Isn't dancing protected by the first ammendment - Footloose (1984) Discussion

[–] camel-wides 13 years ago

what was banned was specifically public dancing, by minors...

free speech also doesn't allow you to shout fire in a crowded building either.

reply

[–] JAlexa9898 13 years ago

Well I am not a lawyer but i still think that would violate the 1st ammendment. First of all what is public dancing, I mean if I have a dance at my house say, in my home, is that public?

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

i believe the supreme court ruled the ickey shuffle was constitutional.

Season's Greetings

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gottb4 12 years ago

You don't get full citizen rights till 18 so you can have bill of rights not in full effect for minors.

reply

[–] strntz 12 years ago

Isn't dancing protected by the first ammendment?

Huh? The first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't mention dancing. It's pretty straightforward actually. The town wasn't establishing a religion, or preventing them from worshiping, so that's out. The town wasn't prohibiting them from speaking up about issues or complaining about the government, or publishing any printed material about it, so that's out. The town wasn't preventing them from assembling with the purpose of assembling peaceably to petitioning the government.

But I suspect you fall into that group of slippery slope folk who believe "freedom of speech" somehow means what ever YOU want. As someone pointed out, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't urinate on a policeman's shoes, or paint hateful messages on peoples houses or public buildings, or passing gas in anger, etc.

Freedom of speech means you have the Right to speak up against your government, without fear of government reprisal. That's how it's written, that's what it means.

Just once, I'd like someone to call me sir without adding 'you're making a scene' ~H Simpson

reply

[–] beckymel 12 years ago

Um, excuse you, dancing is expression, and could easily fall under freedom of speech. Speech goes beyond words and includes art, like dancing.

Freedom of speech includes the Westboro Baptist church protesting soldiers' funerals, as long as they stay on a public sidewalk. And this was ruled by the Supreme Court!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Freedom of Speech covers almost everything except physical harm and public slander.

The real issue was that the town in Footloose didn't crack down on teen drinking, they were just dumbasses and banned dancing, which made everyone more pissed.

reply

[–] strntz 12 years ago

Um, excuse you, dancing is expression, and could easily fall under freedom of speech. Speech goes beyond words and includes art, like dancing.

Um... NO. Your definition is the one that YOU want it to be, not what those who wrote the Amendment meant (which is quite clearly written). Freedom of speech was specifically written to prevent the government from keeping citizens from speaking up and challenging it. That's all it means. To use your definition, violation of copyrighted material, libel, slander, etc. would be allowed. Unfortunately, anti-American organizations that try to damage the Constitution such as the (ironically named) ACLU, will agree with you. Sadly...

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the slippery slope of freedom of expression (whatever the hell that means anyway). If you want an amendment to allow freedom of expression, then write it and sponsor it. See how far it gets.

Just once, I'd like someone to call me sir without adding 'you're making a scene' ~H Simpson

reply

[–] beckymel 12 years ago

I'm not saying there are no limits on Freedom of Speech. As we have both mentioned, libel, slander, physical harm, etc., are limits.

But I am saying that Freedom of Speech much more expansive and complex than simple "spoken speech" and "speech that challenges the government." It includes violent video games, nudity in films, neo-Nazi rallies, flag burning, and the internet.

By your logic, any mode of communication invented after 1789 is not under First Amendment protection because the founders wouldn't have mentioned it in the Constitution.

And the slippery slope of freedom of expression? Shouldn't we be concerned by the limiting of freedoms rather than the expansion of them? In fact, wouldn't a limit on freedom of expression be a slippery slope toward a limit freedom of speech?

Finally, I don't need an amendment for freedom of expression. I am supported by the first amendment and the many, many court decisions that have recognized that freedom of speech goes far beyond your narrow definition.

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

You do realize the definition of art is expressing oneself through a work? Dancing is art, and it is expression. Freedom of expression means allowing you to EXPRESS yourself. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression are the same thing.

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

ruth bader ginsburg seems like she'd sway the court to protect the right to dance.

Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

When i was deaf, I was speaking in public using ASL. The cops thought i was doing the hand-jive and arrested me.
Speech can take many forms including non-verbal communication. Just as the 2nd Amendment covers more than just single-shot muskets from its inception, the first covers a lot more than just writing letters of protest.
Our Supreme Court has been pretty good about maintaining the spirit of the Constitution. Far better than I would normally expect from a governmental body.

"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

reply

[–] poupartca 12 years ago

You have no idea what you're talking about. The First Amendment covers almost every form of personal expression you could name (well, maybe not you, but a person with imagination). That's been reinforced by multiple Supreme Court rulings, both liberal AND conservative, for several generations. And the Freedom of Assembly applies to a wide variety of group activities as well.

This is why, for example, Freedom of Speech applies to works of art.

reply

[–] strntz 11 years ago

You have no idea what you're talking about. The First Amendment covers almost every form of personal expression you could name

It's amazing how little American citizens know these days regarding their own government. You are not only clueless, you are clue resistant. But, I'll try this clue out on you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you apparently have never read it, be aware that it's the 1st amendment. Take a read at it. It's written in very plain language by folks who understood the danger that citizens faced when their government tried to suppress those who might have grievances with it. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to have a religion, freedom to peaceably assemble to do those things, freedom from the government denying all those things.

Banning dancing is silly, but it is NOT a violation of the first amendment or any part of the U.S. Constitution.

If you want a "freedom of expression" amendment and all the slippery slope vague possibilities it presents, fine. Sponsor the bill and get it passed.

It is bad to drink Jobu's rum. Very bad.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Argumemnon 11 years ago

Actually what's amazing is how wrong you think everybody here is while in fact it is you who is wrong. You are using the letter of the law, but the Supreme Court of the United States has the mandate to interpret the latter of the law by applying the spirit of the law. In many cases the courts have protected "speech" that is not spoken at all, so the REAL laws of the land in the USA is not how you describe. You are rather naively using movie logic, here: that the way it is written overrules common sense or case law. It isn't the case.

__________
You may fire when ready.

reply

[–] mendal1 8 years ago

If the first doesn't the 9th does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

reply

[–] baran_erik 9 years ago

Of course dancing is protected by the 1st Amendment. Don't quit your day job.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

all levels of government pass unconstitutional laws, and those laws remain in effect until someone goes through the long and expensive court process that is usually necessary to overturn them

we only get the rights we are able to secure for ourselves, and we only get the justice we can afford to buy

Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.

reply

[–] cjware1974-535-342216 10 years ago

What amazes me is how people time and time again two complete strangers, will get on a message board and want to argue. What amazes me as well how people cite, use, reference Wikipedia when most colleges will not recognized it as a reliable site or source. Problem anyone can edit, manipulate it voice there, opinions which may or may not be based off facts. It is a movie yes dancing is an issue the way some people perform it. To me the bigger issue or picture here which really should be addressed is underage drinking. It is a sad but reality that underage drinking is here and we as a society have failed to put a stop to it: among many other issues.

reply

[–] Lakewind-writing 10 years ago

The shoe belongs to the cop, and the foot inside is his. Therefore, pissing on his shoe is assault.

Painting hateful messages on people's houses is criminal trespass, damaging their property, etc. etc.

Painting a hateful message on a public building isn't trespass necessarily, since it is PUBLIC, but you're still committing vandalism and damaging public property.

Why do you people insist on conflating "the right to express yourself through dance" with "the right to assault people and/or damage other people's property"?

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

It should be, but it's not:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/social-dancing

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply