I was referring to the legal decision and not the use of violence.
The Jefferson Memorial interior isn’t a very good place for personal expression anymore than a place for greasy faced tourists forcing their kids to show just enough interest to snap a photo as you perviously stated.
Even if the protestors were screaming and causing a scene before being asked to stop, the police didn’t have a just reason to use that kind of unrestrained force.
I wish the protestors would’ve fought back since the issue of free speech zones and police violence seem to go hand in hand. Maybe they should roll a little deeper next time and perform a flash dance fight and escape. Wishful thinking.

I clearly see the juxtaposition between the two videos and didn’t mean to get off topic from what you originally intended.
I will forever be reminded of Adam Kokesh’s flash mob when I see an AT&T advertisement.

You don’t have the history quite right, however. The May 28 dance protest did not create create the issue out of nowhere. Rather, the protest was a reaction to an earlier court decision regarding the case of Mary B. Oberwetter, who was arrested in 2008 for dancing silently at midnight to celebrate Jefferson’s birthday. The May 28 group thought the result was unjust, so they protested it by recreating Oberwetter’s crime on a larger scale — an act of civil disobedience.

As for the “feeling of solemnity”, I imagine that Oberwetter’s silent midnight dancing was more solemn, perhaps, than the groups of tourists shuffling though and posing for pictures all day long. But leave the tourists aside — what violates the “feeling of solemnity” more than a be-shorted bicycle cop body slamming a Iraq vet for the crime of dancing silently?

You say you “almost side with the law”. I hope you are referring to the legal decision and not the decision of the cops to use coercive violence against peaceful protesters.

Honestly, it is this “almost” siding with the the coercive power of the state against non-violent human beings that is the ultimate point of bringing up this tempest-in-a-teapot at all.

The cultural default seems to be to condemn those human beings who challenge state (and ultimately corporate) power — step out of line and you will be met with police brutality and legal trouble, not to mention the low opinion of the oh-so-reasonable many.

AT&T, on the other hand, who is protected at all cost from any accountability for its collaboration with the warrantless wiretapping program — protected, in other words, from serious crimes against the Constitution by means of the most absurd of legal inventions, “retroactive immunity” — is then allowed to use Grand Central Station to stage a mock public dancing in order to continue to hawk its wares.

Yes, the dancing policy at the Jefferson Memorial is a minor issue — the point is the juxtaposition of the two videos, and by extension the juxtaposition of the reactions to what these videos document — and ultimately, to repeat, “the growing chasm between the relative rights of corporate and human “persons”.

I understand the need to preserve the mood set from the inside of the monument, but not to the extent of creating laws to ensure nothing upsets the balance between the monument and its visitors.
Maybe next they should require you to walk in barefoot because shoes are too loud, or if you sneeze and cause people to direct their attention away from the monument an arrest will be imminent.
My understanding is that the ban on dancing would’ve not even been an issue until those people chose to protest its existence.
I almost side with the law on the decision to punish the protestors.
A law banning dance inside a national monument is not enough to to cause outrage or protest for normal citizens. Let’s face it, the Jefferson Memorial chamber isn’t the right place to dance, but is the right place to pay respect to those who attempted to found an indestructible empire of freedom and democracy (later derailed by personal interests.)
If it was no dancing inside the entire D.C. Mall and monument area there might be enough substance to cause a small riot. I particularly enjoyed frolicking through the grassy area in front of the Lincoln memorial upon my visit and wouldn’t want the rights to lose my mind be banned basically because it has a very unconstitutional feel to it.
The protestors are hopefully released from jail by now because their actions were nothing more than immature and attempt to cause disorder when and were it was unnecessary.
They failed to see the true nature of the law was to amplify “the feeling of solemnity” inside the chamber, and to waste time creating useless laws that would apply to less than 1% of the population.