I don't get it. What were they protesting? What political speech is being restricted?

From what I could tell from the video, there were a bunch of self-entitled asswipes annoying everyone around them, the cops asked them to stop, the little cake-eaters mouthed off, and they got arrested.

We need more arresting of selfish d-bags, not less.

Fuck you testytommy. We DO NOT need more authoritarian power wielded arbitrarily. This is contempt of cop. People are supposed to have unenumerated rights and the government limited powers. Criminalizing dancing because you find it annoying is stupidity.

You are an idiot.

This was the follow up response to a prior ruling

Extracted from the ruling:

At quarter to midnight on April 12, 2008, Oberwetter and seventeen friends entered the Jefferson Memorial to “celebrate and honor the former President . . . by ushering in his birthday with silent dance.”1

Essentially they ruled that dancing at the TJ memorial at midnight was a protest without a permit.

So these people decided to ask for clarification. They could not justify the clarification any more than the original arrest.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

Thank you, Amy. There's also a big discussion going on over at Elliott Blog: http://www.elliott.org/blog/dc-dance-protest-ends-with-arrests-cries-of-this-is-a-police-state/

And for all the people who don't get it, Adam Kokesh -- an Iraq vet -- and the other dancers are fighting for your rights, too, even though you don't value them. But such is a democracy, at least for those of us who comprehend it -- we're willing to stand up even for the dimwitted and clueless.

It was a display of force, pure and simple. It was the exertion of power for power's sake. That's also what makes it reprehensible. But so many people don't get it.

sorry amy, these idiots deserved everything they received. They were asked to stop and then provoked the response they received. There is no longer a peaceful means of changing our government, we are on the road to revolution, but irritating the local cops is not revolution, it is just stupidity

Then what do you think revolution is? Don't you think it might include "irritating" the cops?

@ronc -

Irritating cops until they take the first shot is how this republic started.

I'm surprised you don't know about this. It was in all the papers.

Cops have too much power, too many armaments, and too much latitude. They need to be dialed back considerably if we are to save the republic.

Un-fucking-believable. I wonder if they will start arresting the rich folks who hire out the monuments for political fundraisers and dance in them?

Funny- the first thing I saw this morning was this and I felt a swell of pride in being an American...

http://wimp.com/grandrapids/

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

And Eric, extraordinary video.

A bunch of white guys spending all weekend in a D.C. jail cell. They're going to learn a new meaning for the term "brotherly love" REAL fast.

I'm with TestyTommy. The cop was outside his authority, but I'm sure most people go there to be reflective, not to stage public spectacles which threaten to distract the others. The cop was just trying to maintain the natural order at the risk of being "wrong".

Some of them are CodePink activists and they've spent many afternoons/nights in DC jails. They know what they're doing.

As for the "natural order" -- what, pray tell, is that?

And how is silently moving one's body a "public spectacle" or a "threat to distract"?

Adam Kokesh is an Iraq vet. What if he -- or another vet -- one day decided to simply stand and salute at the Memorial, for 15 minutes? 20? 10? An hour? Would he, too, be making a "public spectacle" of himself and "distracting others"?

I think the way millions of Americans dress is a "public spectacle." They are more disrespectful than these dancers ever could be. Should we arrest them, too?

We need to just scrap all of the laws except the constitution.
There are far to many laws when a few people dancing in public can now be arrested for it.

Time to start fresh.

Well, now you know what to expect under sharia law, where anything is barely legal.

They came to get arrested. What's the problem. They got what they wanted.

>>What's the problem.

They got arrested for lawful, constitutionally protected activities. For no real reason. Cop could have just ignored them for less of a spectacle. That's the problem.

TestyTommy, lost your testicles? Thomas Jefferson was an amazing man and if we were all a hundredth the man he was, we wouldn't have gotten this far already becoming a full-blown police state. Grow a set and pitch in defending your own rights.

You missed my point. They came to be arrested. If ignored, they probably would have escalated. That's the nature of protesting professionals. So if the cops, who know these protestors, took them out early, punish them. Again, they came to get arrested. They did. They got what they wanted.

Most pathetic part, TestyTommy is letting women defend his rights, while he cowers and passively submits to the police state ... the women here, like Amy and Lisa, seem to be be willing to do more than he is.

"They came to get arrested. What's the problem. They got what they wanted."

They didn't get what they wanted. What they want is full liberty restored and the increasingly authoritarian police state rolled back. Did that happen and I just somehow missed that bit of news? No? Oh, then what are you talking about.

