, and there is video footage to support this version of the incident, then this group can be expected to get, well, maybe not a pound of flesh, but maybe a few ounces. Might even get some money, though that's rather doubtful.
I just realized something. This post is really a moral equivelence post.
We are as bad as the Chinese.
How silly of me.
I will remember now that Megan and her friends are Maoist apologists.
Alan Gunn,
Can you provide a link for this?:
"My local paper had a column today consisting of four questions about carrying weapons, with answers provided by the local police department."
Thanks!
Alan Gunn,
Can you provide a link for this?:
"My local paper had a column today consisting of four questions about carrying weapons, with answers provided by the local police department."
Thanks!
For the benefit of David Nieporent, I am a left-wing troll. Now, you can be outraged that I am wasting the time of libertarians engaged in a grand circle jerk about a trivial incident which is repeated many times every day in every part of the country. I don't think Megan McArdle is as outraged by authoritarians as you are, except when a few of her peers get hassled by the police. Although the police often engage in thuggish behavior and thus make it hard for people to be sympathetic to them, you pay the police so that attorneys and other members of your sophisticated social circle don't have to deal directly with the rabble.
Of more immediate concern to Megan McArdle, is that her circle jerk of friends has abandoned the plight of the Iraqi refugees. With reference to the failure of the United States to provide a home for the Iraqi refugees, Megan McArdle stated three days ago: "(F)or the first time in my life, I'm utterly ashamed of my country." Normally, a libertarian such as Megan McArdle would tell these Iraqi refugees to channel some rugged individualism and pick themselves up by their own sandal straps. Of course, individuals in the United States are free to donate to the Iraqi refugees. Because Megan McArdle entreats U.S. taxpayers to help the Iraqi refugees, it would be interesting to know if she exhibits this same zeal for the welfare of the Iraqi refugees in her personal donations to charity. This issue is the only issue that ever made Megan McArdle ashamed of her country, and she probably will want to tell us how much she has donated to the Iraqi refugees during each of the last five yerrs. Or maybe because she chose journalism rather than a successful career in high finance, Megan McArdle thinks that she has already given at the office.
Megan McArdle states: "I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions," and it could not be expected that she was going to say that the muggers are "lessally" culpable than the person who gave the bad directions. One thing that was not clear regarding Megan McArdle's comparison of a Iraq to a mugging in an alley: Is she the person with the bad advice, or is she the mugger? Just kidding; we all know she is the person with the bad advice.
Now, you could resume your circle jerk, but it looks as if you have all been pleasured for today.
You know, people are laughing at this and saying it's no big deal, and mocking the attitude that this is "the beginning of totalitarianism." Well, no, I don't think that the government is making this the first step towards declaring martial law and putting tanks in the streets. I do think, however, that free societies tend to lose their liberties not by one swift oppressive action but by the gradual, subtle elimination of rights.
--Freddie
Mark this down as (probably) the first (and probably the last) time I agree 100% with Freddie.
Posted by David Nieporent | April 13, 2008 9:12 PM
good going DN, I was going to 2X that, as well
Back in the early 80s when I was very young and naive I traveled to DC with a bunch of lefties to protest US military involvement in El Salvador.
My first real protest--all taking place while the general public tried to go on with their lives--shop for groceries, etc. Hard to do when the Park Police were barking orders at them and poking them with nightsticks. It really opened my eyes to the real nature of our government.
With the 9/11 hysteria, it is only a matter of time until this sort of police harassment becomes common in the most mundane parts of middle America. By then it will be too late to do anything about it. Hell, it is already too late.
I think that you're just a bunch of silly douches... with nothing better to do.
Who cares that some "educated white girl" got uppity with a cop and arrested? You creeps throw "educated white girl" around as if she's entitled to something.
The park police should have carted all of you off for being retarded.
Some day you'll figure out that when you get pulled over for speeding..... harassing the cop won't help your case.
Still on about this, eh?
That was actually his pops, Woody. There were real fascists around in great numbers in his day. And in spite of what Jonah Goldberg says, they were all on the right.
It is a worthwhile discussion triggered by a trivial incident involving people who know nothing of real oppression or repression in this country, or anyplace else, having never experienced it themselves. The Park Police are dicks but they are empowered by the state to be dicks. They have the sole monopoly on superdickery. The deal is this: You cannot refuse to obey a lawful order to disperse. That is failure to obey a lawful order. But they have charged the interfering with agancy function and you may see why below at the ACLU link. Even if you had applied for the necessary permit, the permit process (agency function?), which I have studied as an adjunct of policing and enforcement because it is handled by the local police in most jursidictions, involves a key phrase, "reasonable as to time, place and manner." The cops decision was content neutral. No politics involved. You could have been having a candle light wiccan ceremony without a permit. He wanted you to stop. When the first person asks why, they are taught to take that person down. The first one to open the mouth. The leader. It worked, didn't it? You dispersed. He's a dick but he got a pat on the head for it.
There was a similar case in D.C. in the 90's and I think those "dirty leftists" got there before you did:.
THOMAS, et al v. CLINTON, et al
USDC CA 95-1018 and all the filings are there up until it went bust
http://prop1.org/clues/951018/p95intro.htm
The other case you may look at is this one:
http://www.aclu-nca.org/page.asp?JID=38
But I don't think you kids will be getting a check like that guy did. The cops never told you you couldn't video the proceedings. You were an assembly without benefit of permit on public grounds with questionable reasonableness regarding time, place and manner. Had it been me, I would have stayed until you finished. Maybe even danced, but American police agencies dropped the professional model of policing in favor of the military model in the 90's. Drug war. I sympathize, but I also think your energies and outrage are better directed at real problems, not trivial ones.
