National Anthem Not Allowed

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.[/quote]

No, once again. Rule is content neutrality. Interpretation is, signing is a demonstration and a demonstration is not content nuetral.

[dmaddox]

I would like to share a song with you guys. Sing along if you like.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Now if these Children would have recited poetry would that have been bad.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.[/quote]

No, once again. Rule is content neutrality. Interpretation is, signing is a demonstration and a demonstration is not content nuetral.[/quote]

No, the Law is content neutral. It doesn’t matter what you sing, you can’t sing. That is what the article says.

I notice you don’t comment on the other innacuracy.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to share a song with you guys. Sing along if you like.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Now if these Children would have recited poetry would that have been bad.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
[/quote]

I’m sorry sir, but you are going to have to take that non-neutral content elsewhere.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to share a song with you guys. Sing along if you like.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Now if these Children would have recited poetry would that have been bad.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
[/quote]

I am sorry, T-Nation has been designated a national monument therefore I am going to have to arrest you.

Actually, I think poetry would be fine as long as they recite it quietly.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to share a song with you guys. Sing along if you like.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Now if these Children would have recited poetry would that have been bad.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause. it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
[/quote]

I’m sorry sir, but you are going to have to take that non-neutral content elsewhere.[/quote]

OK, please point me to anywhere where any law states that the content of someone’s speech or singing close to the lincoln national monument in any way affects whether they are allowed to sing. You are either wilfully misrepresenting the law or just really can’t read very well. You are not alone, it seems like the journalist is making the same mistake as you, the question is whether the journalist is doing it wilfully or due to stupidity.

Let me help you out here.

Excerpt from firstamendmentcentre.org

[quote]
Content neutrality â?? The opposite of contentâ??based laws, contentâ??neutral regulation of speech means the restrictions are placed on any speech regardless of what it says. For example, although a law might be able to regulate whether pamphlets could be distributed in a public school, it could not discriminate against only Christian or Muslim pamphlets Such content neutral regulations that interfere with speech are examined under a balancing test, comparing the stateâ??s interest in prohibiting the activity in question and the level of interference with the speaker, which is often determined by looking at available avenues of communication[/quote]

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.[/quote]

No, once again. Rule is content neutrality. Interpretation is, signing is a demonstration and a demonstration is not content nuetral.[/quote]

No, the Law is content neutral. It doesn’t matter what you sing, you can’t sing. That is what the article says.

I notice you don’t comment on the other innacuracy.[/quote]

Yes, the law is content neutrality. I don’t know how else to put this. The law says the park is to remain strictly content neutral. Singing is seen as a performance that is not content nuetral. This is all besides the point because we agree a law that bans singing the national anthem is wrong.

I did not address the second point because it has no bearing on the argument. But since you demand it, I can point out you idiocy in regard to this comment as well.

They absolutely where as I originally wrote “(a group of kids on a field trip)”. They were kids. They were on a field trip whether or not that field trip was organized by YAF or not.
For supplemental reading on the term field trip, I recommend this: Field trip - Wikipedia

I DID NOT mention the word school as you erroneously attributed to me (bold mine): “group of school kids on a field trip”. HOWEVER, I would venture a guess that, them being American children in America (school age), they are in fact school children. Meaning they are Children who attend school. So even if I had made the reference to them being “school” children (remember I did not make that reference) I would venture a guess I’d still be right and you’d still be wrong.

Now if I had made reference to them being school children (I did not) AND I had made reference to the trip being school sponsored (I also did not do this) then yes, I would be wrong.

Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

OK, please point me to anywhere where any law states that the content of someone’s speech or singing close to the lincoln national monument in any way affects whether they are allowed to sing.
[/quote]

Okay, I think I get it now, you may not be as dumb as I was thinking. When I say content I’m referring to Park content, not speech content. Seems like a misunderstanding.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.[/quote]

No, once again. Rule is content neutrality. Interpretation is, signing is a demonstration and a demonstration is not content nuetral.[/quote]

No, the Law is content neutral. It doesn’t matter what you sing, you can’t sing. That is what the article says.

I notice you don’t comment on the other innacuracy.[/quote]

Yes, the law is content neutrality. I don’t know how else to put this. The law says the park is to remain strictly content neutral. Singing is seen as a performance that is not content nuetral. This is all besides the point because we agree a law that bans singing the national anthem is wrong.

I did not address the second point because it has no bearing on the argument. But since you demand it, I can point out you idiocy in regard to this comment as well.

They absolutely where as I originally wrote “(a group of kids on a field trip)”. They were kids. They were on a field trip whether or not that field trip was organized by YAF or not.
For supplemental reading on the term field trip, I recommend this: Field trip - Wikipedia

I DID NOT mention the word school as you erroneously attributed to me (bold mine): “group of school kids on a field trip”. HOWEVER, I would venture a guess that, them being American children in America (school age), they are in fact school children. Meaning they are Children who attend school. So even if I had made the reference to them being “school” children (remember I did not make that reference) I would venture a guess I’d still be right and you’d still be wrong.