Oh, now I see. They just came to dance. How quaint.

"What they want is full liberty restored and the increasingly authoritarian police state rolled back."

And, they were doing it by dancing? Oh, ok. No, they wanted to get arrested so they could make their point. Not getting arrested serves no point to a professional protestor. Geez, Dude, do you not know the 60's. They would have escalated.

Did these same protesters (and you that support them here) protest smoking bans in privately owned bars and restuarants? I cannot grasp the concept that code pink is really for individual rights and freedom. Actually, I think code pink is for an authoritarian state.

"it is obscene to be arrested for moving one's body in public in a way that poses no threat to anything but a cop's ego."

"Contempt of cop" is one of the more serious legal infractions encountered these days. I'm surprised nobody was tazed.

"They would have escalated."

So what? Let 'em escalate. Eventually, when they see they aren't getting the attention they want, they'll either leave or they'll do something that really deserves getting arrested for. Either way, they fail to accomplish their purpose, if that purpose was simply attention-whoring. I don't agree with anything Code Pink says or does, but they have the same rights as everyone else.

I've stood in the Jefferson Memorial, and I've read the words inscribed on the interior of the dome. It was positively bracing, and it did a lot to get me down the road of coherent libertarian thought. Had Jefferson himself been there, and had he been armed, he would have shot those cops and thought nothing of it.

What were they protesting?

Dave B, not everyone wants to get arrested and not everyone who danced the other day got arrested. Many people are planning to go next weekend and dance, and not all of them want to get arrested. What they want is the freedom to be able to dance -- that's the point.

Civil disobedience includes the willingness to get arrested, yes, but the police make the decision about whether or not to arrest. They're not required to arrest everyone.

If there are a hundred people dancing (or just moving from foot to foot while standing in place), the cops would need a lot of presence to arrest them all. And if they give a warning, which they are supposed to do, people have the option to stop "dancing" and to leave. That doesn't mean that their demonstration, therefore, is pointless or insignificant.

Again, there are many different ways to protest in this world, not just one.

And Amy, touché on the 70's disco comment!

http://www.adamvstheman.com/video-contest?utm_source=KokeshforCongress+Import+of+big+list&utm_campaign=c036c0dd8d-Dance_Party_at_TJ_s5_30_2011&utm_medium=email

First they came for rights on personal property and I said nothing. Then they came for rights on public property, so I danced.

Libertarians have always had great difficulty with "public property." Even though we believe in individual freedom we often argue about what is to be done with public property. I am less tolerant of assholes in my old age (even though some people say I am and old asshole) and I prefer jerks like these to not bother me in public places.

Years ago (many), at the Libertarian Convention in Seattle, we fought among ourselves over the issue of a woman's right to choose. I now wish we had focused more on assuring that no taxpayers' money was ever used to fund abortion whether we agreed to the woman's right or not.

I am amazed that that kind of energy can be spent on dancing in a public funded place and we continue to lose of personal freedoms on our private property.

Again, code pink does not believe in the rights of personal property, and in the right of free speech to those they do not agree with.

People can carry loaded guns into National Parks, for god's sake. Yet dancing and kissing are prohibited. If that isn't fucked up, I don't know what is.

(And I'm not a member of Code Pink. But I still plan to be at the Dance Party on Saturday.)

Yeah. "Public Property" concept creates silly rules. I prefer to do something constructive like protesting for personal property rights. Code Pink is the enemy of freedom so I will not side with them.

I support freedom of speech for Muslims. I do not support Muslims. I support freedom of speech for Code Pink. I do not support Code Pink. I support freedom of speech for Adam Kokesh. I do not support Adam Kokesh.

I believe their ilk will be in my "sights," or those of my desendents, when the time comes to re-establish a free society.

Civil disobedience includes the willingness to get arrested, yes, but the police make the decision about whether or not to arrest. They're not required to arrest everyone.

Point of fact but the cops arent even legally required to stop or arrest a guy wandering round the park shooting people in the head in broad daylight, so the suggestion that they "had" to arrest a bunch of dancers is bullshit

Exactly what is the complaint about this decision? No one has addressed what the court actually does in the opinion, or whether it errs.

This is a District Court decision. It isn't the District Court's place to adopt whatever rule seems reasonable to the court; rather, the district court decision has to draw its authority from the applicable statutes and the precedents set by the D.C. Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS.

