Student Choir Stopped from Signing the National Anthem @ The Wall

[Camp]

Because they didn't have a permit!

What is happening to this country?

Story with video @ SHAMEFUL! What security did to these middle school students at the 9/11 memorial is beyond belief

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the content issue when the content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, that would be graffiti.

The topic has an error. Singing, not signing.

I was wondering why they were all signing.....

They were signing because they were deaf...

 

[Pogo]

I uh, don't think that counts as a "permit".

Free speech doesn't require a permit. Only ticky-tack idiots would construe this as a performance. Any walking down the street whistling or even sauntering would then have to be considered a performance.

"Sauntering". I like it. Points for working in the word "sauntering". And even more points for working in the Malvina Reynolds reference.

But this is a choir, being conducted, in a regimented structure. That's a "performance".

Now if these authorities declared "you can't perform that particular song", you'd have a point.

It's a structured homage. No audience was required or expected. Therefore, not a performance. Just a ticky-tack opportunity for anti-Americans like you.

If there's no audience ----- who's videotaping it? Robot-Americans?

They weren't singing for bystanders.
You're wrong on this. Why so bitter?

Then it's a "performance". You lose.

I'm more interested in the original question never addressed, that being --- why is this "shameful"?

 

[Pogo]

Can anyone articulate why this is "shameful"?

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

 

[Picaro]

lol ... so now one of the psychoes is claiming singing the National Anthem, in Washington, at a national memorial, is 'jingoism' and 'in-your-face taunting???

This is how absurd the freak show is now, folks. Please, whatever you do in November, do not vote for any mainstream Democrat that has the approval of the Party establishment. Vote for anybody else, anybody at all, but don't vote for the Party hacks supported by the sickos and tards who hate their own country so much they now peddle the insanity that singing the National Anthem is 'jingoism' and 'taunting' .... Taunting who, sickos and tards?

 

[Picaro]

You are asserting that singing the anthem is jingoism, which means extreme patriotism. That is your whole case and point. It is a subjective opinion on your part, nothing else. Most people would not consider singing the National Anthem as some sort of extreme patriotism.

Indeed. These people are mentally ill.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because it's a denial of free speech.
It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The problem was that they had brought along Roseanne Barr with them.

 

[Pogo]

ol ... so now one of the psychoes is claiming singing the National Anthem, in Washington, at a national memorial, is 'jingoism' and 'in-your-face taunting???

Not related. That was an extension of the original question.

Which would have been clear if you had the balls to quote the post, and neither of which has been answered. Thanks for playin'.

 

[Pogo]

Is it now.

And how is it a denial of "speech"? What "speech"?

You have evidence that they were shut down for the content of their singing, do ya?

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

Doesn't matter what the lyrics are; they were not stopped for "lyrics". They were stopped for an action. An action that requires a permit.

Had they been performing mime or cat juggling, the result would have been the same.

Back to the original question then. Let's say they had been performing a pantomime about Frosty the Snowman, and were stopped for not having a permit. Would that still be "shameful"?

 

[Vandalshandle]

An unrelated issue is that it is a dreadful song. They should drop it and make 'America the beautiful" the national anthem.

I was more than a little amused when Reagan's nominating convention chose Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as their theme song, apparently not realizing that it was actually about being drafted to kill yellow men, and then being ignored by the VA when he gets home.

 

[jasonnfree]

If you listen/sing the national anthem, does it make a person more patriotic? I never liked it, but I really hate the way the modern singers sing it. The one I posted below is really disgusting (to me at least).

 

[jasonnfree]

If you listen/sing the national anthem, does it make a person more patriotic? I never liked it, but I really hate the way the modern singers sing it. The one I posted below is really disgusting (to me at least).

I take it back, rosean barr's version is even worse.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Content does not matter. They were denied speech by a government agent, exactly what the 1rst Amendment addresses. They had permission from a government agent to promote their free speech. Their speech was then denied by a second agent. The second agent had an issue with the first one and it should not have impacted the constitutional rights of the choir.

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

Doesn't matter what the lyrics are; they were not stopped for "lyrics". They were stopped for an action. An action that requires a permit.