Now if I had made reference to them being school children (I did not) AND I had made reference to the trip being school sponsored (I also did not do this) then yes, I would be wrong.

Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time.[/quote]
You clearly don’t understand the concept of content neutrality.

Again as you posted before my edit:

[quote]
Content neutrality â?? The opposite of content??based laws, content??neutral regulation of speech means the restrictions are placed on any speech regardless of what it says. For example, although a law might be able to regulate whether pamphlets could be distributed in a public school, it could not discriminate against only Christian or Muslim pamphlets Such content neutral regulations that interfere with speech are examined under a balancing test, comparing the States??s interest in prohibiting the activity in question and the level of interference with the speaker, which is often determined by looking at available avenues of communication [/quote]

The content doesn’t have to be neutral, the law is neutral to the content. As in, doesn’t matter if you are singing the national anthem or lawnmower death lyrics, the issue is that you are singing.

On the other part, I didn’t dispute that they were school children, I disputed that they were, as the article (not you, the article) wrongly claimed, ‘School kids on a field trip’.

Now fetch me a second shrubbery!

[Cockney_Blue]

For the record, I don’t know if the law is wrong. Was there a history of people not being able to enjoy the monument because of loud singing? You Americans do seem to love waving the flag and singing the anthem at the drop of a hat

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Now fetch me a second shrubbery![/quote]

Okay I think we actually agree. I find this upsetting because singing the national anthem (regardless of if they prohibit all singing) is seen as not content nuetral for the park.

I find it asinine that by the same token someone could be made to stop waving the American flag at a national monument, because that would be a display.

However, the comments by the officials are still contradictory. If it was a volume issue, it is a matter of appropriate decorum (I personally don’t feel singing is inappropriate at an outdoor monument) BUT would have nothing to do with any content neutrality for the park (unless say they were breaking out some loud speakers or a PA).

Edit: What if they had all dressed in red white and blue uniforms? Could they call that a display and ask them to leave? I don’t like the whole demonstrations aren’t park nuetral law. It seems way too vague.

[DoubleDuce]

Oh, and they were school children on a field trip, though I admit putting it that was is misleading.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Now fetch me a second shrubbery![/quote]

Okay I think we actually agree. I find this upsetting because singing the national anthem (regardless of if they prohibit all singing) is seen as not content nuetral for the park.

I find it asinine that by the same token someone could be made to stop waving the American flag at a national monument, because that would be a display.

However, the comments by the officials are still contradictory. If it was a volume issue, it is a matter of appropriate decorum (I personally don’t feel singing is inappropriate at an outdoor monument) BUT would have nothing to do with any content neutrality for the park (unless say they were breaking out some loud speakers or a PA).

Edit: What if they had all dressed in red white and blue uniforms? Could they call that a display and ask them to leave? I don’t like the whole demonstrations aren’t park nuetral law. It seems way too vague.[/quote]

I think you might still be missing it slightly. They don’t have to be content neutral. They have to have no content. You cannot sing there.

A content neutral law is different from a content based law. A content based law would say you can’t do that here because of the content. A content neutral law says you can’t do that regardless of the content.

I am pretty sure you can dress in red white and blue and wave a flag, you just can’t make a loud noise or gather in large groups without a permit.

Again, I have no idea if the law is necessary.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance
constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.””

For the however many-th time the law they were breaking is content neutrality.

It is planely there in black and white.

My outrage is that there is a rule/interpretation of a rule that prohibits singing the anthem at a national monument.

Are you agreeing with the rule and enforcement banning the singing?[/quote]

It doesn’t prohibit just singing the national anthem, it prohibits singing right next to the monument where that singing might interupt someone’s quiet contemplation. It is just the same as telling someone they can’t sing loudly in a library or in an art gallery. Their singing might spoil someone elses enjoyment.

I am not sure there really needs to be a law about this, I am not sure how much of an issue it has been in the past.

The sentence you keep posting is the one that is very badly written. I think the editor must have been taking the day off. Read the whole article, it is clear that what the guard said was that the content is not an issue, the law restricts any singing.[/quote]

The rule is content neutrality. They enforce it to remove all singing.

Either way, you think that it is appropriate to stop someone (a group of kids on a field trip) from singing the national anthem at a national monument, I do not. If the rule/interpretation includes singing the national anthem, then it is wrong.

And this is a public out-door park. Not a library. You could make a similar statement about any national park. Should we prevent campers at Yellowstone from singing, because that might break someones contemplation? People do go there for the peace and quiet.