The District Court's decision on the First Amendment issue begins with a determination of the kind of property involved. In footnote 5, the court notes:

There are three types of public property for purposes of First Amendment analysis: traditional public forums, designated public forums, and nonpublic forums. See Perry, 460 U.S. at 45-46. A traditional public forum is a site that "by long tradition or by government fiat has been devoted to assembly and debate." Id. at 45. A designated public forum is "public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity." Id. A nonpublic forum is "public property which [is] not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication." Id. at 46.

The highlighted text is a citation to a Supreme Court decision. The District Court is obliged to follow this precedent. The court can not decide whether it will distinguish between different kinds of federal property in First Amendment cases. Instead, to apply precedent, it must decide to which category of property the Jefferson Monument belongs. The court first finds that:

. . .the physical characteristics of the Memorial's interior indicate that it is a nonpublic forum. It is physically distinguishable from the surrounding parkland: an individual must affirmatively decide to visit the interior of the Jefferson Memorial. The visitor must step off of a path, ascend forty steps, and traverse a portico --passing a sign requesting "Quiet Respect" -- before entering the Memorial's interior. Unlike the sidewalks at issue in Grace and Henderson, the pedestrian is inevitably aware that in moving from the parkland to the interior of the Memorial he or she "ha[s] entered some special type of enclave." Grace 461 U.S. at 180. A pedestrian simply does not "happen" upon the interior of the Memorial.

The Grace and Henderson cases are from the D.C. Court of Appeals and found that sidewalks adjacent to the both the Supreme Court and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were public fora. The District Court distinguishes the interior space of the Jefferson Memorial from those sidewalks, and finds that the physical characteristics of Jefferson Memorial makes it a nonpublic forum.

So, do you think the District Court is wrong, and the interior of the Jefferson Memorial is like a sidewalk? Why?

Second, the District Court finds that unique purpose of the Jefferson Monument, to publicize Thomas Jefferson and to provide a place to contemplate his place in history, makes it a nonpublic forum:

This purpose marks the Memorial as unique, and hence unlike quintessential examples of public fora -- streets, parks, and sidewalks, all "necessary conduit[s]in the daily affairs of a locality's citizens, but also . . . place[s] where people may enjoy the openair or the company of friends and neighbors in a relaxed environment." Heffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.

Again, what's wrong with the court's reasoning here?

After the District Court determines that the interior of the Jefferson Monument is a nonpublic fora, the court applies the First Amendment standard for speech restrictions in nonpublic fora, as set forth by SCOTUS:

A prohibition on expressive activities in a nonpublic forum does not violate the First Amendment if it is viewpoint neutral and is "reasonable in light of the use to which the forum is dedicated."

The Park Service's regulation is clearly viewpoint neutral. Simply,

[t]he regulation is viewpoint neutral because its prohibition of "demonstrations" does not favor certain ideas over others.

So the only question is whether the prohibition on expressive activities in the Jefferson Memorial is reasonable in light of its dedicated use. The court looks to both the park regulation and previous opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit:

The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial, in order to maintain an "an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence," 41 Fed. Reg. at 12880, and thereby fulfill this purpose [of publicizing Thomas Jefferson so that people may contemplate his place in history]. The D.C. Circuit has recognized these interests as legitimate goals of speech regulation at our national memorials.

The D.C. District Court must follow the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, so as a matter of law it cannot find the restriction of expressive action in the Jefferson Memorial, or the other national memorials, unreasonable.

In short, the District Court opinion does nothing but apply existing precedent. The only part of the decision open to challenge is the factual finding that the interior of the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum, and I think the District Court makes a compelling case that it is.

Every other result set forth in the District Court's opinion is compelled by existing law. The plaintiffs claimed a right to dance in the Jefferson Memorial, and the court could not find any such right within existing case law.

Oh Dale, they (Code Pink and that prick Adam Kokesh) just wanted to dance; and, you just go ahead and bring these extraneous facts into the discussion.

You can't legally smoke in a bar, in Minnesota, even if the owner of the bar says it is ok with him. You won't hear a peep out of Code Pink and the prick Adam Kokesh (aka, friend of John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam). That's because they are not for property rights, just free expression of dance. Why don't they try smoking there instead.

Amy,
Do you disagree with Dale's post?

Do you agree with the statement "The Memorial is fully owned by the people and the people have full and exclusive right to the use of the memorial, including destroying it if they wish" made by Greg Betson that you noted in your blog post?

