Illegal To Kiss In Public In America

Americans these days fight for the freedom to keep quiet and stay in line.

Watch the Movie V for Vendetta. Kinda relevant.

omfg xD
nobody said throw away all laws.
just remove the senseless laws.

Edit: as long as your aren't psycho and rape/kill ppl, a law that forbids it won't disturb your freedom, remember one thing, not all ppl are messed and want to go to rape others.
but it's sad to cut the freedom of showing the happiness of ppl who are happy, by forbidding them to kiss/hug or dance in public.

Edit2:
rape/kill > hurts ppl = sensefull law
kissing/dancing > doesn't hurt anyone = senseless law / cut into freedom

i hope u get it now

Who's to decide what's senseless and what's not? Oh wait, I forgot we already have a system for that..

Like I said, yal just want to be able to do what you want, when you want.

Take it like a man and move on.


Meh it'd probably go ignored anyways <_< Just bugs me when people talk about freedom but have no idea what it even means..

related

If you think the court system taking 3 years to decide that you are not allowed to silently dance or kiss your wife in a PUBLIC monument is a good way to spend your tax dollars then....... well ***.
There are also tuns of children who frequent the monument every single day, causing a bigger disturbance than these people did. I bet they should be arrested too

As someone who will just randomly bust into a dance, and loves to dance. There are many way show a honor and respect people by dancing and if this is a way you express your feelings why does it matter? Why can a Judge come and go hey you there traaalalalalaling enjoying the monument when a song came into head your head and made you want to move. Again why is this illegal? Why is my freedom of speech being limited? and why can they make this law which doesn't actualy harm anyone at all, but not stop westborough which harms countless people with its protest? Is it because they are choosing to watch you dance over looking at the memorial and since people are choosing to look at you instead then this is purely wrong? I know plenty of people the only true way they know to express themselves is through dance so the government has made illegal the way a whole subculture lives even though they don't create problems, whats new with this? While I agree with certain things like demonstrations taking place outside memorials,the fact that a judge made it against the law to express yourself in a non-violent, non-dangerous, peaceful, and can be very beautiful way like dancing sickens me.

As far as it goes with the protestors, How are you going to be arrested for dancing inside something, when you are dancing outside of it? The point of the protest was to challenge the law, which means you know your going to probably get arrested, and you know your going to jail, and your plan is to win when it finally goes to the upper courts after years of low level trials. If I was dancing and told to stop by a cop, I would never stop. If a cop where to go to me and say, "hey stop dancing", I would go sorry Mr. PoPo you can't make laws up on the spot and keep dancing. Assuming i'm not at a memorial. The cop then could arrest me for not listening to him, I would then be as public and media about it as I could because the officer had no right to arrest me even though he may have felt he was "doing his job". Just like the judge had no right to issue a law making dancing illegal. Demonstrations sure, just dancing wtf seriously bet that judge was a Southern Baptist and you can't dance there because that Satan's work.

ITT: Dancing is speech

I never said I agreed with it, or that it's an efficient system..

And again, who are you to single handedly decide what's more annoying/problematic? Maybe someone doesn't like seeing PDA, maybe it makes them rage because they have no one, but they like kids.. How the hell should I know.. Would I have personally called the cops on them, even if I knew it was against the law? No, because it doesn't bother me.

People love to hate police, and I jump in when they step out of line, in fact I'd probably be one of the first to mention it, but this is one case where it's the complete opposite. I applaud cops who do their job and do it without excessive force, call it positive reinforcement if you want.

ther are rules everywere. people think that everyoen has a rightto do what ever tehy want. but they dont. the US goverment does waht it has to to protect teh masses . these people did nothign more then make sure thy casued a stink so people would see it so tehy could get tehr 15 mins of fame. tehy knew if they simply has a potishion or went door to do no one would care. so they devised a wat to get on youtube so people with no idea the reason would jump on ther band wagon andbefore finding out what was behind it be on ther side. just like how this post started.

the police out of common curtisy asked them to stop. they knew for 100% tehy were breaking the law. and didn't stop. so they were arrested. as the law states. you want freedom? then ther must be laws and rules you haveto follow to keep it. if no go to china and STFU . lets see how free you are there. yea thats what i thought so remember. follow the rules that are created to potect you and youll remain safe and secure.

become like this sideshow shouting protect group. in a mamorel desturbing the peace, resisting arrest, protecting without a permit and voliating the law banning dancing at a momeal. well see you in a few years. end of story

Dancing is not protect by the constatution. if it was then you couldnt stop stripers from getting naked in public.

dancing is dancing.