Like I said before, it seems the rule would ban the waving of flags and such also. [/quote]

The rule is not content neutrality, the full quote from the police guy was:

“The area they were standing in and singing is an area that is restricted for this type of activity,” said Sgt. David Schlosser. “The United States Park Police is absolutely content-neutral when it comes to any sort of demonstrations in these areas.”

The reporter or more likely a sub editor writing the subhead misrepresented this as:

U.S. Park Police confirmed that the students were in violation of federal law and their impromptu performance constituted a demonstration in an area that must remain “completely content neutral.”

Which is not what the police sargeant said.

Incidentally, it was not a group of school kids on a field trip, again reading the article you can find out that it was actually a a group of YAF members who were there for a conference. They are a group that encourages activism particularly around personal freedom. It is quite possible that they were deliberately breaking the law in order to highlight the fact they disagreed with it. I have no problem with that and agree that the law is possibly unnecessary however the reporting from Fox is (yet again) disingenuous to say the least.[/quote]

No, once again. Rule is content neutrality. Interpretation is, signing is a demonstration and a demonstration is not content nuetral.[/quote]

No, the Law is content neutral. It doesn’t matter what you sing, you can’t sing. That is what the article says.

I notice you don’t comment on the other innacuracy.[/quote]

Yes, this is the correct interpretation of that law and these events.

[jsbrook]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

OK, please point me to anywhere where any law states that the content of someone’s speech or singing close to the lincoln national monument in any way affects whether they are allowed to sing.
[/quote]

Okay, I think I get it now, you may not be as dumb as I was thinking. When I say content I’m referring to Park content, not speech content. Seems like a misunderstanding.[/quote]

The point is that you are not to sing in that area. Period. Time, place, manner restrictions are permissible and appropriate if they are content neutral. And they happen all the time, everywhere. What would violate the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment would be if singing the national anthem was prohibited but other types of singing were not.

The fact that they were singing the national anthem is a total red herring and really appropos of nothing. Should they be allowed to sing the national anthem but not Metallica? That would in fact infringe on free speech by allowing one type of speech and prohibiting another.

I’m in agreement that it is stupid that that singing a song (any song) in one spot is prohibited and constitutes a “demonstration” but it is permitted 25 feet over. But this is not the same thing as some of those flag cases where displays of patriotism have been considered “incendiary” and expressly deemed to incite a danger.

[jsbrook]

And this is exactly what the policeman was trying to stress. His point was that they intervened because singing in that area was simply prohibited and the content of the song, which happened to be the national anthem, had nothing whatsoever to do with their enforcement.

[jsbrook]

A correct title would have been: “Singing prohibited at Lincoln Memorial: no exceptions made for national anthem.”

Oh, Fox is devious. Not that CNN’s spin is any better. Actually, it is. But MSNBC is just as bad in the other direction.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
A correct title would have been: “Singing prohibited at Lincoln Memorial: no exceptions made for national anthem.”

Oh, Fox is devious. Not that CNN’s spin is any better. Actually, it is. But MSNBC is just as bad in the other direction.[/quote]

How about ‘right wing political activist group deliberately flouts law at Lincoln Memorial in the hope of providing right wing propaganda outlet with headline’

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

OK, please point me to anywhere where any law states that the content of someone’s speech or singing close to the lincoln national monument in any way affects whether they are allowed to sing.
[/quote]

Okay, I think I get it now, you may not be as dumb as I was thinking. When I say content I’m referring to Park content, not speech content. Seems like a misunderstanding.[/quote]

The point is that you are not to sing in that area. Period. Time, place, manner restrictions are permissible and appropriate if they are content neutral. And they happen all the time, everywhere. What would violate the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment would be if singing the national anthem was prohibited but other types of singing were not.

The fact that they were singing the national anthem is a total red herring and really appropos of nothing. Should they be allowed to sing the national anthem but not Metallica? That would in fact infringe on free speech by allowing one type of speech and prohibiting another.

I’m in agreement that it is stupid that that singing a song (any song) in one spot is prohibited and constitutes a “demonstration” but it is permitted 25 feet over. But this is not the same thing as some of those flag cases where displays of patriotism have been considered “incendiary” and expressly deemed to incite a danger. [/quote]

Um… apparently you aren’t reading what I’ve posted. I never mentioned anything about free speech. The free speach thing is a red herring.

“I’m in agreement that it is stupid that that singing a song (any song) in one spot is prohibited and constitutes a “demonstration” but it is permitted 25 feet over.”

This is what I’ve been saying. It is absurd because the only way to remain “content neutral” is to have no content at all. The statue of Lincoln isn’t content nuetral. And American flag isn’t content neutral. The whole idea of content neutrality is utterly retarded. The official interpretation of what constitutes a demonstration therefore violating content neutrality is also retarded. And finally the whole action of stopping kids from singing the national anthem at a national monument is beyond retarded, regardless of if they stop all singing.