I support both Dale and Greg Betson right to say what they say. I support Dale's opinion that the dancers where properly prohibited from dancing. I obviously do not understand your point Amy. Greg is full of shit, because you must know, his "people" must be "all" people and you do know that you will never get "all" Libertarians to take the same point of view. NOTA rules!

Amy, what free speech do I not agree with? I am not seeing where I am not agreeing with free speech.

So here comes Dale again to explain to us why there's nothing to see here, and we should all move along. I quote here the bit he bolded:

". . .the physical characteristics of the Memorial's interior indicate that it is a nonpublic forum. "

Complete, absolute, utter bullshit. The damn building doesn't even have any doors. It is part of the Capitol Cross of memorials, which both by law and by long, long tradition (nearly as long as the country has existed) is the ultimate in public forums in the United States. If the Jefferson Memorial is a non-public forum, than public forms simply do not exist, and the right to peaceable assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment is neatly nullified by the court. How conveeeeeeenient.

Cousin Dave, are you saying the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was incorrect in their finding? That is what Dale was referring to.

Knowing the court found "Oberwetter's First Amendment Bivens claim is premised on the belief that she had a
constitutional right to engage in expressive dancing in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial.
But the Court has concluded that she possessed no such right, and therefore Hilliard could not
have violated Oberwetter's First Amendment rights. Accordingly, her First Amendment Bivens
claim necessarily fails.8" Adam Kokesh and Code Pink go to the Memorial and dance.

What did they think would happen? I did not know this was the way to appeal a court decision.

Dale, thank you for explaining the legal ins and outs. I couldn't understand how the interior of the Memorial wasn't considered a public forum until I read your comment.

I still think it's bullshit, but at least now I understand the legal parsing. I realize legal decisions are all about hair-splitting, and I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps the decision to arrest is technically correct. But I would echo the comments above that the police still have the power to make the decision to arrest or not. Even my goody-two-shoes self has done things that are technically illegal -- walk down the street with an already open bottle of wine in a bag because I didn't want to leave it at the restaurant -- but I didn't get arrested.

I would also like to emphasize that the dancers were silent. They weren't disruptive. Nobody else could hear the music they were playing in their personal iPods.

My question still, since we're splitting hairs, is what constitutes dancing? Is swaying, while holding a guidebook in one's hands, dancing? Is shifting one's weight from foot to foot, in what could be interpreted by someone as a rhythmic beat, dancing? And what if I'm standing in the Memorial, and my husband and I have our arms around each other, and he gives me a peck on the lips, thus committing the apparently illegal act of kissing? Will a guard come up to us and tell us to leave?

Anyway, your comment was helpful, unlike those of Dave B, who made sure to let us all know, on-line, in a public forum, that he thinks shooting people he doesn't like ("will be in my 'sights'") is appropriate. That should be an interesting tidbit for any law enforcement folks who might be reading this blog.

P.S. For those who are interested:

About Adam Kokesh
Adam Kokesh is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and former US Congressional candidate from New Mexico. Adam has testified before Congress and has been interviewed on CNN, Fox, and ABC. As a Marine, Adam was sent to Fallujah in 2004 and received the Combat Action Ribbon and Navy Commendation medal as a sergeant. Kokesh attended graduate studies in political management at George Washington University and holds a B.A. degree in psychology from Claremont McKenna College.

Next dance party -- Saturday, June 4th:
http://www.adamvstheman.com/video-contest

Let's see - how should I put this - Jane you ignorant slut. Google Adam Kokesh for a more inlightening picture.

Oh and dear, dear Lisa, the enemy is always in my "sights." Untwist your panties.

I once attended a Presbyterian church service in New Mexico which included a bunch of middle-aged women dancing around with long white scarves. Although I know it is not un-biblical, King David danced for the glory of God, I did not expect it to be part of a service in my own denomination(in David's time they also sacrificed animals on the alter). I was a visitor so it was not my call. I didn't go back.

When I go to a national memorial, I don't go there expecting a ruckus or to make a ruckus. I think it is rude. It's not a matter of liberty. It's a matter of respect. Dancing at a memorial is disrespectful.

If the cops did not do anything, maybe some offended bystanders might go over and take care of the problem themselves. When legitimate authority gives up the use of force, the use of force does not go away. It devolves to the next group willing to use it.

They did not kick up a "ruckus." How hilarious. They were silent. They had music audible only to themselves on their personal iPods.

