Students at Lincoln Memorial Told to Stop Singing National Anthem

Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by GENERAL EYES

 

Because no one remembers the lyrics to those songs

I rememeber when I was in grade school, we were taught those songs and more. Does anyone know if they still teach them to our children?

Darn shame if they don't.

My Country 'Tis Of Thee is a beautiful song. That's where we get the statement "Let Freedom Ring."

I think the Star Spangled Banner is currently more popular because it's a song about battle, blood and war. These are themes that we currently see echoed time and again in the current "patriot" movement.

[edit on 8/10/2010 by clay2 baraka]

What if a huge crowd were to sing this song?

"We shall overcome!"


Just wondering how old the rule was.

Now I am really wondering about this rule:

In case you were waiting to hear who might be singing at the opening Inaugural event on Sunday before deciding whether to attend, here’s the initial lineup: Yes, Bruce Springsteen will be there. Also Beyonce Knowles. Stevie Wonder and will.i.am. And Bono. And Shakira. All at the same event. They’re singing at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday afternoon, with the program starting around 2:30 p.m.

Source:






[edit on 10-8-2010 by butcherguy]

reply to post by butcherguy


I have tried to find the specific law....what is apparent is that this is case law from several cases presented to the Supreme court.

Content-neutral restrictions (also called non-content-based restrictions) regulate speech without regard to its subject matter or the viewpoint conveyed.[1] The Supreme Court has held that the “government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’”[2] Such content-neutral restrictions may be permissible even when they incidentally affect the content of speech to some degree because, in most cases, such regulations “pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.”[3]

Examples of content-neutral restrictions that have been held to be constitutional include laws that restrict the distribution of printed materials to prevent litter in a public space[4] or laws that prohibit the use of loudspeakers in order to reduce noise.[5] Facially neutral regulations, however, can be invalid if they have a disproportionate effect on a particular type of speech or expression.[6]

itlaw.wikia.com...

In regards to the snippet about the musical performance on inauguration day, they filed for and obtained a permit...now if these kids had only done the same.

Sorry I posted this in the wrong thread by accident. Mods please delete.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ModestThought]

reply to post by Aggie Man
Thanks for that. I was having trouble finding that.

reply to post by Ahmose


Oh, stop it!! Let me guess, while other kids were playing with GI joes .. you were digging into the Kennedy assasination? I guess I am assuming your age..
At 5 or 6 which of these were you concerned with?
1) WW2
2) Kennedy
3) 911

Sorry about assuming your age... But I stand by "STOP IT!" you were only protesting singing the national anthem.. because you were a little terror!

You didnt thoughtfully say to yourself "I am not going to sing my countries national anthem, because " my Govt. is screwed up.

The only thing you knew.
Rotary dial phones sucked
GI Joe should have been on more than 2 times a week
Wrestling was real...and George the animal steel's tongue was really green
Etch a scetch was some sort of magic
Garbage Pale kids cards would be worth Millions! period!

If the schools do not teach our kids... who will...
My children all know the national anthem.. My youngest is 2..and can keep up, if we sing along.

I am under the impression.. School will teach my kids to be "teachable"
Everything important in life will be taught at home!






[edit on 10-8-2010 by Mobius1974]

reply to post by Mobius1974


And one home video game, pong was the rage!

reply to post by elevatedone


I remember them well.

I suppose in some places they still teach 'em...

They were in violation of federal law. They should have moved a few yards to the left or right...and sung to their hearts content.

Or...

The park police officer could have waited and then moved 'em along. No harm, no foul...

Tempest, thy name is teapot.

Who cares? If a group of Muslims were singing some nationalistic song from whatever nation they were originally from nobody would care if they were told to stop. 25 steps away and it would be fine. People need to relax.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Domo Arigato Mr Novato]

reply to post by Domo Arigato Mr Novato


The difference being that those hypothetical Muslims would be singing a national anthem from another country...

These kids were singing this countries national anthem... The difference should be obvious.

...The reaction should still be the same.

reply to post by Domo Arigato Mr Novato


Seems as thouigh everyone agrees with the problem being the location.. I dont see anyone argueing the content. Although, I would like to point out.

A muslim could in theory come to the capital and have a song and dance in a approved area.. Would we have the same luxery in their capital?

The many places that are for quiet contemplation or study singing is frowned on UNLESS a permit is acquired .

The video of them singing shows them filling up the entrance to the Memorial If they had done it lower on the steps or weren't blocking the entrance the out come may have been different .

