A federal appeals court in Washington today said expressive dancing is prohibited inside the Jefferson Memorial in a decision that upheld the dismissal of a suit alleging government suppression of First Amendment rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said expressive dancing “falls into the spectrum” of prohibited activities—including demonstrations, picketing and speechmaking—at the memorial. The rules, the court said, ban conduct that has the “propensity” to draw onlookers. The court's ruling is here.
The plaintiff, Mary Brooke Oberwetter, who was arrested with other dancers in April 2008, said federal regulations that govern the use of the memorial do not prohibit silent dance. Oberwetter and fellow dancers said they was honoring Jefferson on the eve of his 265th birthday when the authorities interrupted. Police said Oberwetter twice refused to stop dancing.
“Although silent, Oberwetter’s dancing was a conspicuous expressive act with a propensity to draw onlookers,” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the appeals court. Judges Judith Rogers and David Tatel joined the opinion.
That the dance happened near midnight on a weekend--making it less likely a crowd would form--does not make it lawful, the court said.
Oberwetter’s conduct, the court said, is prohibited “because it stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration” the regulations are intended to preserve.
"Outside the Jefferson Memorial, of course, Oberwetter and her friends have always been free to dance to their hearts’ content," Griffith said.
In a footnote, Griffith said in the court's ruling that Jefferson is “on record discouraging the celebration of his birthday.” The judge quoted Jefferson saying the only birthday he ever commemorates is the Fourth of July.
Oberwetter’s lawyer, Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va.’s Gura & Possessky, called the appeals court decision a disappointment and said he is reviewing options. Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Roback argued for the U.S. Park Police.
I would think that the U.S. Park Police would have more important things to do, then arrest a couple for dancing.
Posted by: Bob Anderson | June 06, 2011 at 02:08 PM
Kimberlyacarlisle has confused the Bible with the Constitution, they are not, nor were they ever meant to be, interchangeable.
I invite her test her "I can dance were I want to" theory and report her results.
Some suggested places: In any courtroom during a trial, in a hospital ER, in the middle of a busy intersection, in a the aisles of an airliner (bonus points for take off or approach), and finally in the middle of the field at her favorite team's home game.
Yes, Kimberly, the Government can tell you where you can and can't dance and many other things as well.
Posted by: Bob Golfer | May 31, 2011 at 02:11 PM
This month after the ruling, when Kokesh and others went back to the scene of the 2008 crime, cops obviously knew of his reputation … and likely figured he was there to make TROUBLE. And, indeed, he was! — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI
Back in 2008, Kokesh and his friends were arrested for dancing. It went to court and, according to this story, they lost because you can’t “draw attention to yourself” at the Jefferson Memorial. So, this time he and the other dancers were clearly disobeying the May 17, 2011 court ruling. That PROVES that the perps disagreed with it and went there with the intent to break the law so as to get arrested AGAIN.
There’s no doubt how the court would rule on Kokesh vs. District of Columbia! He’d lose! I’m glad the cops were as rough with him as they were the other day when he didn’t obey their warnings and resisted arrest.
Kokesh is running for U.S. Congress in New Mexico and, according to Michelle Malkin, is supported by Ron Paul. — http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/10/adam-kokesh-an-anti-war-smear-merchant-in-republican-clothing/
I hope the citizens of New Mexico are aware of his illegal behavior.
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 30, 2011 at 06:10 AM
If this is in fact the requirement inside the memorial, then there should be ample warning to those who visit the memorial. I have not seen anything in this response which indicates that there is waring to the visitors of this memorial concerning expression and the various forms which are prohibited to occur.
To me personally it would be a violation of a persons 1st amendment rights not to allow them to express themselves in a public memorial unless the expression defaced the memorial or caused interruption to the peaceful assembly of those who are visiting the memorial. Remember the right is to peaceably assemble, not just to assemble.
Posted by: Bobby Hawk | May 29, 2011 at 05:18 PM
The Government's "No Dancing" law can't be legally enforced.
My 1st amendment right states: 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.
On our currency it states: In God We Trust.
An excerpt from the Bible states: Psalm 149:3 "Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp"
NO ONE can tell me where I can or can't dance.
Posted by: Kimberlyacarlisle | May 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM
So they're intent on dictating a solemn atmosphere under a frieze which reads "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Bastards.
Posted by: AngelaTC | May 28, 2011 at 04:54 PM
Damn, I guess I'll have to get another place for my wedding reception!
Posted by: Patrick | May 18, 2011 at 10:00 AM