Personally, I think the way most Americans dress is appalling and disrespectful. At all sorts of venues, including national monuments and memorials. I'd rather see a person silently bopping to a beat in his own head than some of the grotesqueries that assault my eyes every day. Doesn't mean I think those people should be arrested.

But I see the slave/authoritarian mentality is alive and well.

The rule of law is also alive and well.

You are free to dance at the Memorial. It is also in violation of the law. Be prepared.

I always admired the Shinto. They don't have a philosophy or religion. They just dance.

There are easier ways to change the law; better doors to try, or just keep trying to run through the wall. Your choice. You might get more support if you don't act like an asshole when you get what you want.

Lisa:

I still think it's bullshit, but at least now I understand the legal parsing.

Thanks-- I think. I understand that from the outside legal reasoning appears to be hairsplitting, but, as they say, there's a method to the madness.

the police still have the power to make the decision to arrest or not.

Yes and no. The police may turn a blind eye to minor violations when they can plausibly deny any awareness, but in situations like this, where the demonstrators come armed with video cameras and determined to draw the attention of the other people present in the memorial, they put the police in a tight spot. The police can't claim they were unaware of the demonstration. If they don't enforce the regulations, the police are open to accusations of selective law enforcement if they enforce them later.

To take your example, if you proceed with your open container of wine, label exposed, waving it over your head in the vicinity of a police officer, he's going to ticket you. If he doesn't, then the next belligerent public drunk he tickets for open intoxicants may claim a defense of selective prosecution, because the police officer showed favor by not ticketing you, because you're (insert favored race/gender/social class/ideology etc. here).

I would also like to emphasize that the dancers were silent.

Noise is only one way that you can draw attention to yourself and change the environment around you. If a troupe of drag queen mimes descended upon the Jefferson Memorial and silently vogued in unison, wouldn't you say that would substantially alter the environment?

They weren't disruptive.

That's a subjective statement. While you might not find Code Pink's silent dancing demonstration "disruptive", another might disagree. The regulations try to use more objective criteria to restrict behavior in the memorials:

The term demonstrations includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.

The regulation attempts to identify objectively observable behaviors, and doesn't leave it to the police officer to evaluate those behaviors aesthetically or sentimentally as "disruptive". Thus, voguing drag queen dancers don't receive less First Amendment protection just because a police officer, or even the majority of the population, finds their expression "disruptive", while the same people find Code Pink's silent dancing demonstration acceptable. Both are "demonstrations" and no one can use the interior of the Jefferson Memorial as a venue for a demonstration, regardless of his or her method or viewpoint.

what constitutes dancing?

That's not the pertinent question. The regulation restricts demonstrations, not dancing. A dance may or may not be a demonstration. If you absent-mindedly sway back and forth to the music on your ipod, that isn't a demonstration. You don't have a point of view and there's no intent or propensity to attract attention. If you show up with a crowd of your friends with your ipods and all start dancing in order to promote your interpretation of the First Amendment, that's a demonstration. The dancing is an expression of view or grievance, and it's intended to attract others' attention.

Dale, thank you again!

I know there's method to legal madness, and I think I get the distinctions you've explained. (I confess I love the idea of drag queens voguing inside the Memorial!)

My statement above about clothing is meant to be serious and not snarky. But I guess there's nothing in the regulations that prohibits obnoxious, disrespectful clothing. And lest I be misinterpreted by others, I don't think we should be policing people's clothing! Just curious if a certain type of dress or undress, if done en masse, could ever constitute a "demonstration"?

I guess I'm not understanding the difference between a protest and a celebration?

After I'm dead for two hundred years, I hope there is a memorial in my honor. And I hope on my birthday, someone comes to celebrate my life. I consider the quiet dancing well within the limits of the signs that are posted, especially done to celebrate Thomas Jefferson's birthday.

The one and only time I was in Washington D.C., we visited the memorials. There were teenagers on every side of me violating what I felt was proper behavior. Kids splashing in the WWII memorial. There were people dancing at the Jefferson memorial, but teenagers in tour groups. They were also kicking, slapping, and general horse-play. There were teenagers skateboarding on the Navy memorial, damaging the marble. I guess I'm having issue drawing a line between my own experiences with any and every memorial in D.C. and the behavior of these people. Mostly because I feel like their inappropriate actions were done in celebration of the life of a brilliant man, instead of done to be an idiot horsing around with a bunch of friends. I also don't understand how telling these people to stop is "neutral" when I have seen what I have at these memorials.

