[JRogers]

I can't believe this thread and some of the arguments being posed in it. The government may not impede free speech. Making people pay for it is impediment (you need money to speak and protest). A permit process is a time and a beaurocratic impediment.

The arguments being posed against this are ridiculous. So, because this permit process is bad that means we don't like roads and bridges? What!? Come again?! Because I support free speech and the open right to protest, I don't mind someone yelling "fire" or doing some vandalism? Huh?

The government already has laws on this stuff. The line is drawn at remarks that might begin violence, danger or rioting. Further, a theater is a private place and (usually, as there are some exceptions) not subject to the laws governing free speech. The analogy makes no sense.

Simple fact is that applying for a right to protest (done in a peaceful manner and in a public place) and requiring people to pay for it is another way The Man tightens his hold. I say the best option for these people is to forgo the permit and protest anyways. For the record, I am all for free speech in almost all forms. I don't care if the klan sets up a podium on my street.

 

[phillyvanilly]

Perhaps its important to discuss the intent of the new legislation in this case... It seems apparent to me (although media bias is a concern) that in this case the new law is most likely intended to discourage the protests at the G8 summit. While I do not think protesting is the most intelligent or effective way of bring about social change, it is clearly protected in the right to peaceable assembly and I would have to say that permits and fee's are indeed "impedements". If the city was indeed just trying to balance the books by levying the taxes... I mean fees... I would be more sympathetic to the city but for some reason I doubt that. That being said, if there was a protest in which someone flipped my car, or otherwise destoryed my property, they would soon find themselves "entering a world of pain". I was riding urban in DC a few years ago during the IMF protests, for the most part everyone was pretty mellow but there was some damage done to historical monuments and government property. In that case its pretty clear that the "protesters" are just using an excuse to fvck some sh1t up, and they rob legitamacy from their own cause as well as becoming a worthless public nuisance.

 

[Tenchiro]

New avatar for Rhino and company.

 

[Tenchiro]

Here is an interestingarticle from (a bunch of commie ass pinko liberals posing as) a conservative magazine.

December 15, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

“Free-Speech Zone”
The administration quarantines dissent.

By James Bovard

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

At Neel’s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service “come in and do a site survey, and say, ‘Here’s a place where the people can be, and we’d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.’” Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?”

Clicky

 

[Tenchiro]

The more I think about it, the more the permit system makes sense. I hate to admit it though, so why not have more permits. It works for Firearms.

Maybe a permit that allows me you be protected from illegal search and seizure. Really only criminals with something to hide would be against this. You could also include self incrimination in this argument.

How about a permit for the right to a jury trial, or being provided with legal counsel. After all only criminals should fear being found guilty, so they are the only ones who would need to rely on such underhanded means to win their cases.

Really wouldn't America be a better place, if upstanding god fearing citizens didn't have to fear unjust prosecution because they paid for the privilege. Maybe we draft a new document called the "Bill of Privileges (for people that can afford them)" to define these priveledges clearly.

Rights are only for criminals and terrorist sympathizers anyways.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Spud
$tinkle - must I really spell this out? Have you no compassion man?

Allright then, Dude - I appear to be dead wrong that crow being prepared in your kitchen is about to be served to my azz....

Hello, I'm agreeing with your shizzle...

damn allergy meds...

tenchiro has inspired me to have fun w/ eye candy at http://protestwarrior.com/

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
You've got to be kidding me.... one of the core conservative values is that of small government. ANY permit process is somewhat at odds with this principle. No one is making this a partisan issue but you.

CORRECTION!

Tenchiro called out the Partisian thing and my comment was just a volley back at him. BUt there are a lot of post from him and I so I will forgive this but I did not make this a partisian issue......

So please rethink that.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It is the government dictating when and where people can express thei views. Plain and simple. It may be almost insignificant in the big picture, but it is a first step in the wrong direction. If you feel comfortable giving up not only your rights but mine as well, for something as trivial as convenience then that is very sad and very un-American.

If we as Americans allow this, where does it stop?

NO it is allowing it. No limits. I think you have issues with items outside this permit process. Where they can maybe? I agree they shouldn't fence pwople in an area.

BUT they should plan where they are going to be so preparations can be made.

The permit does not impede or limit any rights to the individual. It is not a violation of free speach or tto assemble. IF they made a law sayign you can't protest or assemble that is a violation. Christ! You guys are so f'd up.

Permits do NOT limit anything. *shaking head*

The fact that you all are blanketly using the free speach/assembly stuff makes me sick and unfortunately has BECOME American....abuse of rights and squeing it to work in your favor.