Had they been performing mime or cat juggling, the result would have been the same.

Back to the original question then. Let's say they had been performing a pantomime about Frosty the Snowman, and were stopped for not having a permit. Would that still be "shameful"?

The lyrics in this case constitute the intent which was not a performance but a devotional.
Frosty the Snowman is not an homage or devotional.
You are a nazi censor.
Guno called. He was looking for you. He said you're gonna be late for the book burning.

 

[Pogo]

It didn't. Nobody's Constitutional rights were violated, and yes content absolutely matters. Were you able to show the choir was shut down because of content, you'd have that point.

But that's not what happened -- they were shut down because of an action. An action that requires a permit.

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

Doesn't matter what the lyrics are; they were not stopped for "lyrics". They were stopped for an action. An action that requires a permit.

Had they been performing mime or cat juggling, the result would have been the same.

Back to the original question then. Let's say they had been performing a pantomime about Frosty the Snowman, and were stopped for not having a permit. Would that still be "shameful"?

The lyrics in this case constitute the intent which was not a performance but a devotional.
Frosty the Snowman is not an homage or devotional.
You are a nazi censor.
Guno called. He was looking for you. He said you're gonna be late for the book burning.

A "devotional" is it.

And that cannot take the form of a "performance" huh.

I just knew this question would score me free pretzels.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If you listen/sing the national anthem, does it make a person more patriotic? I never liked it, but I really hate the way the modern singers sing it. The one I posted below is really disgusting (to me at least).

More fifty-notes-per-syllable narssicism. Idiots making it about themselves.
Imagine if someone led the singing of 'Take Me Out to the Ball Game' the way these American Idol egomaniacs sing the national anthem and the audience even attempted to sing along. It would make for an excellent Zucker/Abrahams skit.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Well, you don't believe there is such a thing as a verbal permit and that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Plus you keep bringing up the "issue" when content of the issue is not addressed in the 1rst Amendment.

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

Doesn't matter what the lyrics are; they were not stopped for "lyrics". They were stopped for an action. An action that requires a permit.

Had they been performing mime or cat juggling, the result would have been the same.

Back to the original question then. Let's say they had been performing a pantomime about Frosty the Snowman, and were stopped for not having a permit. Would that still be "shameful"?

The lyrics in this case constitute the intent which was not a performance but a devotional.
Frosty the Snowman is not an homage or devotional.
You are a nazi censor.
Guno called. He was looking for you. He said you're gonna be late for the book burning.

A "devotional" is it.

And that cannot take the form of a "performance" huh.

Yes, there is a big difference.
But not to those who can't distinguish between self-focus/egomania and homage.

 

[Pogo]

Of course it is.
Can you show that they were shut down because of the content, rather than the act? No you cannot.
Therefore it's not content (speech) based.

Furthermore it's not the Federal Government enforcing the permit anyway.

This is completely content-relevant. This is an act of devotion not unlike a church choir. The lyrics are what makes it such.

Doesn't matter what the lyrics are; they were not stopped for "lyrics". They were stopped for an action. An action that requires a permit.

Had they been performing mime or cat juggling, the result would have been the same.

Back to the original question then. Let's say they had been performing a pantomime about Frosty the Snowman, and were stopped for not having a permit. Would that still be "shameful"?

The lyrics in this case constitute the intent which was not a performance but a devotional.
Frosty the Snowman is not an homage or devotional.
You are a nazi censor.
Guno called. He was looking for you. He said you're gonna be late for the book burning.

A "devotional" is it.

And that cannot take the form of a "performance" huh.

Yes, there is a big difference.
But not to those who can't distinguish between self-focus/egomania and homage.

How 'bout those who can't answer the original question?

Or those who can't define "speech"? Or what a "permit" means?
Or even write an honest headline?

More pretzels. Yum.

 

[longknife]

Well, that would be graffiti.

The topic has an error. Singing, not signing.

I fractured my left wrist, I'm left handed, and am in a huge cast

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He picked on fucking kids too. Let's see him try that with the Hells Angels Chior

Hells Angel's Choir?

What's their theme song? Highway To Hell by AC-DC?

I kid, but that was funny