And the point where it became distracting to the crowd was after they began to arrest him. I suppose even if you are wrongfully being arrested, any sort of protest, can be another crime (resisting arrest) against you. Just as I feel his protests of arrest was taken as a means that the entire thing was a protest. And what small of a leap is it from there to saying that if a cop is wrongfully entering your home, that you should not have any means to defend yourself against the cop. What tiny of a leap is it from this point to a police officer being able to come into your house and say, "I live here now, do something about it, I dare you."

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me these guys were following orders from one of the most important founders of our country

ya, and an unabashed slave holder. Jefferson was not the most ardent founding father, try again

If your going to hold up slave ownership your gonna have to drop almost every one

"The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial, in order to maintain an "an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence,""

Oh, OK, so the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, except to maintain an atmosphere of calm, tranquility and reverence."

I understand where the argument comes from, but come on, they weren't even bothering anyone.

"But I would echo the comments above that the police still have the power to make the decision to arrest or not."

Yeah, it's certainly not in the spirit of America's tradition of liberty that they acted, on the contrary, the spirit in which they acted is one of an authoritarian police state. It takes deliberate disingenuity to 'not see that'.

"Oh, ok. No, they wanted to get arrested so they could make their point. "

Yes, and what was that 'point'? To raise public awareness of the increasingly authoritarian police state, in order to try help roll it back. Duh. Can you really not see that or are you just playing dumb?

Well to be completely fair we must consider the possibility that they arte acctually that dumb

Lobster wrote:

Oh, OK, so the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except to maintain an atmosphere of calm, tranquility and reverence."

Does it say "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech (and dancing) or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."?

No. So if we want to go by your hyper-literalistic reading of the Constitution, and ignore the last two hundred years of SCOTUS interpretation (like the permitted regulation of expression in nonpublic fora), there is no freedom of expression other than mere speech, and therefore no constitutional protection for expressive dancing.

You really want to go there?

"ya, and an unabashed slave holder"

Remind me - was slavery illegal during Jefferson's time?

"So if we want to go by your hyper-literalistic reading of the Constitution, and ignore the last two hundred years of SCOTUS interpretation"

The Constitution was meant to be read literally. It's not a piece of poetry, and it's not written in Chinese, so it doesn't need "interpreting". It just requires being read and being implemented.

The founding fathers did actually know that they were writing the most important and most fundamental legal document for the new nation - trust me, they wrote it (what you call) "hyper-literalistic" and intended it to be read "hyper-literalistic".

So yes, let's "go there".

Lobster:

So yes, let's "go there".

Fine. Then there's no First Amendment issue in this situation. The police arrested these people for dancing, not speech. There's no First Amendment protection for dancing.

OK Dale lets take you logic train to the last station.

First I need to point out that they werent arrested for dancing, they were arrested for demonstrating.

now
IF dancing is not a form of free speech, and therefore not protected
THEN dancing is not a form of free speech, and therefore can not be considered a form of protest

IF dancing can not be a form of protest as it is not a form of free speech
THEN one can not be arrested for demonstrating thru dance

So the fact that they were arrested for demonstrating is proof that the government considered the dancing to be a form of speech.

FYI speech is communication, verbal or non verbal - otherwise as Amy blog isnt audible the government could shut it down without violating her right to "speech"

Lobster wrote:

First I need to point out that they werent arrested for dancing, they were arrested for demonstrating.

And demonstrating, under the regulation, covers more activities than mere speech. So the regulation can forbid dancing without affecting speech.

So the fact that they were arrested for demonstrating is proof that the government considered the dancing to be a form of speech.

Does not follow. Not all "demonstration" is speech; by your interpretive standard, that we can only follow the literal meaning of the text, the Constitution does not protect any "demonstration" other than mere speech (or publication by printing press).

FYI speech is communication, verbal or non verbal

No, speech is the vocalized form of human communication. Only in the judicial interpretation of the First Amendment and the legal concept of "freedom of speech" has the concept of "speech" broadened to include dance. Since you reject the authority of judicial interpretation of the Constitution, that definition isn't available to you.

otherwise as Amy blog isnt audible the government could shut it down without violating her right to "speech"

True; that's why I accept Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment rather than a "literalist" interpretation. Even "freedom of the press" wouldn't protect a blog, because a blog doesn't involve a printing press.

It is impressive that those old dudes set up a system so long ago that does work so we do not have to have a revolution over someone not being allowed to dance everywhere they wanted.