*makes me sick*

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
The permit does not impede or limit any rights to the individual. It is not a violation of free speach or tto assemble. IF they made a law sayign you can't protest or assemble that is a violation.

If a permit is denied, then it does impede free speech.
If someone cannot afford a permit, then it does impede free speech.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

Permits do NOT limit anything. *shaking head*

It is the lack of a permit that is the limiting factor.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by JRogers
I can't believe this thread and some of the arguments being posed in it. The government may not impede free speech. Making people pay for it is impediment (you need money to speak and protest). A permit process is a time and a beaurocratic impediment.

The arguments being posed against this are ridiculous. So, because this permit process is bad that means we don't like roads and bridges? What!? Come again?! Because I support free speech and the open right to protest, I don't mind someone yelling "fire" or doing some vandalism? Huh?

The government already has laws on this stuff. The line is drawn at remarks that might begin violence, danger or rioting. Further, a theater is a private place and (usually, as there are some exceptions) not subject to the laws governing free speech. The analogy makes no sense.

Simple fact is that applying for a right to protest (done in a peaceful manner and in a public place) and requiring people to pay for it is another way The Man tightens his hold. I say the best option for these people is to forgo the permit and protest anyways. For the record, I am all for free speech in almost all forms. I don't care if the klan sets up a podium on my street.

Soooo paying for the use of a city park (permit) is abuse of free speach? When any function takes over a park they charge them a fee (permit) to have the right to be there over anyone else.

The permit process does not cover all costs ....hardly. The cost is not impede anyone fomr practicing free speach. IF you have a large group you have the ability to pay for a permit.....EASILY.

The MAN.....whatever. Is $20 to much? Is $500 to much? Is $1500 to much when there will be 10,000 people gathering? People have not freaking clue. I have spent over a year working in the accounting office on goverment and School districts. You are all Messed in the head if you think the rejection of permits would be a problem....

Inconvienence? Yes. Impediment (did I get it right Toshi? )? not in the least. The is no way that permits limits the right to assembly. Unless there is no possible way to do what you want where you want they will take your money. It is what the government does. but atleast they will have cops and road blocks up so you can do it.

The permit process helps to facilitate the organization to the rest of the world can coexist with it. Far from the police state you are all complaining about. *shaking head*

Hmmmm I wonder where friction in this process would come from? I am thinking from the protestor. I think you all need to sit back and look at what the permit process is really doing.

I pay for a permit for my motorcycle to ride on public land horses, hikers, and even MTBr's get to do for free. Heck we all pay for it and it seems we all have a right to the public land....but I must by a off-highway permit every year. Fair? No. The Man squezing me? Yes. Do people freak out because they have to pay anything for the same access that others get for free? Yes. Do they get over it? yes.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
If a permit is denied, then it does impede free speech.
If someone cannot afford a permit, then it does impede free speech.



It is the lack of a permit that is the limiting factor.

Look, If a permit is denied THAT is limiting free speach and the full force of the justice systems should attack that government agency. The permit process does not limit it. If a hand full of people want to protest THEY DON"T NEED A PERMIT! IF 100-10,000 people are going to protest the local authority needs to be involved to make things work for everyone NOT JUST the protestors.

What if the permit was FREE? What could youcomplain about then? The paper wasn't pretty enough? *shaking head*

I guess we could give yoursefl a ticker tape parade withthe money raised from the permit process.

I do think that free speach zones are wrong. THEY IMPEDE the right to PEACEFULLY assemble and limit Free Speach. The permit process does not. If anything it legitimizes your protest with the city, and makes it run smoother.

Again Ma and Pa protests are not affected. Mass gatherings are the ones that necessitate a permit.

Rhino

(now excuse me while I change my avatar......)

 

[RhinofromWA]

<------------------- lol

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ohio
Like fire-arms.

I find it curious that a few folks who vehemently oppose controls (such as strict permits) on gun purchase and use, would advocate controls on someone's right to stand somewhere and speak.

What if we started charging ALL gun owners the distributed cost of policing the small fraction of guns that are misused? Would that be the same as charging all protesters for the misbehaviors of a few?

(note: this is NOT an argument for or against gun control.)

Not like firearms!

I have nothing against firearms background checks and even safety classes/permitting, so long as they are administered by non-government experts. Unfortunately, when bureaucrats are put in charge of things, service nosedives, they cost more, take forever and offer only a limited appeals process mummified in red tape. A gun, like justice, endlessly delayed is effectively denied.

The sorry attempt to put all American gun manufacturers out of business by sueing them over any firearms deaths has been met with only limited success. I'm still sorry Colt didn't fight harder. It certainly hasn't affected the flow of non-American guns into the country; it just made it harder for quality American firearms manufacturers to make a buck due to endless malpractice-like legal defense and insurance rate hikes. Let's please not blur the distinctions between completely different questions.

For the record, I think protesters and supporters alike should be given equal access. After the previous administration, though, certainly a little image management can't be too shocking a concept to follow.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Look, If a permit is denied THAT is limiting free speach and the full force of the justice systems should attack that government agency. The permit process does not limit it. If a hand full of people want to protest THEY DON"T NEED A PERMIT! IF 100-10,000 people are going to protest the local authority needs to be involved to make things work for everyone NOT JUST the protestors.

What if the permit was FREE? What could youcomplain about then? The paper wasn't pretty enough? *shaking head*

I guess we could give yoursefl a ticker tape parade withthe money raised from the permit process.

I do think that free speach zones are wrong. THEY IMPEDE the right to PEACEFULLY assemble and limit Free Speach. The permit process does not. If anything it legitimizes your protest with the city, and makes it run smoother.

Again Ma and Pa protests are not affected. Mass gatherings are the ones that necessitate a permit.

Rhino

(now excuse me while I change my avatar......)

Accorrding to that article, there is no minimum specified for Savannah, GA. So in effect one person could be forced to obtain a permit before expressing their views on public property.

If an American (or group of) can not walk out to a local sidewalk and express themselves without asking the governemts permission. You don't truly have free speech.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Accorrding to that article, there is no minimum specified for Savannah, GA. So in effect one person could be forced to obtain a permit before expressing their views on public property.

If an American (or group of) can not walk out to a local sidewalk and express themselves without asking the governemts permission. You don't truly have free speech.

Brunswick requires groups of six or more to apply for permits at least 20 days before an event. The city's ordinance sets no limit on deposits, and says permits may be denied if a demonstration is likely to congest traffic, impede commerce or endanger the public.

That is where I got the "ma and pa no permit" angle. Sorry if there is confusion.

In Brunswick, Randall says he's waiting to find a site for his demonstration before requesting a permit. The city's mayor says the city is trying to help him.

Sounds like they are both working towards a feesable protest event. But how knows the city show it's ugly face......

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick requires groups of six or more to apply for permits at least 20 days before an event. The city's ordinance sets no limit on deposits, and says permits may be denied if a demonstration is likely to congest traffic, impede commerce or endanger the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't work out whether you think this is a good thing or not.

It would seem to give carte blanche to the city to deny a permit any demostration it did not like, the reasons are ill-defined and universal.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by sshappy
I can't work out whether you think this is a good thing or not.

It would seem to give carte blanche to the city to deny a permit any demostration it did not like, the reasons are ill-defined and universal.

You get the reason from a news paper article....sure they are ill-defined. you thing the reporter wants to fill his space with details....he summerizes. So yes the detail are ill-defined and universal, sshappy

How is that a bad thing? If it is 6 people they are not going to be charged the same as if there are 10,000. It is a graduated scale. That is fair. If the city denies the permit because it did not like it...they are open for litigation. What the hell is wrong with you people? You think the city wants to pay a multi million dollar court settlement because they didn't want some group protesting?

Large protest should work with the city so things go smoothly. Unless the design of said protest is to clog and put a halt to the city... is that everyones problem? It aint a protest unless you mess with everyone you can to get attention?

When was the right to congest traffic, impede traffic, or endanger the public a constitutional right?

 

[Tenchiro]

My point still stands, if you need the governments permission to speak, free speech is abridged.

 

[Toshi]

answer me this: why is this necessary? isn't it the govt's job already to deal with this? (yes.) this permit process is the city's way of trying to stifle dissent, because your much-vaunted lawsuits take time: group applies dutifully, gets rejected, sues, settles 2 years later, way after the protest would have taken place or had an effect.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
My point still stands, if you need the governments permission to speak, free speech is abridged.

You don't need the governments permission to speak.

No speach is abridged. Permits in no way limit your ability to speak independantly. Even as a group.

So you still give the OK to ambush a city with 10,000 people screw them over and leave....happy that you practiced your right to free assembly?

Your point has no foundation other than rare unlikely "what if's" It is so funny.

Reread teh constitution qoute and note that there shall be no law that limits the right to speak or peacefully assemble.

10,000 peopel entering a town to protest can NEVER BE PEACEFULL. I am not talking WTO chaos but massive infrustructure overload and the resulting call to arm of cops and medical units. If it were non-influencing "peacefull" assembly we could go about our business without unecessary confict from the protesting group. That simply does not happen so it does not fallunder the definition of peacefull protest.

