|
The Jack-boots are just an example of what true repression is......
By:
UberTroll (Flame Warriors; 2119)
Posted on: 04-16-2008 05:44.
Client: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; InfoPath.2)
IP: Logged
Message views: 732 (Score: 0)
My comment that it is unfortunate there were no real jack-boots around to show them what they are missing in their perceived persecution syndrome.
They don't exist in our society, but you wouldn't know it by the tone of the moron doing the taping.
Society sets the bar for acceptable standards, and I agree with the standard set here by the officers present.
You can feel free to disagree, an upholding of the wishes of the founders, but I think a vast majority of the country would agree that keeping individual statements and 'presentations' off the site is what preserves the site for future generations to enjoy.
If we allow every group of 20 or so people to have their public display viewed at a publicly provided facility, it would easily spiral into a stream of protest and signs of support that would change the intent of the locations.
It is not proper for people to assume the facility is there for their use in terms of doing anything other than taking in the scene.
It was neither designed for, or intended to be a 'public forum'.
As for MLK's use of the national mall for gatherings, nobody would refute that right, but permits and standards have to be followed.
A great example again for the free and open society is the use of the mall for peace demonstrations against the war in Vietnam.
We grant such permission unless there is a good reason not to, others are not so fortunate.
Why is my example 'performance' any less valid than yours? You make my point beautifully. What if my point was to make people feel uncomfortable there by placing SS uniformed 'performers' at each entry point to the monument? Would this be appropriate in the name of free speech or performance art?
For every example of 'harmless', which in this case it mostly is, I can put up a completely offensive concept that breaks none of the same rules.
Therefore all are banned, regardless of intent. This is the only reasonable outcome.
The sad part about the Bill of Rights is the misinterpretation of it by those who do not understand what it actually protects.
The desire to apply it to every circumstance and test it's limits by some in these times as some kind of litmus test of the government authority is ludicrous.
If one of the founders were present in the monument at the time of this 'performance', they surely would have challenged someone to a duel, and there would be a person dead outside (I am betting the pansy with the white earbuds).
*************************
You do not have the required security level to post to this thread.
Report a Bug!
|