We need to get legislation going for freedom of dance then..

and come to think of it why is this site filtering speech? doesnt that voliate the constatutuion?

o wait i know there filtering it to protect children. from unwanted or possable material their not able or ready to understand. to protect and defend them so that ther ableto learn this in a forum more suited for that purpose. now i understand..... sometimes thers a right time and place for something and ther just protecting those people so they can learn what tehy need to learn were they needed to learn it....
omg ther so smart. wounder why we didnt think of that..... o wait never mind we did over 200 years ago. silly me

I found this crazy bit of information on the Supreme Courts webpage that says the First Amendment includes freedom of expression. It can't be true

Get your pitchforks ready

don't know what ITT: means, its a college near by >.>
Dance to some people is more important then talking and says more then words, while dancing to other people doesn't make real since. While it's not an actual form of speech it can be and has utilized in that way through out history. Bees speak with dance, so do a couple of tribes.
It's not illegal to strip in public unless your actually getting nude to my current awareness. Otherwise majority of the time that someone goes to a public pool you would have to arrest them. Every time someone takes a jacket it off, a sweater, ect... It's the nudity that's illegal though could probably get in some kind of trouble for being "erotic" in performance. I know that it is illegal in Texas to be in a car shirtless as male but I never looked into if just being shirtless was illegal.

lol

"In this thread, dancing is speech"*

this sounds somehow familiar, ah right, 2 days ago we had a lesson at history at my uni about the start of nazi time.

goebbels speech about total revolution:

"the system we crushed, found its best characterisation at liberism.in the liberism the individual was the centrum of everything.now we replaced the individual for nation and individuals for the collective.of course we have to restrict the freedom of the individual to protect the freedom of the nation or the prevent a conflict with it.this is no restriction of freedom itself.to exaggerate it for the individual means to risk the freedom of the nation.the limits of the freedom of the individual is at the margin of the nation freedom.[...]
only the safety of the national freedom guarants a steady freedom to the individual"

so with all this unnecessary laws and to control all ppl we get back to national socialism?
we all know how it ended a long time ago........

there are a lot of posts along these lines but this was the most recent so I'll address it. Government protection of liberty was always intended to be an assurance that we could not infringe on others, and government could not infringe upon us. Were they to try to do a flash mob in some random dude's living room, the first amendment would not apply as that is private property. The Jefferson monument on the other hand is public domain, and to tell people that this or that form of public expression is not acceptable is in direct violation of the 1st amendment clause that government shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.

To say these people had it coming because they chose to be defiant is ludicrous. The law is unjust and unconstitutional; the mere fact that it is a law does not make it morally permissible. Or did Rosa parks have it coming too since she knew what the law was? The police have zero authority to enforce common courtesy (we give these people guns and extreme power remember), only the law; the fact that they were trying to enforce what you deem to be common courtesy is not relevant.

Lastly, and I've seen this in many posts other than yours, the go to China thing is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. "It isn't as bad as one of the most repressed nations on earth, therefore we don't need to secure or worry about our liberty in this country." Yeah... that seems like sound reasoning.

If you wanna see all the laws that you break. Go see that site.

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Indiana: Oral sex is illegal. (poor them)

I guess that kissing and dancing law can be on that site

"In this thread" is not a complete thought, so a semicolon would be wrong.

I meant it's not a complete thought.
"In this thread" is a prepositional phrase, which cannot stand alone.

If you wanted to explain what "ITT" meant, you could've easily just said "ITT = In this thread," lol. It was misleading either way.

Just explaining why he/she corrected you.

Could have*

How is anyone supposed to take a cop wearing bicycle shorts serious?

DON'T BE HATIN' ON MY MADE-UP ACRONYMS!
I only use them on the interwebs. I avoid all acronyms in anything professional.