The National Park Service today released a statement upholding the arrest of five people last week for dancing in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. While the statement said the agency "supports dancing and other forms of expression in its parks," it added that in some areas of the National Park System dancing is inappropriate and banned.
The arrests were made last Saturday when an organized group entered the memorial obviously intent on challenging Park Service regulations that ban dancing as both inappropriate for the setting and a form of protest that needs a permit. Those interpretations were formally reached when a woman who was arrested in 2008 for dancing in the memorial on Thomas Jefferson's birthday later sued the agency -- unsuccessfully -- for infringement of her First Amendment rights.
In upholding a lower court's ruling that went against Mary Oberwetter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Jefferson Memorial should have a “solemn atmosphere" and that silently dancing was an inappropriate form of expression there.
Furthermore, the appellate judges agreed with the lower court that the interior of the open-air memorial is "not a public forum," and that any demonstration needed a permit.
This morning the Park Service released the following statement:
In light of recent headlines we would like to dispel some myths and misconceptions on what is legal and what is not across the federal park system.
First, the National Park Service has a long and proud tradition of supporting and encouraging First Amendment rights and dancing in our parks is a great way to do this, whether it is on the National Mall on the 4th of July with tens of thousands of people or by yourself in front of a waterfall out west. In fact we may be the only federal agency that is required by statute to provide for “enjoyment.”
But just as you may not appreciate someone using a cell phone in a movie theater or someone dancing in front of your view of a great work of art, we believe it is not appropriate to be dancing in an area that memorializes some of the most famous Americans.
Visitors come from all over the globe to pay respect to, and read the words of Thomas Jefferson. These words, placed on the inner walls of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial chamber, are a moving testament of the good in humankind. We believe our visitors should be able to enjoy this experience without distractions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals agrees. In a May 17, 2011 decision, the court upheld National Park Service regulations that preserve the solemnity of the Thomas Jefferson National Memorial by prohibiting demonstrations of any kind within the chamber. The court ruled specifically on the act of dancing and found no infringement of First Amendment rights to free speech or free expression.
To protest the court’s decision, a group of dancers convened at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial on May 30. They were warned multiple times that dancing was not allowed and chose to continue. Five people were arrested. Organizers of last week’s protest are now planning a larger demonstration this Saturday, June 4, advertising a “Dance Party @TJ.”
Nearly every day, the national parks of Washington, DC, are venues for the unfettered exercise of the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans. Marches, protests, rallies and other events on the National Mall engage hundreds of thousands of citizens every year in civic and civil debate over serious issues facing our nation. We are proud that federal park land is used for these events.
There are over 2.4 acres of space available to dance or express yourself on the Thomas Jefferson Memorial grounds. We hope anyone who likes to dance in this area takes advantage of that space and allows our other visitors to enjoy a peaceful and inspiring experience in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial chamber.
U.S. Park Police Chief Theresa Chambers has not responded to requests concerning the conduct of Park Police in making the arrests -- videos of last Saturday's incident showed officers body-slamming someone to the ground and using apparent choke-holds and knees to pin a head on individuals who didn't seem to be threatening any of the officers -- and today's statement also didn't address that aspect of the matter.
But in a follow up request this morning Park Service spokesman David Barna said the matter was being reviewed.
Comments
I was about to write a big, long winded response to this whole issue. All I really have to say is this:
If I were a soldier returning from one of the wars we are fighting right now, I would seriously be questioning what I fought for. I don't necessarily think people should be allowed to do absolutely anything they want at anytime, anywhere. This, however crosses the line in my opinion. Don't we have bigger issues? Let people dance, and if they are really taking a toll on your reverance, perhaps ask them politely to stop? I don't have the answer to how this situation should have been handled. All I can say is that I am ashamed of the way it was handled.
and we dont have enough problems in this country.i am surprised ACLU wasnt involved.
Hmmmm, this is a tough one. I think the 'dancers' did intentionally provoke the PP, but there is the big question of exactly what is dancing? A couple embracing and swaying? How about if they didn't sway? Are they not allowed to embrace in the Jefferson Memorial either? It is a slippery slope when you begin to try and regulate subtle expressions and silent behaviours. In other words, if the 'dancing' had consisted of stomping around and creating foot noises perhaps, or had the 'dancers' been vocal in any way - this would have made more sense. The parameters of a 'dancing' infraction should be more clearly defined. Dancing is just too ambiguous of a word or a concept to be put to an enforceable measure. I totally agree that public memorials should have a reverent decorum, as someone above pointed out, like in a library. And what these people did in the face of the PP was poking the bear. Clearly, the whole scene is absurd and unfortunate for everyone. But it brings to the table an issue that needs to be resolved and that is that you should not, in a free country, ban something that is so loosely defined. If I were to be set to the task of rewording the "dancing" ban I would state it thusly: "No visually or audibly distracting behaviours". Then it would be up to a fellow attendee to complain to the PP, for instance, that the couple over there embracing and swaying was bothering them. For the PP to just jump in and arbitrarily decide that the behaviour of the couple could be defined as dancing or the man who was slowing and quietly lifting his arms and legs was also dancing, that is where the real problem lies.