Were the protestors who climbed the crane (in seattle recently)
and held their banner peacefully protesting? No. Are they haveing their right to free speach silenced by being arrested? No.

Free speach means you can stand on a courner and question something. the minute you obstruct someone else you no longer are assembling peacefully and should be removed. If you block intersections (not previously planned through the city) you are nolonger peacefully assembling.

That is why the permit is a good thing. No where does it say that it is OK for a public worker to reject the permit application due to personal reasons. That can not happen and if that person gives you trouble you go over them right away. No 2 yr wait for the court battle More dramatizing the effect a snot nosed public worker with a chip on their shoulder can have.

So if you stick to your guns that there is no way this can work I suggest you tell the city how they should organize a massive protest. What big solutions do you have?

There is no money set aside to clean up and fund protests in city budgets. You don't have to be rich to get a permit. So all that junk can be thrown out because no matter how much you repeat it, it will not make it true. Liekit or not. Funny how you try though.

No where does it say in the constituion that we must pay for others free speach and right to assemble.

God what a bunch of literate (not ill-literate), missguided, spoon fed 's in here today.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Reread teh constitution qoute and note that there shall be no law that limits the right to speak or peacefully assemble.

10,000 peopel entering a town to protest can NEVER BE PEACEFULL. I am not talking WTO chaos but massive infrustructure overload and the resulting call to arm of cops and medical units. If it were non-influencing "peacefull" assembly we could go about our business without unecessary confict from the protesting group. That simply does not happen so it does not fallunder the definition of peacefull protest.

no. you are wrong. "infrastructure overload", boo hoo. that the cops will have to work overtime in no way makes the gathering less than peaceful.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Toshi
answer me this: why is this necessary? isn't it the govt's job already to deal with this? (yes.) this permit process is the city's way of trying to stifle dissent, because your much-vaunted lawsuits take time: group applies dutifully, gets rejected, sues, settles 2 years later, way after the protest would have taken place or had an effect.

it is NOTnot the job of the city.

The permit is used to plan and coordinate the group as to keep the very city running (redirect bus routes, organizing more cops to be onhand, increase medical staff, closing down streets and redirecting trafic, etc)

Lawsuits are the final recourse. Like I posted before if a nobody rejects the application for no good reason...you go directly over that person, immediately. No waiting. If you state how your constitutional rights are being violated....someone will listen quick. I have worked there, I know. You still get your permit (if the reason was personal) and you can then sue the city...after you protest.

So really all you assumptions won't bare fruit. Even the article says the city and the organizer are working together.

Heaven forbid that a protest has to answer for the havoc they bring down on a city....... Wouldn't want to impede their free speach and rightto assemble.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Toshi
no. you are wrong. "infrastructure overload", boo hoo. that the cops will have to work overtime in no way makes the gathering less than peaceful.

Yes it does.

It is more than cops....it is the clogging of the whole city lost revenue from businesses, ambulances can't get to a hospital, etc.

I am talking about big protest that can't be easily accomidated. 300 people walking down teh street unplanned for is not peacefull.

IN FACT it is done specifically to inconvienence others to get themselves noticed. That is not a peacefull demonstration.

Sitting in a park at a rally........not as big a problem. Closing off 5 square blocks of DT because people have flooded in to protest is the problem.

But it is nice that you can look past your own desires and needs.......(flame bait sorry)

 

[Tenchiro]

It doesn't matter if it is 10 people or 10,000. If a group of people cannot address the public, in public without the governemts permission. (That is exactly what a permit is, BTW.) Then free speech has been abridged.

If there is a social issue important enough to flood the streets with 10,000 people. Well then maybe that is what is needed. We all pay taxes, and our government should be prepared enough to handle something like this. Especially seeing how rare events like this actually are.

The police can deal with people breaking stuff, or assaulting each other. They have done it before and I am sure they wil do it again. Those that are guilty will be fined and or jailed and made acountable for their actions. Fines be used to pay for the problems that occured.

