There is actually a law banning expressive dancing inside the Jefferson Memorial: http://adwww2.americanbar.org/SCFJI/Lists/New Case Summaries/DispForm.aspx?ID=464
Until it is overturned in the courts it is the law of the land.
Despite the language of the constitution, there are exceptions to a number of the amendments, including the first. For instance, one needs a permit to protest on public land, which the memorial is. That alone is enough to remove the protesters and arrest if they do not comply, regardless of the method of protesting.
That is true. That or a curry. But a kebab can be enjoyed most times. I once did four times during the same day. That was exceptional, though.For maximum Kebab enjoyment it would have to be at midnight, after 10 Pints of beer, and on a Friday night.
We'll have to see.
The right to protest does not need a permit. Who approves the permit? The agency being protested? Me thinks that is not a good way to regulate a group, and an unfair process. So what regress do people have if refused the permit? A lawsuit would be a frivolous, and the denial and later arrest would be used just to make the protesters look bad. As long as they are not doing any damage, or block others from the venue, I see no reason for them not to be able to dance, protest, sing, make funny faces, or any other thing that people would do in a public place.
When do you need a permit? Protests of 25 people or more on the National Mall require a permit, as does any event that requires streets to be closed. The Metropolitan Police, because they lost an important court case, are required to allow permit-less marches in the street as long as they stay within a single lane. Sidewalks are supposedly public property, but some activists have experienced severe police harassment for protesting outside of private businesses.
For protests on or around the Capitol Buildings, you need to apply for a permit with the Capitol Police. They say to apply at least five days in advance of your activity to guarantee processing, but to allow up to 2 weeks if applying by snail mail. This page on the Capitol Police web site has a map of the Capitol grounds, plus guidelines for permitted activities and steps to get a permit and contact information for the Capitol Police Special Events Unit. For more information, you can also call (202) 224-8891.
For protests in one of the many parks around the city, including the National Mall, you'll need to get in touch with the National Park Service. Events with a lot of equipment, sound amplification, food, or participants can require a month or more for the entire permitting process with the NPS, so start early! This page has contact information for the National Park Service Division of Park Programs, as well as instructions for applying. Please note that all applications, unless determined to be a First Amendment activity, must be accompanied by a $50.00 payment for initial processing. This office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M., holidays excepted. Call (202) 619-7225 to obtain additional information.
U.S. Government Says Cyber Attacks May Be Acts of War
This is a sign of the increasingly digital world we live in: the Pentagon is set to make it official U.S. policy to consider cyber attacks "acts of war," and respond to them with real-world force, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The strategy, which becomes public next month, will both provide guidance to our country's armed forces, as well as make a statement to our enemies. Cyber terrorism is certainly a big issue for officials, as increasing portions of our country's infrastructure are "online."
This announcement comes just a few days after Lockheed Martin, a major US defense contractor, was the subject of a "significant and tenacious (cyber) attack." The company has stressed that no sensitive information was exposed during the attack.
According to The Journal, military officials are still in disagreement about how cyber attacks should be handled, specifically, when and when not a real-life military response is warranted. The Journal says officials seem to be settling on the "eye for an eye" concept, which means that the military would be able to respond to a cyber attack that causes physical damage, injury, or death.
Very few virtual attacks are capable of causing this kind of harm, however. If this position is used, many cyber attacks will not constitute brute-force retaliation. That's not to say military-employed hackers won't have the right to go in and take down an enemy's computer system in response, though.
In many cases, this seems like the most valid and acceptable way to go.
Regardless of official strategy, how best to respond to cyber terrorism is something experts and officials have been debating for years since 9/11. Terrorism experts often warn that the next terrorist attacks could be virtual--although, so far, all cyber attacks have been minor in scope.
The First Amendment does not require a permit.
BBC News - South Tyneside Council 'gets Twitter data' in blog case
This is a Landmark case for the UK anyway.
Also, this is unrelated to the Twitter story from last week about a Football player who had his High Court press injunction breached by Twitter users and an MP using Parliamentary Privelege.
So, Twitter does cough up user information if pressed by the CA Courts. Some Twitter Users may have to be more careful in future.
No need bothering anyway in the UK. If the Women's Guild of Upper Cheshire held a protest in favor of the British Bobby, handing out home baked cookies to the passers bys..Public protests outside Houses of Parliament need one too now.