I watched the entire video. The Park Police clearly violated protocol. Officer Bicycle Hat did a lot of pointing but rarely issued any warnings (that tends to be protocol). One man voluntarily turned around and put his hands behind his back but was thrown to the ground by TWO men to be cuffed.
Clearly, the Park Police violated any "dignity" of the building by lining the arrested on the floor like people waiting an execution.
The phrase "inappropriate response" is key here. The officers met mostly complying people with aggressive and inappropriate response. Officer Bicycle Hat should be demoted for what he did, not commended. He did not follow protocol, he did not meet with an appropriate response, and created a bigger ruckus than having let the dance play out.
When five people (who are listening via headphones) dance a little bit, who is that affecting?
From the comments above people seem to be more about STOPPING people from doing something they wouldn't do, rather than asking the real question, who is being injured?
Lastly, the DC Circuit has posed more questions than it answered. The National Park Service is talking about maintaining the solemnity - however, I am more interested in the REAL ruling which states in part "the Jefferson Memorial was built by the government for the precise purpose of promoting a particular viewpoint about Jefferson" - I'm sure that they don't mean chokeholds and throwing people to the ground. All in the the Park Police were in as much a violation of the ruling, if not more so.
The ruling is over the top. Silent movement seems fine. Blaring boomboxes, or a chorus line would be something else. But what happened the day the 5 got arrested did not seem to warrant arrest.
It was in fact the arrest itself that was disruptive -- not the "dancing". If you are going to enforce a ban on dancing, (and I don't think there should be one on silent dancing that does not impede other peoples access to the memorial), at least move away from arresting violatators and doing full body take-downs of the folks resisting arrest. Write tickets instead.
LOL
Standard Police Doctrine, the use of force continuem. The officer is required to stay 1 level of force ahead of the people the are dealing with. You can hate it, but it best protects the officer and the bystanders from danger. If someone is refusing a command then you try to out talk them. If that fails then you use physical force (wrestling). If the suspect meets the wresting with their own wrestling then the next step up on the use of force comes up (tazer, asp, mace etc). This varries based on the weapons availible to the officer. It makes for bad videos, but it is 100% accepted tactics, that have been upheld by the courts and is the only way to respond.
Someone who goes looking for a fight is a dangerous individual. They could have made their point without pushing so hard as to get arrested. Or they could have taken the arrest without resisting. They would have gotten the citation and criminal charges that they wanted, without the violence. The officers are just trying to do their jobs (whether you agree with that job or not). They come in and they try to go home safe and healthy. When they get into a fight on that smooth marble, the odds of someone breaking an arm or a wrist is very great. Does their desire to protest, just for the sake of protesting, justify the potential pain and suffering of the officers (or even themselves)?
I'm all for protesting and demanding a change. I would bet that with the right pressure that this rule could be modified or changed. But these tactics just won't do it.
I have never attended a protest and I'm no sort of extremist. I am a long-time, huge admirer of Thomas Jefferson. I attended the university he founded. I have read about his life over many years.
Jefferson would not have approved of these arrests. The Jefferson Memorial is a tribute to the LIFE and WORKS of Jefferson, which embodied freedom of expression.
To suggest that only solemn, sober, depressing expression is appropriate for Jefferson is to entirely miss the living value of his life's work. Jefferson would be appalled.
If people are going to the Jefferson Memorial to get a "Viewpoint" that appears to indicate that TJ was some kind of gloomly, controlling puritan, they are being grossly misinformed.
To quote the man himself, " "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."[
I'd suggest the Park Service bigwigs make a trip to Monticello, perhaps visit his actual gravesite there, and read up a bit about his life. We live in the free country that Jefferson helped found, not a totalitarian dictatorship. We must defend those freedoms - even when exercised in ways that we ourselves would not. I would never dance at a National monument, but my ancestors died to create a free country where others can do so if they wish.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..." this quote from Thomas Jefferson himself says it all. The equal rights of all the people in the memorial at the time of this video were not being infringed upon in any way by the people who were "dancing". Even if the "dancers" did show up to make a statement, the PP reacted inappropriately - I saw no resistance from the couple embracing, in fact the minute the officers touched the couple, they stopped "dancing", the woman even stated that they were stopping, yet they were handcuffed and arrested anyway. This is so disturbing on so many levelss, but what appalls me the most is that it clearly came down to a mental power play between the PP and the dancers. The PP exercised inappropriate physical force, plain and simple. This cannot be tolerated in a free country, and if it is tolerated, we are taking very dangerous steps toward a police state. BTW does anyone have any info on yesterday's Dancing Demonstrators?