You, sir, are displaying your ignorance. First of all, Greenwald isn't "left wing". His first published articles were in The American Conservative. And second, as Altemeyer concluded, Left Wing Authoritarians are as "rare as hen's teeth." I do get accused of that - being a RWA, and worse - at Glenn's blog, usually by the kooks from LewRockwell.com. No surprise there. I am as left wing a libertarian as you can get, just like Noam Chomsky. I respect the work Radley does with "no knock" warrants
and the paramilitarization of policing but this really diminishes his work and opens him up to ridicule. We would probably disagree bitterly about drug policy while both agreeing that the drug war is a bust. I would want the state to provide things like treatment for addicts that he would probably object having to be taxed for. The same goes with all victimless crimes, we would agree the criminal sanction is useless when applied there. See Packer, Herbert.
That's one of the reasons many people Greenwald's blog - and there are many libertarians and conservatives there - we are a freethinking bunch and we often disagree with him and each other, passionately. I dispute the fact that many of you are actually libertarians. These terms - libertarian, anarchist, individualist - are not interchangeable and synonymous. They are all ill defined and misunderstood and often missapplied. One thing you should realize. This incident would probably not have occurred in a social democracy like The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway or Sweden. Maybe not even in Paris or London or Madrid.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/1/10446/24377
Whatever happened to the idea that in the US:
everything that is not expressly prohibited is permitted,
unlike the rest of the world where:
everything that is not expressly permitted is prohibited?
Or in Germany, where the former Red-Green coalition government tried to move nuclear waste to reprocessing facilities elsewhere against the "protests" and "demonstrations" by environmental activist who went so far as to chain themselves to the railway tracks that were to be used for the transport. After many altercations with the police, who were using the "de-escalation strategy" employed in other European countries, the government ordered the movement plans to be enforced. One of the chained activists wound up having to have her legs amputated.
Then there were the Islamist activists who demonstrated before the Israeli embassy in Berlin against Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories. The Berlin police applied "de-escalation' in full, and the protesters overran the embassy. An embassy guard shot and killed several of the protesters, who eventually gutted the embassy and tried to burn it down.
Then there's the annual "protest" on May Day in Berlin where "Autonome" (anarchists), communists, "Skinheads," and other groups spend the night running down through the central commercial district of the city hurling bricks of pavement at the police, vandalizing stores, breaking all the plate-glass windows, burning the contents, overturning and burning cars -- all to the detriment of residents of the city whose private property is destroyed, whose livelihoods are lost. The police retreat and take their losses.
This is not to say that the DC protesters were of a similar caliber, but the lax approach to policing also comes at serious costs. In the case of Berlin, car insurance for on-street parking is rather high...
Since you assed, yes. I'm in agreement with Adorno on that and as I already stated, I often catch hell from you jacobins on both sides. Actionism, such as protests and strikes, won't change the political structure without solid theory, the support of organized programs and a cohesive political party and similar institutions. Then ideas can filter down and spread out from the occasional street action into the home or the local bar, at work and filter back up into political power. This movement now in power, that many of you enabled but now oppose, managed to obtain that political power without much marching or dancing or demonstrating, didn't it? When you can get enough people to show up at your iDance so all the cops can do is watch, then you'll have something. Try it. Take a lesson from the experts at this sort of thing:
Critical Mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass
Posted by MarkG
I didn't include Germany for a reason, Mark. They've had a long history of some rather violent actions.
But perhaps I can interest you in Brian Willson. Not the Beach Boy, but the one who's last name was the same as the president at the time's middle name.
Selective memory a problem? I find that to be a frequent problem on the right. Less so the left.
This is probably how Godwin got the idea for his law which was only an experiment in memetics. It could have involved the Pope and Catholicism.
... As long as you continue to tar social democracy with all the crimes of communism, I feel equally entitled to tar the free market with the crimes of slavery, segregation, colonialism and genocide; piss me off and I'll add fascism and the Nazis.
Greg Erwin
Anyway, Happy Bday to TJ. I'm glad we had him but I'm glad he wasn't the only one. We had a cluster of geniuses and are the better for it.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
John Jay, FEDERALIST No. 2
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the greater, not the perfect, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 41
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.
James Madison, FEDERALIST. No. 51
... liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power...
James Madison, The Federalist, no. 63.
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
LWM is an interesting guy. Hope he sticks around a bit.
Whoa - cops behaving badly? Cops arresting people for no good reason? Cops using unnecessary force?
I'm shocked. Really, I'm stunned beyond belief.
It probably happens hundreds of thousands of times a year in this country. And it's been happening for a very long time indeed. And to any yahoos who think this means that I'm "condemning all cops," go Cheney yourselves with big fat nightsticks.
Tell the guy over at Instapundit that we Canadians are having great fun with this incident, while for some reason he's busy busy busy portraying Canada as something of a hell on Earth for private liberties because a few fools with power are abusing it while being harmless.
Ah, but they're leftists.
Yes, LWM, yes. Lord knows how vastly important it is for our government (as the Founding Fathers knew so well!) to be able, in times of such great crisis, to ban dancing like the fucking town elders from Footloose.
I prefer to tar social democracy with all the "crimes" of social democracy. Most of these come about thanks to wishful thinking and lack of consideration for unintended consequences.
Look: In McCardle's friend's case, I profess no certainty as to the protesters' intentions. Nor do I know whether the police had some personal problems to address. And at a distance, it makes little difference.
What I do know, however, is that the ultimate outcome is based on the actions of the people on site: whether or not these deal with one another respectfully or not.
I pointed out the German examples because I know them best. Most have been based on the programs in other EU states that have not tolerated nearly as much social diversity as the post-war German state has as some sort of vague atonement for the Hitlerian excesses.
The US and its institutions are nowhere near the authoritarian impulses of Europe, thank God, and also no where near the authoritarian impulses of European leftists. Most on the European left have, in fact, politically and falsely ascribed Nazism and Fascism to the right by boiling the words "national socialism" down to the cutesy "nazi" abbreviation.
Still, politics in the US is light-years from that since FDR's death. But today's Democrats are doing their best to give us modern western European authority under the leftist banner. The one once rejected by Americans with enough common sense to know whether a political protest might be sensible or not.