Moving 25 ft was asked of them . Is that so unreasonable ? I don't think so . If I remember the Monument is like 200 feet wide 200 feet deep and the steps are 75 feet long 30 year old recollection of the monument . If they were able to continue 25 feet away what is the big deal ? I recall my younger cousins getting a scolding from the security for running playing and screaming in there 30 years ago .

The security was trying to do their job quiet and access to the memorial .

Move 25 feet and continue .

Mountain out of a mole hill .

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Well, at first the story shocked me, but on further consideration it makes sense.

Regardless of what the students were singing, the rules at that site are pretty simple. You simply aren't allowed to do a "performance" at the Lincoln Memorial.

The last time I was at the memorial it was a time of quiet reflection for me. I don't think I would have been too displeased if a group of students decided to start singing the national anthem, but it would have been somewhat disturbing to the peace.

I think this is a case of the security guards strictly following the rules (as they are supposed to) and the students violating the rules. The fact that they were singing the national anthem is not relevant to the reason they were asked to stop.

I agree. A law cannot be tailored to only fit songs with certain content. If skinheads or the Socialist Workers' Party wanted to sing whatever they sing, a lot of conservatives would be boiling mad. So the sensable thing is - don't sing.

How apropos. A monument to the first president to shut down newspapers and jail Americans for free speech becomes the site of censorship. Reflect on that when you visit the Lincoln memorial. Our first income tax, military draft, suspension of habeas corpus - all courtesy of "honest" Abe.

If they allowed these kids to sing the national anthem what would be keeping people from bringing boom boxes and rapping too?
Sorry kids, but for the good of everyone they have these "silly" rules (that occasionally make sense)

Just for fun we used to go out guerrilla christmas caroling, singing at drive through windows, grocery checkouts, nursing homes, etc. The Mall threw us out and the nursing home asked us to leave. Whadda world, huh?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Asktheanimals]

It is clearly stated why the students could not sing where they were, as other members have pointed out. The students were asked to move to an area where their singing the anthem would have been acceptable but they refused. I think whereas maybe they weren't trying to 'protest', when they were asked to move and refused to then it turned into a protest.

If you think it's ridiculous to have a "content neutral zone' in this area, that is one thing. It is completely another to try to twist this into something nefarious. The security guard was enforcing laws that he is told to uphold. He wasn't being anti-patriotic, just pro-law.

reply to post by Mobius1974


Does it matter if we would have the same luxury in their capital? I don't understand what their country would do has anything to do with what we should let them do?

(sorry to be off-topic)

Refusal of ignorance, is not a criminal offense.

I think that should be added to the bill of rights.

I find it ALMOST satirical, to those that are stating that they should follow the rules or the law or whatever.

My ______ folks. This is supposedly one of the symbols of our nation. Yet, a song that represents us as a people, is not allowed?

I do not know, you people have been brainwashed or SUMPIN.

Ever lean out the window and SCREAM, I am pissed and I am not going to take it anymore. How bout just stating that our PC country has GONE TOO FAR.

Take your lithium and mellow out, or actually use your damn minds and realize the government does not want you to THINK, or to FEEL.

Sometimes I wonder about my fellow freedom lovers, are you really comfortable keeping your TRAPS shut?

reply to post by Tyrannyispeace


The song has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is that it was a song at all. It expressly said that the site is "content neutral" meaning NO type of song can be sung because they intend the area to be for quiet reflection. Given this fact, we can't exactly say, "well, okay but you can sing the national anthem" because then there will be more people trying to say they should be able to sing other songs and the place won't be "content neutral" and there will be no "quiet reflection" there anymore, would there?

So, it has nothing to do with them not being allowed to sing the anthem and everything to do with the fact that they aren't supposed to sing or do anything that could disrupt the "quiet reflection" meant for the area.

edit: clarification

[edit on 10-8-2010 by nunya13]

reply to post by clay2 baraka


"He proudly raised his American flagged racing cap..."?
How is that dis respectful? The flag raising at Iwo Jima (spelling) would never have happened if they had stopped to read the rules.
And no wonder no one knew the words of the anthem if they are only used as per regs. No passion.
Any American flag is better than no American flag.
If memory serves, the US Anthem outdates the rules. And what good are the rules without the American Anthem.
Be happy your children know the words and wanted to sing.

reply to post by Majic


wait wait, you dont watch TV but you have an automatic response to anything brought up by FOX news......a conditioned response as it were??

If you dont mind me saying, how every UNMODERATOR like of you, and how very "anti" deny ignorance........

Arent we suppose to view everything equally and weigh all the facts before making decisions?

How can one who does not view said program at all, make a judgment that is fair and balanced.......'

And how can we as a website trust your judgment as a moderator if this is how you go about things?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]