New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

by Maddog Wed May 12, 2021 12:24 am

D.C.'s ban on dancing at weddings provoked eyerolls when it was first announced. Now a bride-to-be is suing to stop the regulation, arguing that it is an irrational and unconstitutional restriction on her special day.

On Monday, Margaret Appleby—a doctoral student and D.C. resident—filed a lawsuit against D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine in U.S. District Court, arguing that a ban on dancing at her upcoming June wedding violates her First Amendment rights.

"The First Amendment does not permit the District to irrationally discriminate against wedding dancing, while simultaneously allowing equally dangerous, though less expressive, activities to continue without remark," said Adam Schulman, a senior attorney with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, which along with the Liberty Justice Center is representing Appleby.

The wedding dancing ban was first announced as part of Bowser's April 26 public health order. That order allows "multi-purpose" facilities to host weddings and other "special non-recurring events" at 25 percent capacity without the need for a special city waiver starting May 1. But it also required attendees to be seated. "Standing and dancing are not allowed," reads the order.

https://reason.com/2021/05/10/new-lawsuit-argues-that-d-c-s-ban-on-dancing-at-weddings-violates-the-first-amendment/

Fucking madness. It's a wedding. Are you going to arrest the bride and her father if they dance?

by Original Quill Wed May 12, 2021 1:14 am

The First Amendment doesn't say a thing about dancing. I wonder what her theory is.

by Maddog Wed May 12, 2021 2:00 am

Original Quill wrote:The First Amendment doesn't say a thing about dancing. I wonder what her theory is.

Dancing is a form of expression. Cool

by gelico Wed May 12, 2021 3:03 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The First Amendment doesn't say a thing about dancing. I wonder what her theory is.

Dancing is a form of expression.

so is dictating ridiculous rules from a position of power

New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment 1f60e

New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment 1f60e

by Original Quill Wed May 12, 2021 3:24 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The First Amendment doesn't say a thing about dancing. I wonder what her theory is.

Dancing is a form of expression.

So is intercourse. Does that make laws against rape unconstitutional?

by Maddog Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Dancing is a form of expression.

So is intercourse. Does that make laws against rape unconstitutional?

Rape is nonconsensual. Dancing is a bit different . I guess you could be charged with assault if you dragged someone on the dance floor and restrained them while dancing. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Wed May 12, 2021 6:50 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So is intercourse. Does that make laws against rape unconstitutional?

Rape is nonconsensual. Dancing is a bit different . I guess you could be charged with assault if you dragged someone on the dance floor and restrained them while dancing.

If the standard of First Amendment rights is 'consent', doesn't freedom to speak require the consent of the listener? Indeed, doesn’t freedom to associate require the consent of the other associates? Or, doesn’t freedom of religion require consent of the other parishioners?

By conditioning the First Amendment rights on bilateral consent, you transform a unilateral right into a bilateral transaction. No longer does one have the right to speak; rather, s/he has the right to ask consent of another to hear her/him.

In some cases that might be a blessing—one could silence a nagging spouse by asserting his First Amendment right not to hear, lol—but it certainly would impose a chill on normal conversation/deliberation. I could see a Republican Senator declaring: “I proclaim my First Amendment right not to hear the Democratic Senator’s proposal”…the end.

These are the risks of including too much under the rubric of First Amendment rights. You bring in too much excess baggage.

by Maddog Wed May 12, 2021 11:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Rape is nonconsensual. Dancing is a bit different . I guess you could be charged with assault if you dragged someone on the dance floor and restrained them while dancing.

If the standard of First Amendment rights is 'consent', doesn't freedom to speak require the consent of the listener? Indeed, doesn’t freedom to associate require the consent of the other associates? Or, doesn’t freedom of religion require consent of the other parishioners?

By conditioning the First Amendment rights on bilateral consent, you transform a unilateral right into a bilateral transaction. No longer does one have the right to speak; rather, s/he has the right to ask consent of another to hear her/him.

In some cases that might be a blessing—one could silence a nagging spouse by asserting his First Amendment right not to hear, lol—but it certainly would impose a chill on normal conversation/deliberation. I could see a Republican Senator declaring: “I proclaim my First Amendment right not to hear the Democratic Senator’s proposal”…the end.