After sorting through all of the context that has been unfolded in this thread, I'm having a difficult time working up any energy over this. Yes, the police response was evidently a technical violoation of the associated laws, and the aggrieved party may be able to take legal recourse if she wants to spend the time and energy. On the other hand, I see no evidence that these people engaged in anything at all like prudent foresight, such as e.g. a simple preemptive phone call to the park police to confirm whether or not a permit was required, which would have neatly diffused the situation before it could begin.
I don't know about the DC park police in particular, but I do know that police agencies often use a seniority model to determine both pay scale and shift priortizing. Consequently, save for the occasional cop who is constituted like a vampire, a police encounter during a swing or graveyard shift period is most likely to produce a cop who is relatively new to the agency, at the bottom of the payscale, probably not closely familiarized with all its rules, and is gnashing his teeth until the day a few more senior officers leave or retire, thereby allowing him to lock down one of the day shifts and return home to his family at a decent hour.
Yeah, by all means challenge that guy's authority after presenting yourself as possibly drunk or drugged in a group of people that substantially outnumbers the available police officers, who in turn are on the lookout for troublemakers due to a recent string of muggins.
That ought to turn out well.
aMouse scurries: "Yeah, by all means challenge that guy's authority after presenting yourself as possibly drunk or drugged in a group of people that substantially outnumbers the available police officers, who in turn are on the lookout for troublemakers due to a recent string of muggins.
That ought to turn out well."
Yes, it should turn out well - and if it doesn't, the cops in question should be fired or suspended.
What in the story leads you to this authority-slurping "drunk or drugged" conclusion?
A cop who can't sanely handle being questioned about his or her actions in a plainly non-violent situation deserves a new title - civilian.
Amen, MoeLarryAndJesus.
I'm amazed at how many people have defended the cops as being able, in good conscience, to arrest whomsoever they please without any basis in law outside their own decision to do so and without any consequences to themselves. Such a standard gives the government a LOT of latitude to harass citizens without any opportunity for the citizenry to legally defend themselves.
MarkG wrote; the safety assured by the police you denounce -- was also something the performers relied on. It was the behavior they expected from society to provide them with a safe venue.
I also expect a surgeon to try and improve my health. That doesn't give him the discretion to cut out a kidney without my permission. I cannot see how public security is in any ways advanced by the type of behavior these cops have exhibited.
It may take the inadvertent arrest of some privileged folks or other people willing to put up a legal fight now and then to give power-drunk bastards a warning not to use their powers lightly and without the forethought due to other civilized human beings.
For those who keep suggesting that a permit was needed, please read the whole thread before posting. A permit was not required.
1. The group had under 25 people.
2. The group was not a protest.
3. They were not likely to attract a crowd (since they were doing this at night, to deliberately avoid interfering with anyone)
4. If the cops were worried that the participants were drugged they are supposed to take steps to determine this. If they're so dim that they don't know what an ipod is or how to tell if someone may be intoxicated, they shouldn't be cops.
I hope those rather loosely referred to as law enforcement officers get burned hard enough to teach them and those who work with them a lesson. The chance to hold officials responsible for their abuses of power is rare, and to not take advantage of this (admittedly small) opportunity would be a shame.
This is irony, right? Please tell me it is irony.
Otherwise I would have to tell you that you are ignorant beyond belief, and that it is people like you that fuel the prejudices many Europeans have against Americans.
I live in Sweden, and free (obnoxious) speech is within my rights. I have also done weirder things when I was a student than dancing in the parks at night - all without retribution, even though police passed by from time to time.
You people are kidding, right?
Or is this Freddie the parody troll?
Please do. I'd love to hear what these "crimes" are. You can tell much about a person by what he does or does not percieve as a "crime".
Since when, or should I just ask what this kvetch is about again? And those "authoritarian impulses of Europe" pretty much subsided in the last century. Those toothless monarchs aren't the ones kicking down doors and barging into nations that haven't attacked them. Look, it's late and I'm not going to unpack and debunk what you've written. Your pronounced bias, (and cognitive impairment) is as plain as the nose on Jonah's face so I'll just dispense with the rest of this. The only difference between you and Jonah is you've tired of George Bush. I mean, WTF is this:
I don't really think you know too much about this stuff and probably have little to say of interest to me. In fact, I doubt you'd be able to spot a proto-fascist if one was staring at you in the mirror.
"This is irony, right? Please tell me it is irony."
Yes Saph, it was an attempt at humor. See Monty Python's Holy Grail.
The deal is this: You cannot refuse to obey a lawful order to disperse. That is failure to obey a lawful order. LWM
And what makes this a lawful order? None of the defenders of the cop have explained this, except by ignoring the facts. If that the cop doesn't like what you're doing is enough to make it a lawful order, we are no longer a free country.
"What sort of cop is it who can't answer why they gave an order to disperse?"
Most probably the sort of cop who just repeats himself ("I asked you to disperse") and then more or less does what his or her judgment suggests is needed to get the situation under control. praxis
I'd think that explaining why you're giving that order would be a better way of getting the situation under control - and if the cop can't explain why it's a lawful order, it's the COP that's out of control.
I live in Finland and we used to swim naked in little pool that is part of memorial for the most famous former president. It is in the central park of Helsinki (capitol). I have never heard anyone would have been even questioned by police.
USA, land of the free, like say, China, land of democracy.. the difference being that no-one in China believes the official propaganda.
Yes, I do feel supreme (and also want to irritate you folks so much that you actually do something else than just whine in the virtual world.. 8)
This incident involved dancing by a bunch of white people. The police probably thought it was repulsive.
Only in this country can one march in the streets of the capital obnoxiously protesting "the oppression inherent in the system" without fear of retribution.
I lived in Makati when people protested in the streets because Miss Arroyo stole the election.
Granted, the country was corrupt as heck. But it wasn't unfree.
LVM, I think I would find authoritarianism in a lot of places where you would not find authoritarianism, so we really can't usefully discuss the entire question of left vs. right authoritarianism.
For example, I consider many instances where the state practices prior restraint of the citizen's scope of action, rather than punishment of harms inflicted, to be petty authoritarianism. But I really doubt that you would see it the same way [indeed, I doubt that very many Americans would see it the same way].
And your selection of founders' quotes is interesting, but to me the political history of the ratification of the Constitution is pretty clear: the faction that wanted a federal Constitution was able to secure one, but only by making the political deal of agreeing to immediately graft on the Bill of Rights, which was meant to be a specific list of rights that the new Constitutional powers were not to infringe in any whatsoever. That to me makes the entire history of "balancing" the powers in the Articles against the rights in the Amendments into a lie, and into a reneging of the original deal that allowed the ratification.
But that's just a threadjack. I accused you of being antilibertarian upthread, but that doesn't seem completely correct now that I have read more of your posts. It now appears that you are a left-libertarian who for personal reasons is happy to see a minor police action against a bunch of right-libertarians. And that is a little silly. Honestly.
So which applies? Your impressively doughty sense of self-righteousness and entitlement for which the rest of us should stand back in sheer awe, or is it something about free assembly?
Well, MarkG, a previous post demanded sympathy for people who would "feel threatened" by this action. This is where my "self righteousness and entitlement" comes into play: I self-righteously feel entitled to act in an "unusual" manner in public, as long as I don't actually harm or threaten to harm you. If your sensitive feelings make you construe any odd occurrence you don't immediately understand as some kind of existential threat, you can either suffer through your feelings or get different ones. I'm not asking you to change your behavior for me, so I self-righteously consider myself entitled to refuse to change my behavior for you.
The "free assembly" part comes into play because it's an enumerated right. Pretty simple, really.
Someone upthread called the Jefferson Memorial a "national treasure". Well, it's certainly pretty, and it's a nice little tourist attraction for the district, but I think this incident illustrates quite neatly one problem with public monuments. When you elevate the monument above the citizenry, it ceases to be a national treasure and just becomes an ironic joke: a monument to liberty where everyone has to be kept under perfect control.
Only in this country can one march in the streets of the capital obnoxiously protesting "the oppression inherent in the system" without fear of retribution.
I lived in Makati (Philippines) when people protested in the streets because Miss Arroyo stole the election.
Granted, the country was corrupt as heck. But it wasn't unfree.
(and granted, most of the protesters were paid to do so, but that's another story.)
In some states an illegal arrest (ie: being arrested by a statute declared unconstitutional, etc.) can be resisted with the same force as resisting an assault. Some states go so far as to declare an illegal arrest an assault. I should have had the presence of mind to save all the citations; hindsight is 20/20 after all.
In any case, a friend of mine has an interesting method. Sue the state (state meaning government employing the officer) -not for a sum of money, because we all know that it's not really the state's money. Instead sue the state for the officer's job. I'm not certain that this is entirely possible in a legal sense (though imho- it should be). A solution, not money, should be sufficient redress of a grievance.
Final note to those who think it's reasonable to arrest first and ask questions later: Does your job offer you carte blanche to do whatever you want to customers and then attempt to mitigate a negative response later?
Has anyone followed up on whether Bush and Cheney were directing on the scene the police directing the police?
I would assume that anyone arrested at the Memorial was arrested not by DC Police, but rather by the Park Police (part of the National Park Service) or perhaps by the Capitol Police (part of Congress, I believe). So you may be off-base in blaming the city cops for this one.
LWM, do you, or any of the other people defending this police action, really believe that the police should have the discretion to arrest citizens without the need for any statutory basis for their arrest? Do you really think cops should be able to lock people up with no legal justification for doing so? Do you really think that a police officer should be able to take questioning orders as a reasonable justification for arrest?
It boggles the mind.
brooksfoe:
What "moral authority" would that be? We have no moral authority, for anything, anymore.
Freddie:
They couldn't if they wanted to. All the tanks (and the troops to drive them) are in Iraq.
ATLien:
Nowadays? On the contrary, I'd bet that there have always been cowboy cops as far back as you care to research. Thankfully, however, they do tend to be the exception. Most cops are truly dedicated to public service and work hard at a thankless job (QED).
My take on the dancing fiasco:
Getting arrested for backtalking an officer is over the line, I'd say, but that's the risk you take with cops. The whole episode is sad and shouldn't have happened. Why set up or go to such an event and then get all bent when the cops take an interest and handle it badly? Was there not some sense of anticipation, some thrill at participating in something where you just might be seen as challenging authority? I mean, why have it at the Jefferson Memorial, a high-profile civil disobedience/protest site? Why not a city park, or a baseball field, or for that matter under a bridge or in a vacant lot? And then when authority showed up, one person's instinctive response was to challenge that authority rather than immediately complying. What a surprise that she got run.
Don't be all shocked and dismayed that something bad happened; you knew it was a possibility, and maybe deep down you were hoping it would turn out that way.
Hehe. And good luck with the "not likely to attract a crowd" clause for avoiding the permit.
A bunch of white people dancing at the Jefferson Memorial - sans music - at midnite?
For a group of self-described "lawyers and media people" to be this self-absorbed... I guess I'm just getting old and if you are the new generation, you ain't much better than the current and soon to be replaced one. We get too soon old and too late smart and life is truly wasted on the young, or by the young. I wasted most of mine over pointless shit. Well, I hope not this pointless...
Failure to obey a lawful order, i.e. the order to disperse. Now they've a new one, "interfering with an agency function."
I neither condone nor object to the police action involved in the individual, specific arrest. The Park Police are dicks and I do not defend them or most of the behaviors of these officers. I merely tried to explain it to you people because many of you couldn't or wouldn't understand it. I remain neutral on the arrest and specific charge because I don't think it will go anywhere. It will be dismissed and then you kids will have your chance to make a federal case out of it. That won't go anywhere. Perhaps it's my age, experience and (one would hope) wisdom but I would just have moved along. As you get older you learn to pick your battles a little bit better. At least one would hope you do. No one was saying you can't dance or assemble. Just not there and then in that manner. Sure, it is arbitrary. As I said, if I was this cop, I'd like to think I would have handled it differently but then most of these cops were younger guys, too - younger than myself, at least.
