Question
•
U.S. Government
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/02/denver-preps-for-dnc-wi...
" Mayor John Hickenlooper’s annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn’t included than what was.
At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.
Instead, she performed the song “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” which is also known as the “black national anthem.”
When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed."
-
Answered Yes, they are just warming up the Black National Anthem for the Democratic National Convention
They are letting their hand show with anthem and the Seal and Obama Kinfolk Odinga THe book of white hate the preacher of white hate! Its revenge that could take down AMERICA I say Its A God Bless America And Fck You!!
-
Answered No, somebody should have had the guts to protest this disgraceful act
I agree and would've protested because this was a disgrace to any vetrean
who served their country to protect the freedoms the National Anthem stands for as well as respectful & patriotic citizens who honor the sacrifice
that those who served to protect those virtues. -
Answered No, somebody should have had the guts to protest this disgraceful act
What in the hell is a Black National Anthem? Is there a White National Anthem, or Native American, or what ever? We are one nation, one people, one National Anthem. Maybe she couldn't hit the high notes. The National Anthem may be hard to sing, but it tells of the blood shed at our birth. I don't gave a DAM, how hard it is to sing. I love the song, what it stands for, and how it makes me feel. No other song will ever be able to do that but the STAR SPANGLED BANNER. If this is what is meant when they talk of change, they can go to hell ! I was going to volt for Obama, till I heard this. Now I will wright in my dog. Is there anybody out there who can help those fools in Washington D.C. see we are falling apart as a nation. And it is things like this that divide us. -
Answered No, somebody should have had the guts to protest this disgraceful act
This is the best answer..however it is skewed and does not reflect the reality of what went down. First...the Democrats did not replace the "Star Spangled Banner" with the "Black National Anthem". The artist was hired to perform the National Anthem by the Mayor of Denver and she took it upon herself to go against the deal and march to her own drummer. This is not a reflection on Democrats as a whole. It was distasteful to us a public forum to promote a personal agenda. Despite freedom of speech and freedom to express oneself...this was the wrong venue for the surprise performance. And the song should not be referred to as a national anthem of any sort. We are one country and have one National Anthem...the Star Spangled Banner....and it is for everybody...black, white, yellow, and red. There is no Black America and there should be no Black National Anthem. Call it whatever you want...just not the National Anthem. -
Answered No, I think there is nothing wrong with the national anthem
While I don't agree....it is no different than Rosanne Barr butchering the national anthem...this was an "individual" protest, after all America has ALWAYS treated black folk with the uttmost respect! -
and this has absolutely what to do with a woman, exercising poor judgement? A woman that happens to be black in a country that has NOT always been kind to black people....I think what she did was a disgraceful act, but it was HER right to do so.....that is the whole point I am trying to make! I love this country, but I think it is a very slippery slope when people start calling for banishing people to foreign countries when they express HARMLESS expression....now if you want to talk about terrorism, I have no need for terrorists.......but that too opens a can of worms....wonder what the king of England called Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin?
-
Yup - but does it make ME a Nazi to express Patriotism and shock over her choice? I don't care what color she was. Roseanne Barr had no right to slander the Anthem either. This is not a color thing. It is a Patriotic issue. This woman expressed her dislike for America. My black friends do not feel America is unkind to them. While her song could become a Patriotic song of sorts with some tuning, it had no place as a replacement for the National anthem.
I'm not talking about terrorism, haven't mentioned terrorism. . .
"If you are ashamed to stand by your colors, you had better choose a new flag."
Mark Twain -
"no right to slander"?
hmmm. You might want to revisit our right to free speech. It give us the right to express dissent--not that this jazz singer was dissenting, but Roseanne Barr was. Also, "slander" is not the right legal term here.
You're not a Nazi unless you believe that the anger people feel over this event gives the government the right to overturn the rights of those who make such free expressions.
I disagree with both the jazz singer's artistic choices and Roseanne Barr's chosen moment/method for dissent--but I wouldn't deny their rights because I disagree with them. -
Not sure I'm looking for the correct "legal" term here...
Nazi: follower of Hitler, a member of the fascist German National Socialist Party that came to power under the leadership of Adolf
OR
racist, somebody regarded as having right-wing political views, especially on race and immigration (insult)
As a Patriot, I do not want to hear this anthem or another "dissenting" anthem sung when one is asked to sing our National Anthem at an event for the rest of America. Let them have their dissension and disrespect, but they should be ready to face the disregard of a Nation. -
The Nazis were just fascists who were organized against Jews in order to help them to define what was German. Hitler created Germany and defined "German" from the remnants of the recently fallen Prussian empire. The Nazis used patriotism to produce aggressive intolerance towards difference and dissent. Anyone who spoke out against the Nazis or who challenged their definition of "appropriate behavior" was charged as a political criminal.
Nazis would not "tolerate" freedom of speech.
It's easy to proclaim oneself a patriot. It's difficult to patriotically defend American Constitutional rights when you're offended by the people who exercise them. -
GrayKane - are you seriously calling me a Nazi? Get over yourself!!
This woman was asked to sing our National Anthem - she didn't - she sang her own rendition of it.
Do you have a problem with our National Anthem? This Anthem has been sung in our Country as a part of our Patriotism when flags were raised since 1889 and was officially made our Anthem in 1931 by Code 36 USC Sec 301.
No one asked her to sing that? America has been outraged - are we ALL NAZI'S? Fascists?
Are you comparing our country to Nazi Germany?
WTF!!! -
I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm saying that your concept of patriotism is skewed, and I'm using facts about Nazis to demonstrate how your concept of patriotism is not a defense of the ideals of this country. In fact, your concept of patriotism--at least in saying that Roseanne Barr "has no right" to express dissent in her rendition of the Anthem--works against the US Constitution. In other words, in that specific instance, your concept of patriotism is un-American.
"Are you comparing our country to Nazi Germany?"
Are you stating that your personal opinion--what offends you--is an accurate representation of "our country"?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was talking to America herself. And you tell me to get over myself. hmmm. -
Gray, no disrespect, but I don't think you understand what "freedom of speech" means. It certainly does not mean that ANYONE can say ANYTHING at ANY TIME. For instance, you do NOT have the right to stand up in the middle of a plane and yell "I have a bomb".
This is from answers.com. It's a little long but worth the read:
http://www.answers.com/topic/...
Law Encyclopedia:
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Limits that government can impose on the occasion, location, and type of individual expression in some circumstances.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of TPM restrictions. To pass mu...Gray, no disrespect, but I don't think you understand what "freedom of speech" means. It certainly does not mean that ANYONE can say ANYTHING at ANY TIME. For instance, you do NOT have the right to stand up in the middle of a plane and yell "I have a bomb".
This is from answers.com. It's a little long but worth the read:
http://www.answers.com/topic/...
Law Encyclopedia:
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Limits that government can impose on the occasion, location, and type of individual expression in some circumstances.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of TPM restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be content-neutral, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this analysis varies in accordance with the circumstances of each case.
The rationale supporting a particular TPM restriction may receive less rigorous scrutiny when the government seeks to regulate speech of lower value such as obscenity and fighting words. Obscene speech includes most hard-core pornography, while fighting words include offensive speech that would incite a reasonable person to violence. Conversely, the government must offer "compelling" reasons for regulating highly valued forms of expression, such as political speech. Some speech, such as commercial advertisements, is valued less than political speech but more than obscenity or fighting words. The government may impose reasonable TPM restrictions on this intermediate category of speech only if it can advance a "significant" or "important" reason for doing so.
Time restrictions regulate when individuals may express themselves. At certain times of the day, the government may curtail or prohibit speech to address legitimate societal concerns, such as traffic congestion and crowd control. For example, political protesters may seek to demonstrate in densely populated cities to draw maximum attention to their cause. The First Amendment permits protesters to take such action, but not whenever they choose. The Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that no one may "insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech" (Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 [1965]). In most instances a commuter's interest in getting to and from work outweighs an individual's right to tie up traffic through political expression.
Place restrictions regulate where individuals may express themselves. The Supreme Court has recognized three forums of public expression: traditional public forums, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. Traditional public forums are those places historically reserved for the dissemination of information and the communication of ideas. Consisting of parks, sidewalks, and streets, traditional public forums are an especially important medium for the least powerful members of society who lack access to other channels of expression, such as radio and television. Under the First Amendment, the government may not close traditional public forums but may place reasonable restrictions on their use.


Answered No, somebody should have had the guts to protest this disgraceful act
some may say 'big deal', some may say 'it is just a song'. But 'what and why is the National Antherm?would we stand and die for freedom as those in Fort Henry did.?