Comments on: The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Libertarian Hippies Who Dance in the Jefferson Memorial

By: ORLY

ORLY — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:55:17 +0000

That’s really some “rumor” you’ve found there — sort of like the one about the earth revolving around the sun, huh? Hilarious.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:04:21 +0000

If you really believe the people at CATO believe live-and-let-live-like-heathens, you know nothing about the people there.

By: Tweets that mention The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Libertarian Hippies Who Dance in the Jefferson Memorial » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:12:16 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Joe Carter. Joe Carter said: The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Libertarian Hippies Who Dance in the Jefferson Memorial http://bit.ly/9lEjbk [...]

By: Tweets that mention The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Libertarian Hippies Who Dance in the Jefferson Memorial » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:29:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by radleybalko, Mark, Gene Hoffman, Bill Flanigen, Jimmy Ardis and others. Jimmy Ardis said: Ditto. RT @radleybalko: I've never met Joe Carter. But I'm pretty sure I don't like him. http://tinyurl.com/ycxkzew [...]

By: Al

Al — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:43:25 +0000

News accounts at the time said that Oberwetter was arrested after she asked the Park Police officer what law she and her group were breaking that prompted the request to stop dancing. That is a reasonable question, and should not have been the determinant in her resulting arrest.

If your feelings of distaste for her and the rest of the group make you unsympathetic to the (mis)application of an unstated law then you have a character flaw.

By: Joe Snuffy

Joe Snuffy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:42:59 +0000

It’s not that the activity (in this case “libertarian hippie dancing”) has to be viewpoint neutral, but the regulation that controls it that has to be viewpoint neutral. That is, 36 C.F.R. § 7.96 does not regulate the activity based on the content of the expression, so it is not unconstitutional. The Court’s decision explains this fully.

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:52:59 +0000

Joseph This says nothing about things, like libertarian dancing, that has the effect, intent, or propensity to repel crowds or onlookers. Hmm. . . that's a good point. If this gets appealed and goes to the Supreme Court Scalia will probably overturn it on that basis. (For the record, other than her affection for shimming in front of statues, I've only heard good things about Oberwetter. And if I was forced to watch a libertarian dance—*shiver*—I'd rather it be her than, say, Ron Paul.)

By: Joseph Bottum

Joseph Bottum — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:32:16 +0000

No, Joe, you need to rethink your argument here. The Court held that there could be reasonably banned at Jefferson Memorial communicative conduct that “has the effect, intent, or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.”

This says nothing about things, like libertarian dancing, that has the effect, intent, or propensity to repel crowds or onlookers. I mean, if it makes people turn away, with that queasy feeling in their stomachs, how is that banned behavior?

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:24:22 +0000

John C: If you are really a “live-and-let-live” kinda guy, there is no way/reason libertarians would drive you nuts. I'm "live-and-let-live", not "live-and-let-live-like-heathens." It's a very moralistic tolerance. ; ) My opposition to libertarians, though, is part of a larger aversion to Utopianists.

By: John C

John C — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:03:02 +0000

At least be honest. If you are really a “live-and-let-live” kinda guy, there is no way/reason libertarians would drive you nuts. The bad dancer thing I understand a little bit.