The irony here is that seasoned criminals never find themselves guilty of contempt of cop. They know how to deal with the police and not provoke them. It's mostly your law-abiding citizens who have rarely encountered the police in this manner and who ask that one special question. I wasn't there but I think they got the answer and it had to do with permits. I also think another group of persons than yourselves may have handled it better and managed to diffuse and de-escalate the situation, and even managed to get your ten minutes. I think both groups probably got exactly what they wanted. You can criticize and even insult the police but you can't refuse to obey a lawful order or interfere or obstruct without expecting some immediate consequences. About all I can say is that you've become the "neo-hippies". Just cleaner and richer and with less impact.
Welcome to the Corporate states of america. Unfortunately the day that businesses were awarded rights as a citizen of the united states, is the day that Most of our rights started going out the window. Money talks. But anyways.
With this being a national park, don't they have hours of operation, in which, being on said property outside of business hours, and without permission, Is considered trespass?
Brian,
I don't think you know what authoritarianism is.
Read Altemeyer, it's free.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It is not synonymous with law and order, which I will agree always prompts one to ask whose law and order we are talking about. But the cop in this case is the law and the order.
"Fierce individualism," a brief description of Rand philosophy, is pure authoritarianism, as pure individualism always must be. If any one individual can make a decision that affects others, and do so without consultation, then those affected must obey. The combination of "freedom" and "individualism" masks this truism.
- Frederick Thayer, Professor, Public Policy, Southern University
Try confusing religion with politics. Americans -and some so-called libertarians - are good at that. Let me guess, are you a Crockwellian - a kook - who worships at the on-line altar to Rothbard? Or just a paleocon? How about just a fascist? All pretty much the same from my perspective. See ya later. I get my quota of you people over at Greenwald's. Nobody likes you people much. Why do you suppose that is?
liberalrob,
Instead, why not read the original post, where you might find out that this was done in honor of Jefferson's birthday?Before I get beaten over the head with a cudgel over my "trespass and closing" remark. My remarks about being closed etc. were later related to a demented view by the officers thusly thinking that the case when it was not. Unfortunately, this part of my post seems to have been cut off leaving me to appear a dimwitted imbecile.
He then proceeded to add, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."Why would I care what Altmeyer and Thayer have to say on the subject?
Basically, Thayer's absolutely moronic definition means that if any individual anywhere has any discretion for any individual action whatsoever, he is engaging in authoritarianism.
Under the terms of that definition, if I can decide whether I want to buy Coke or Pepsi, I am taking an authoritarian action, because I'm not consulting with anyone and my decision "impacts others". Two words: What. Ever.
Oh Lordy! Nieporent is a fascist! He guestblogs at that hack site for The Manhattan Institute, Overlawyered.
“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”
—John Adams, 1774
Later, David. When a twit like you starts quoting Orwell - a democratic socialist - the parody trolls, inequality elves and free market fairies can't be too far behind. Don't worry, sweetie. As soon as the Democrats regain control of the gummint - for years to come - and the Overton Window starts moving back to top dead center, all of your little internecine spats will end while the whole lot of you wander in the political desert for a good long time.
You are correct, Brian!
I don't care what you, Neirophant or McCardle has to say on any subject. Outside of the intertubes, no one has heard of any of you, or really cares what you think.
LVM, isn't a bit ridiculous for you to get your panties in a bunch about the possible misappropriation of Orwell, when you are liberally sprinkling your posts with quotes from John Adams, James Madison, etc.
Perhaps you can provide cites for me demonstrating that Adams and Madison were Chomskyites.
Or how about instead we just have a rule that anyone can bartlett any quote they want, as long as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand?
Wow, that was a pretty devastating defense of Thayer's definition you just offered there, LVM.
"Fierce individualism," a brief description of Rand philosophy, is pure authoritarianism, as pure individualism always must be. If any one individual can make a decision that affects others, and do so without consultation, then those affected must obey. The combination of "freedom" and "individualism" masks this truism."
Wow, that may be the most utterly bizarre definition of individualism I've ever seen. Of course, most libertarians recognize that Rand's Objectivism has some major flaws (which is why most libertarians are not Objectivists; we just think that Rand made some valuable contributions).
But to make the leap from "fierce individualism" to a definition that rests on the argument that "any one individual can make a decision that affects others, and do so without consultation," is utterly disingenuous. Fierce individualism frankly stands for completely the opposite of what this definition claims. Indeed, fierce individualism merely holds that any one individual can make a decision without consultation if - and only if - it does not harm others. If the decision will harm others, consultation is not only preferred, but is mandatory. Fierce individualism means that no one can tell you what to do in your domain; it also means that you may not tell anyone else what to do in their domain.
Of course, I'm guessing that Altmeyer had a definition of "affects" that was so broad as to include just about any conceivable human action. But in doing so, it is he who is making an argument for totalitarianism.
Mark,
Of course, I'm guessing that Altmeyer had a definition of "affects" that was so broad as to include just about any conceivable human action. But in doing so, it is he who is making an argument for totalitarianism.
I'm betting this is exactly the case.
Do I even need to really look into this further? Or can I know in advance that I would discover a sort of hyper-majoritarianism, where it is "authoritarian" and "antidemocratic" if I assert that it's not acceptable to have social arrangements where the majority can vote the shirt off my back at any particular moment, or vote me into slavery, as long as we're all "consulting" about it?
The definition is gibberish. In order to "consult", we'd all have to individually make our own contribution to the debate of how to proceed in any particular matter. But if I can decide all by myself what statement I want to make, that means that I have without consultation engaged in an action which will impact others [because my statement influences the outcome of the debate in some small way]. This means that even the act of participating in consultation and democracy would itself be authoritarian, if this definition has any merit. It's all gobbledegook once you try to smuggle in a definition of "impact" that goes beyond actual force - not that this would stop people like LVM from doing so.
Orwell was a socialist, but he understood what authoritarianism really was.
FYI, LWM, Overlawyered has no connection to the Manhattan Institute.
Brian:
I think you hit it right on the head.