These are the risks of including too much under the rubric of First Amendment rights. You bring in too much excess baggage.

Nonsense.

Practicing the first amendment cant rob you of other rights.

You should know better than that.

by Original Quill Thu May 13, 2021 12:14 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

If the standard of First Amendment rights is 'consent', doesn't freedom to speak require the consent of the listener? Indeed, doesn’t freedom to associate require the consent of the other associates? Or, doesn’t freedom of religion require consent of the other parishioners?

By conditioning the First Amendment rights on bilateral consent, you transform a unilateral right into a bilateral transaction. No longer does one have the right to speak; rather, s/he has the right to ask consent of another to hear her/him.

In some cases that might be a blessing—one could silence a nagging spouse by asserting his First Amendment right not to hear, lol—but it certainly would impose a chill on normal conversation/deliberation. I could see a Republican Senator declaring: “I proclaim my First Amendment right not to hear the Democratic Senator’s proposal”…the end.

These are the risks of including too much under the rubric of First Amendment rights. You bring in too much excess baggage.

Nonsense.

Practicing the first amendment cant rob you of other rights.

You should know better than that.

Can a church choir singing a rousing hymn, interfere with a Buddhist monk meditating? Both are practicing religious rights, protected by the first amendment, and contrary to what you say, one is interfering with the other.

I can think of millions of other examples, but these are the dilemmas you run into when you start widening the concept of First Amendment freedoms.

Anyway, I just asked for the theory. I wish the article went deeper.

by gelico Thu May 13, 2021 3:34 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Dancing is a form of expression.

So is intercourse. Does that make laws against rape unconstitutional?

they are both completely different forms of expression

one is an expression of love/lust, is consensual and is legal

the other is an expression of power/control, is not consensual and is not legal

how on earth do you compare the two?

by gelico Thu May 13, 2021 3:42 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Rape is nonconsensual. Dancing is a bit different . I guess you could be charged with assault if you dragged someone on the dance floor and restrained them while dancing.

If the standard of First Amendment rights is 'consent', doesn't freedom to speak require the consent of the listener?

not at all, the listener can chose to walk away. it doesn't interfere with the speaker's rights in any way, as long as you are not inciting violence, which is against the law

Indeed, doesn’t freedom to associate require the consent of the other associates?

no, because one associates with like minded people. if i needed the ''consent'' of anyone to associate with them then i wouldn't be associating with them; if you force yourself on people it becomes harassment which is against the law.

Or, doesn’t freedom of religion require consent of the other parishioners?

no freedom of religion requires consent from no one, as long as your religion doesn't cause you to break the law.

by Maddog Thu May 13, 2021 6:42 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Nonsense.

Practicing the first amendment cant rob you of other rights.

You should know better than that.

Can a church choir singing a rousing hymn, interfere with a Buddhist monk meditating? Both are practicing religious rights, protected by the first amendment, and contrary to what you say, one is interfering with the other.

I can think of millions of other examples, but these are the dilemmas you run into when you start widening the concept of First Amendment freedoms.

Anyway, I just asked for the theory. I wish the article went deeper.

You have a constitutional right not to be raped. So rape isn't a protected form of expression.

Dancing doesn't violate anyone else's rights. It's like singing badly..

by Syl Thu May 13, 2021 11:58 am

I can't work out how dancing at a wedding has been compared to rape. scratch

by Original Quill Thu May 13, 2021 3:56 pm

Syl wrote:I can't work out how dancing at a wedding has been compared to rape.

That's exactly why I said I would like to hear the bride's theory of constitutionality. Neither dancing nor rape are mentioned in the US Constitution. Anything goes, if dancing is a constitutionally protected activity.

by Maddog Thu May 13, 2021 6:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I can't work out how dancing at a wedding has been compared to rape.

That's exactly why I said I would like to hear the bride's theory of constitutionality. Neither dancing nor rape are mentioned in the US Constitution. Anything goes, if dancing is a constitutionally protected activity.

You are violating someone's rights when you rape. Same as murder. Rights don't have to be specifically mentioned to exist. Dancing violates no one's rights, while it is a form of expression.

I thought you took a couple of law classes at the Sacramento Junior College?

by Sponsored content

New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment

Re: New Lawsuit Argues That D.C.'s Ban on Dancing at Weddings Violates the First Amendment