Student Choir Stopped from Signing the National Anthem @ The Wall

[blackhawk]

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that we should blow this issue way out of proportion, and post incessantly about it!

 

[longknife]

They've become quite famous and are being invited everywhere. Saw them twice on Fox & Friends this morning.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I suppose if you let a school choir sing without asking for a permit, which will likely state what the group plans to do, then you have to allow some liberals to jack off in front of the public there. This way, the plans of the liberals will be thwarted.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

Don't overthink this. It was a performance.

 

[depotoo]

Performance definition, a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience. See more

They were not performing before an audience. I understand your point, but a sad point it is, and they asked first. One allowed it, another didn't.

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.

Don't overthink this. It was a performance.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

A chaperone?

 

[Kondor3]

Permit-schmermit...

Why do a bunch of schoolkids need a frigging permit to sing the national anthem at a national war memorial? To hell with those bureaucrats AND their rules.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Don't overthink this. It was a performance.

I'm not over thinking it. This is a very simple case of PC fascism getting to a ridiculous extreme. How long do you suppose it would take them to sing the song? Unless it's an American Idol-esque narcissist singing the anthem with fifty notes per syllable, it's not a long song.

 

[OldLady]

They've become quite famous and are being invited everywhere. Saw them twice on Fox & Friends this morning.

Good for them. The kids won't have to come away from this thinking of the world as generally unfriendly

 

[Liberty777]

They should find a loop hole, n go back n sing it again.

 

[Liberty777]

It's funny how the same people screaming black power n supporting beyawnsac want to support the action of this officer. Permit only applies to ol whitey.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Poor planning on the choir's part. You would think the organizers of the trip would have seen the section detailing the rules for performances. That is if they bothered to look at any of it. It is rather silly of them to think they can show up at a memorial with dozens of people and burst into song. Memorials tend to be somber places where people can go to reflect or remember loved ones. You couldn't do this at the Arizona Memorial or the Alamo and those are owned and operated by the government, not a private institution like the 9/11 Memorial. Could security have let them finish? Sure. The first security guard is incompetent for granting them permission though. How many other rules is he unaware of?

 

[Pogo]

They need flash mobs to converge on the Memorial to sing the National Anthem. Singing the National Anthem there should be turned into a cultural tradition.

"They" do, do "they"?

Because there's no such thing as too much jingoism?
I thought that was garlic.

There is nothing extreme about a group of citizens wanting to express their patriotism at a Memorial through the use of their constitutional free speech.
The "they" in my comment referred to the security and managers at the Memorial. They need to be put in their places and taught that they are not bosses over free speech.

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

 

[bodecea]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

 

[Pogo]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

That's definitely my impression from talking to Texans --- they think of it like a religion, complete with their own Sharia.

I haven't actually been in the place. I'm pretty sure you have to go to confession first.

 

[Camp]

They need flash mobs to converge on the Memorial to sing the National Anthem. Singing the National Anthem there should be turned into a cultural tradition.

"They" do, do "they"?

Because there's no such thing as too much jingoism?
I thought that was garlic.

There is nothing extreme about a group of citizens wanting to express their patriotism at a Memorial through the use of their constitutional free speech.
The "they" in my comment referred to the security and managers at the Memorial. They need to be put in their places and taught that they are not bosses over free speech.

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

Shame is a subjective emotion. You seem to be seeking an objective explanation. People have differing opinions of what might be shameful and what is not.

 

[bodecea]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

That's definitely my impression from talking to Texans --- they think of it like a religion, complete with their own Sharia.

I haven't actually been in the place. I'm pretty sure you have to go to confession first.

I was there for 6 years...my Purgatory.

 

[bodecea]

BTW:...is it ok for a choir to go to the Alamo and sing "Yellow Rose of Texas"?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you think all latinos are somehow sad that Mexico lost Texas or something? Hint: They aren't, far from it. They didn't have much use for Lincoln, either, for that matter, whether Texan or not.

Show Schedule

they didn't give a fig about 'The Slaves', either, nor did the native Americans in Oklahoma, or any other minority. They also aren't that fond of criminal illegal aliens, but Democrats ignore that and pretend otherwise.

Ever been to the Alamo? They require you speak in hushed tones, men remove their hats. The Daughters of the Lone Star or whatever they call themselves would beat you senseless with their purses.

(Note: this may have changed but it was certainly like that in the 90s last time I was there)

That's definitely my impression from talking to Texans --- they think of it like a religion, complete with their own Sharia.

I haven't actually been in the place. I'm pretty sure you have to go to confession first.

Read the book "Texas" by James Michener. He's not off on the Texas attitude in that book.

 

[Pogo]

"They" do, do "they"?

Because there's no such thing as too much jingoism?
I thought that was garlic.

There is nothing extreme about a group of citizens wanting to express their patriotism at a Memorial through the use of their constitutional free speech.
The "they" in my comment referred to the security and managers at the Memorial. They need to be put in their places and taught that they are not bosses over free speech.

There is no "free speech" issue here. Unless you want to argue that the regulation requiring a performance permit is, but then it ain't their job to enforce selectively depending on whether you or they agree with what the performance is. It's their job to enforce, period.

Alright. I agree it's not a free speech issue. The selection of song and the constitution of the choir make it easy to make this an 'emotional' argument. You are right that regulations are regulations and it is security's job to enforce the regulations, else mayhem and chaos could ultimately reign. BUT
I, alas, would be the security guard who said "Sure, go ahead" and would no doubt be out of job this morning, because there is nothing this chorus wanted to do that seems inherently harmful or an invitation to others to do anything harmful or disturbing. The kids probably thought of it on the spur of the moment, maybe on the bus on the way there or maybe once they had begun touring the memorial. It was their gift, their offering, to the victims and the country. It was one song, not an advertised 'performance' and took no skin off anyone's nose. That's what I hate about bureaucratic rules sometimes. They hire people who can think and use good judgment in a pinch, but then they aren't allowed to use it.

I don't disagree with any of that. My original question, really to the OP and anyone who agreed with his characterization, was why following an existing regulation should be deemed "shameful".

What I've been trying to get at the whole time is the concept of emotionality as a basis for judgment. Nobody wanted to grapple with that.

Shame is a subjective emotion. You seem to be seeking an objective explanation. People have differing opinions of what might be shameful and what is not.

Eggs Ackley. That's what I was going for --- exactly how they got to the term "shameful". I can only assume from the dead silence on that question that nobody wants to confront it because it would reveal too much. Too much that they prefer to hide from.