Also: yes, Orwell was a socialist. But he was an extremely pessimistic socialist. 1984 is, above all else, his warning of the inevitable result of socialism. To be sure, he believed that other systems would have equally bad results. But 1984 is specific to socialism (hence, IngSoc).
Reverting to the original subject if that is possible: There must be a dog-whistle blowing here. Why is silent group dancing at the Jefferson Memorial at midnight a particularly libertarian thing to do? Please explain. Is it the dancing? The time? the place? All three?
Okay, so I didn't read every comment, but I got the gist of it. I can't believe the amount of people who think life is a fucking game of us versus them, pick your side or we'll assign you one!
That kind of thinking is fucking pathetic. Someone said something along the lines of: "political category made up this election #3 type of people think they can ask why, or don't understand that when a cop says to do something you do it" and I just can't believe people are this fucking stupid. It's worse than the separation of people into cliques in high school, because it's at an adult level!
Jesus effin christ. "How dare you think you can question the police, hanging around with those pot smoking hippies has changed your perception!" Please, anyone born and raised in an environment remotely disconnected from the rest of the world would do the same thing. It's called human nature, from the day you're born you feel entitled to freedom, as you fucking should.
So many people just eating up bullshit their entire lives, it's fucking saddening, I've just about lost my faith in humanity due to people who DON'T question. "I was told this when I was little and I can't even consider considering that it's wrong, because it just IS that way."
You know, sometimes I hope we destroy our planet, good fucking riddance.
More on topic: Everyone says they were trying to get a reaction out of the Park Police guys, which is obviously bullshit to me. They were fucking filming the thing, it was not a loud event, what do you think they were doing? Maybe making a video for the internet in celebration of Jefferson's birthday? Maybe they wanted to get a front page on Digg or featured on YouTube? Noooo, they were just trying to make this exact situation happen.... Anyone who believes the latter is fucking worthless.
It wasn't Jefferson's Birthday anywhere else?
Were the dancers holding up signs declaring "we dance in celebration of Jefferson's Birthday?" Or was it more like it was just a bunch of people apparently dancing around in silence at midnight for no obvious reason?
I can kind of understand why a policeman confronted with that spectacle might have been a bit freaked out. As a bystander I know I would have been.
That doesn't excuse what happened.
Bonedead:
You're not seriously suggesting that it was never considered a possibility that the cops might do something? Nobody could have foreseen it? After everything that's happened? If that's true, you guys are super-naive; and you just got an object lesson. If you're going to organize an event at a big public place, expect and plan for dealing with the cops. What if 50 or 100 people had showed up? 1000? Would you have said, "sorry, we can only have 24 people dance here because of the rules?"
Oh, and clean up your language.
"I can kind of understand why a policeman confronted with that spectacle might have been a bit freaked out. As a bystander I know I would have been." People who are that easily "freaked out" should not only resign from the police force, they should probably stay indoors.
There is something that can be done about this. I'd love to hear about people dancing at the Jefferson Memorial every night. Think of people like Abbie Hoffman who didn't give in to police intimidation and peacefully stood for what was right. It's time for people to start showing some backbone again.
Whatever happened to the idea that in the US:
everything that is not expressly prohibited is permitted,
unlike the rest of the world where:
everything that is not expressly permitted is prohibited?
Posted by GeorgeH | April 14, 2008 12:08 AM
It was recognized as the heap of bullshit that it is.
Oh, not the "in the US everything that is not expressly prohibited is permitted", that's a laudable sentiment. But as an inhabitant of "the rest of the world", I take exception to the implication that everywhere that is not the USA is a. all the same and b. inferior to the USA.
This is a depressingly common thing for Americans to say, and it really ticks me off.
China is not the UK is not Norway is not Zimbabwe is not France is not Russia etc. etc.
Please to be remembering this before you make sweeping statements about America/everyone else. And you lot having permission to do anything not expressly prohibited is not dependent on us not having that freedom, so the second part of that comment was completely unnecessary in any case. *fumes*
Having blown though just a couple of PageDown buttons' worth of comments here, I have a question:
How long before the Dancers and the Coppers here start shooting at each other?
This country is fucking fucked.
liberalrob,
No, just like you, I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would want to do something at the Jefferson Memorial to celebrate Jefferson's birthday! We'll just have to wait for someone wiser to come along and explain it to us...
"Failure to obey a lawful order, i.e. the order to disperse."
An order to disperse is only "lawful" under certain conditions, none of which appear to apply in this case. Got anything else?
Hahaha USA = fail
Give it a couple more days and we will find out the real reason the person was arrested. You won't hear about it though.
Sorry, Brooksfoe, I'm not going to hang around because many of these people present no challenge or attraction. I'll be busy moving the Democratic party to the left. Why kick a dead horse, (or elephant)? I have a real live donkey to herd to the left. Case in point, teh stoooopid
Walter K. Olson, Senior Fellow, Center for Legal Policy, Manhattan institute
Websites affiliated with The Manhattan Institute
www.albanyinc
www.centerforpolicingterrorism
www.city-journal
www.citiesonahill
www.empirecenter
www.legalreforminthenews
www.medicalprogresstoday
www.mindingthecampus
www.nyfiscalwatch.
www.overlawyered
www.pointoflaw
www.schoolnyc
www.triallawyersinc
Teh stoooopid! It burns!
Let me guess. You are a young, rich, white libertarian lawyer.
Okay. I may drop back from time to time. You poor lambs need some help. You coitainly ain't the wolves!
You people sound very young. I am very old. One of the compensations for being old is giving advice to young people, and the more unwelcome the better.
A few years back, a big cheese at the Cato Institute, I forget his name, was pulled over by a cop for speeding. He asked the cop why he (the cop) was hassling an upstanding citizen like him (big cheese) when there were so many unsolved murders. The cop, as anyone would have predicted, responded by writing the ticket and tacking on a burned-out tail light.
Big cheese then wrote an indignant op-ed in the Washington Post describing the incident. To which I said, jeez, this guy gets paid big money to tell politicians what to do, and he doesn't know to assume a submissive posture to a traffic cop?
It is of course your right as a citizen at any time, and your duty at some times, to stand up to the arbitrary exercise of authority. But you have to recognize in advance that he consequences are likely to be unpleasant. Cops are cops and act like cops. when one of their number does something stupid, as seems to have happened here, the others close ranks around him. It's a fact of life. A sensible person will weigh the consequences against the principle.
At the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the principle was the end of Jim Crow. At Gandhi's salt march, the principle was British Out Of India. The principle here is what? What the public will hear is "Fight for your right to par-tay!" I suggest letting this one go and picking a better spot. This one isn't going to turn the tide for libertarianism.
I watched the video, and wow...just wow. A bunch of yuppie wanna be libertarian hipsters were dancing to their....gag....ipods, and got busted. The cops shouldn't have arrested them, instead they should have just beat them.
P.S. Is dancing in the Jefferson Memorial with your ipod going to appear on the "What white people like" blog?
Correction: It's the "Stuff White People Like" blog.
Spare me, Publius. Neither you, nor Brian, know anything about Orwell, or social democracy, or what he thought about it, or totalitarianism, or even what that means. You read friggin' Rand, for Chrissake!! And nobody who thinks beyond the level of a post-pubescent adolscent reads Rand without laughing, then puking! You people are like mushrooms. For the longest time you've been kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Posted by Bonedead | April 14, 2008 3:42 PM
This guy, for instance. If he's over 20, his name should be Braindead. You are the sheep here, not me. You people are mushrooms.
Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
-- George Orwell
The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms...You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.
-- Eugene V. Debs
Don't confuse me with prohibitionists. I don't even want to prohibit dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. It's not really something I'm concerned with.
"LWM":
"Scenes We'd Like To See" -- Rosa Parks knocking this asshole's teeth out..
.
"Scenes We'd Like To See" -- Rosa Parks knocking this asshole's teeth out.
Posted by Billy Beck | April 14, 2008 11:52 PM
You are as bad as that racist and homophobic pig Ron Paul trading on MLK's reputation, you distgustingly privileged and protected nitwit. Rosa Parks was arrested for asserting a right your class has always had and hers is still too frequently denied. But now you've cheapened that act by equating it with this little temper tantrum of a bunch of spoiled rotten white kids who are produucts of entitlement and privilege and too much useless education. You'd think it was the first time any of you brats heard the word "no," before. I blame your parents.
Are you arguing that white people are discriminated against, or just rich libertarians with iPods, air in their heads and too much time on their hands? I can't tell. I can tell you one thing, if anyone was going to get slapped upside the head by the Ghost of Rosa Parks, it would be you, white man.
Then that clueless twit, Neiropont.
Rosa'd want to slap him next. In fact, we'd all line up for that. Just like on Aiplane. I get on the line as many times as possible.
:-)
You obviously have no desire to actually debate in a rational fashion, and would instead just rather hurl personal attacks and insults. But to claim that no one who likes Rand can understand Orwell is, well, preposterous. Especially when your hatred of Rand is based on a completely and utterly wrong interpretation of her works that claims "fierce individualism" is the ultimate authoritarianism.
Since you chose not to respond to my points about that, I will repost them below:
According to your Altmeyer quote:
""Fierce individualism," a brief description of Rand philosophy, is pure authoritarianism, as pure individualism always must be. If any one individual can make a decision that affects others, and do so without consultation, then those affected must obey. The combination of "freedom" and "individualism" masks this truism."
Wow, that may be the most utterly bizarre definition of individualism I've ever seen. Of course, most libertarians recognize that Rand's Objectivism has some major flaws (which is why most libertarians are not Objectivists; we just think that Rand made some valuable contributions).
But to make the leap from "fierce individualism" to a definition that rests on the argument that "any one individual can make a decision that affects others, and do so without consultation," is utterly disingenuous. Fierce individualism frankly stands for completely the opposite of what this definition claims. Indeed, fierce individualism merely holds that any one individual can make a decision without consultation if - and only if - it does not harm others. If the decision will harm others, consultation is not only preferred, but is mandatory. Fierce individualism means that no one can tell you what to do in your domain; it also means that you may not tell anyone else what to do in their domain.
Of course, I'm guessing that Altmeyer had a definition of "affects" that was so broad as to include just about any conceivable human action. But in doing so, it is he who is making an argument for totalitarianism.
No, Mark. You misunderstand. It is my contention that you are not capable of understanding anything of import yet. You are far too young and lack the experiences necessary. Whatever education you may have had has only managed to disguise from you your lack of understanding. This is true of so many intelligent people, left ot right, well into middle age. Very sad. We can't all be blessed with wisdom.
You can't even get the quotes right. Altemeyer did not say this:
Way to dodge the question. I'm sorry if I used the wrong name. Nonetheless, you cited that quote with approval and you refuse to respond to challenges that demonstrate your cited quote to be horribly wrong.
I should add that I am hardly as young as you seem to think and that age does not make any argument more or less valid. In repeatedly refusing to respond to valid criticism with anything resembling rational debate, you are demonstrating that you do not have valid arguments on your side.
The park doesn't close, smart guy.
What I am most impressed with here is the degree to which citizen journalism has matured to the point where a relatively minor incident at the Jefferson Memorial has sparked this much debate. We certainly didn't just experience a Tiananmen Square incident where Flag Man stares down a tank, but the nature of our connectivity has empowered this conversation which is extremely encouraging. We need more forums like this and would invite you all to do more of the same with your digital tools to keep any potential loss of liberty at bay!
Bob
Founder, ForumforDemocracy.oom
What I am most impressed with here is the degree to which citizen journalism has matured to the point where a relatively minor incident at the Jefferson Memorial has sparked this much debate. We certainly didn't just experience a Tiananmen Square incident where Flag Man stares down a tank, but the nature of our connectivity has empowered this conversation which is extremely encouraging. We need more forums like this and would invite you all to do more of the same with your digital tools to keep any potential loss of liberty at bay!
Bob
Founder, ForumforDemocracy.oom
What I am most impressed with here is the degree to which citizen journalism has matured to the point where a relatively minor incident at the Jefferson Memorial has sparked this much debate. We certainly didn't just experience a Tiananmen Square incident where Flag Man stares down a tank, but the nature of our connectivity has empowered this conversation which is extremely encouraging. We need more forums like this and would invite you all to do more of the same with your digital tools to keep any potential loss of liberty at bay!
Bob
Founder, ForumforDemocracy.oom
"Are you arguing that white people are discriminated against, or just rich libertarians with iPods, air in their heads and too much time on their hands?"
I'm not arguing with you at all, because you are manifestly insane.
I fail to see what they did wrong. It's a scary thought to think that I could be arrested for dancing in a public place. Better yet, dancing with headphones on so I don't disturb those around me. If my friends and I go for a walk down the street and decide to dance, should I be worried that I will be arrested? In a nation where people are getting shot and raped and succumbing to drug overdoses and living on the streets it seems like this nation should dance MORE. More people need to see the power of dancing, especially dancing that hurts no one. No one could complain of a noise ordinance, they were respectful of those that didn't want to hear music. Why don't the cops go fight the REAL crime in the city and leave those alone that are harming no one and just want to dance.
"An order to disperse is only "lawful" under certain conditions, none of which appear to apply in this case. Got anything else?"
Well, repeating the word "lawful" like you've just discovered the Kingdom of Patagonia doesn't add a whole lot either. Got anything else?
Cop gives order. Reasonable presumption: He believes it was lawful to do so. Argue with him, sure. Except that cops aren't trained or paid to argue the law. That's what lawyers do. Cops are trained and paid to enforce it.
Argue with him, sure. Since he believes the order was lawful, and you don't appear to be obeying it, you've crossed over into what the cop's discretion may consider disorderly conduct territory. Otherwise known as Misdemeanor Land. And depending how belligerent or manic you are, something else may follow.
Sure, cop may be wrong. And after some hours of Patagonian hospitality, the charge will be dismissed. And your friends will look up from their iPods and applaud and you'll have proved to everyone's satisfaction that even the silliest citizens among us are entitled to the court's expensive and over-burdened protection. You'll be quite the legend in your own mind, and your grandkids will have a fine comic story to snicker about when you're old and gray.
So, yes. Stamp your little feet and squeal about your rights on every possible occasion. And be sure to remind the cop how educated and influential and white y'all are. Enjoy yourself. It's a free country, right?
Yes, well...
"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!"
- Emma Goldman
Ahh-- liberty and freedom at its finest! Speaking of... The Liberty Voice (www.thelibertyvoice.com) will be carrying this story in the next issue!
"Well, repeating the word "lawful" like you've just discovered the Kingdom of Patagonia doesn't add a whole lot either. Got anything else?"
Well, repeating your cute little Patagonian catch-phrase doesn't add a whole lot to this discussion, either.
Obviously, the condescending tone you take is also quite unproductive. Sure, have a good laugh at the expense of a few kids who were only trying to prove a point about the state of "Freedom" in America. I'm sure your friends will look up from their Smith & Wesson catalogs and applaud and you'll have proved to everyone's satisfaction that even the stodgiest, most sycophantic citizens among us do, occasionally, have a sense of humor.
Alas, you're just missing the point. You see, if kids like this, who are really doing nothing wrong, can manage to get themselves arrested frequently enough ... and, of course, set free because the arrest was wrongful ... then they certainly have accomplished something. They've wasted the time of the Court and its officers. They've wasted the time of the Police and their officers. And, of course, this waste of time costs oodles and oodles of money. Which is the important part. See, the more money the Government wastes on silly little endeavors such as this (not to mention Welfare and Social Security ;-) ), the faster the Government will collapse. And then, perhaps, we can truly be free.
I'm not sure that this was the point of the demonstration ... but it certainly becomes clear in the aftermath.
We don't all love Big Brother.
Dear Scott,
Well, if the point was to waste everyone's time (the kid who got arrested, the cops, the courts, mine, yours) I guess I'll concede it was all quite a productive exchange. And be proud of my stodgy little corner of it.
Personally, I dislike all Brothers. Big, little, mid-sized, no-sized. Anyone who snaps to it and salutes whenever there's a hint of Us and Them in the air. But put your finger up and test the breeze, do. What's blowing in it?
Yours in condescension & collapse,
Max
"And be sure to remind the cop how educated and influential and white y'all are."
Praxis, and all others who are mocking Megan and Co. about being shocked that this happened to an "educated white girl": I'd bet money it wasn't because they think white people deserve special privileges. Is it not far more likely that they have perhaps heard something about police officers' reputations for being racist and are aghast at what must happen to minorities all the time if this is what's happening to educated white girls now? That's perhaps sheltered, but caring enough to think, "Hey, it's incredibly disgusting that this happens to so many people on a regular basis and no one cares... I happen to have the body and background of the type of person they care about in the news sometimes. Perhaps I should have a spine this time," is great. I'm not a mind reader so I can't assert that that was her intention, but mocking her for 'being racist' just because she said, "And I'm an educated white girl!" is intellectually lazy and viscerally disgusting.
Dear Martha,
Since "being racist" isn't a quote from anything I wrote, I'll let my intellectual laziness be my guide and give that remark a pass.
Actually, I've helped out on criminal defense for cases where relatively harsher things have happened to various folks under comparable circumstances. Check, some dancing was involved. Cases that mostly passed unremarked by libertarian bloggers of whatever color or gender. Although I'll cop to some amusement, I thought some clarification of the concept of "disorderly conduct" and its practical applications might be of use. Not so much, as it turns out.
As for "educated," well... as LBJ used to say, "Education is a wonderful thing. Get as much of it as you can."
Best,
Max
LWM is wrong as always.
you guys are so fucking stupid... who the fuck even cares to go "dance" at the fucking memorial... great idea. why cant you just trip acid at home or at the mall or something. you cant just "hang out" at the memorial... you can visit... you cant sit there for a long time dancing like a faggot. im glad they got arrested. ive had my fair share of unjust arrests but this one seems deserved.