Groups of people gathering in protest does not always lead to the violence and destruction you seem to think is inheirent in demonstrations.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

 

[JRogers]

Something to consider (this is a totally different issue but I think the analogy applies):

The government, by Supreme Court ruling, ordered that segregation was legal as long as facilities were comparable. "Separate but equal." History (indeed, it wasn't hard to tell at the time either) shows us that this was never the case in many places: those groups that those in power did not like got the shaft. Same thing can happen here. Groups that those in power do not approve of can lose their rights. Lawsuits lose steam, run out of money, aren't worth the effort and can still be ruled unfairly (for some groups). Free speech should be left completely egalitarian with as few roadblocks as possible so that groups that are marginalized still have a voice. Even so, irrespective of the supposed practical application of these laws, the possibilities for abuse are too high.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
IN FACT it is done specifically to inconvienence others to get themselves noticed. That is not a peacefull demonstration.

inconveniencing others is not the letter of the law. "peaceable assembly" may well block traffic, etc. think critical mass. as tenchiro noted, large gatherings do not necessarily imply vandalism and hooliganism, and that's what the police are paid to take care of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peaceable&r=67

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Toshi
inconveniencing others is not the letter of the law. "peaceable assembly" may well block traffic, etc. think critical mass. as tenchiro noted, large gatherings do not necessarily imply vandalism and hooliganism, and that's what the police are paid to take care of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peaceable&r=67

Inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm: They met in a peaceable spirit.

Peaceful; undisturbed.

I glad the protestors have all the rights.........

Any damaged cause by the protest should then be charged to the organizer? Damage is not the responsibility of the city. I am not talking WTO riot damage.

Large gathering do cause financial loss to local businesses, and "can" put the public in danger. That is why planning is important.

But I guess Protestors don't have to answer for anything they do or the outreaching effects of what they do....so sayeth the constitution.

If you are peacefully protesting....you do not negatively effect the world around you....if you will. Please plan with the city. The whole point of the permit process.

What if the only requirement of the permit process is that it was turned in 20 days early to the city....no denile only time to plan? You would still have a problem beace they would be breaking the law if they didn't turn the request in on time? The only one impeding their right to protest then is themselves and that is not protected by the constitution.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by JRogers
Something to consider (this is a totally different issue but I think the analogy applies):

The government, by Supreme Court ruling, ordered that segregation was legal as long as facilities were comparable. "Separate but equal." History (indeed, it wasn't hard to tell at the time either) shows us that this was never the case in many places: those groups that those in power did not like got the shaft. Same thing can happen here. Groups that those in power do not approve of can lose their rights. Lawsuits lose steam, run out of money, aren't worth the effort and can still be ruled unfairly (for some groups). Free speech should be left completely egalitarian with as few roadblocks as possible so that groups that are marginalized still have a voice. Even so, irrespective of the supposed practical application of these laws, the possibilities for abuse are too high.

Supposed this "what if" does happen. Are you saying that we have learned nothing and are no better than we were back then? The local news, ACLU, Majority of the public wouldn't be up in arms?

I think you give the USA inthe 21st century too little credit (maybe I give it to much)

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by JRogers
I can't believe this thread and some of the arguments being posed in it. The government may not impede free speech. Making people pay for it is impediment (you need money to speak and protest). A permit process is a time and a beaurocratic impediment.

What in life isn't?

The arguments being posed against this are ridiculous. So, because this permit process is bad that means we don't like roads and bridges? What!? Come again?! Because I support free speech and the open right to protest, I don't mind someone yelling "fire" or doing some vandalism? Huh?

I think you need to reread the posts over again....you are having difficulty following it...I would to if I wasn't knee deep in it.

The government already has laws on this stuff. The line is drawn at remarks that might begin violence, danger or rioting. Further, a theater is a private place and (usually, as there are some exceptions) not subject to the laws governing free speech. The analogy makes no sense.

Simple fact is that applying for a right to protest (done in a peaceful manner and in a public place) and requiring people to pay for it is another way The Man tightens his hold. I say the best option for these people is to forgo the permit and protest anyways. For the record, I am all for free speech in almost all forms. I don't care if the klan sets up a podium on my street.

Laws reach in past the city streets....so yes yelling fire is illegal (for safety concerns) but in doing so are limiting ones speach. It is allowed. So why not fight to have it over turned? Maybe the right to scream fire in a theater isn't important enough for us?

Peacefull assembly is just that...it should not effect others negatively. But a large group making sure they impede everyday life is nolonger Peacefull....they are hiding behind the fact they haven't broken any windows or damaged cars to mean they are peacefull. That is wrong.

Is it OK to block a doorway of a business? The law says no. That is limiting where they can assemble. Can you break laws in the name of free speach...that is a grey area, some is allowed and argued over....desicrating a flag comes to mind.

If a group, no matter what the size, could assemble and voice their opinion without limiting others, that would be peaceful assembly. More than that and it is a game to see when the party will be shut down. Most of the itme the local authorities put up with the trouble. If you are going to cause massive trouble for the city (10,000 people walking thru DT at rush hour) that is not peacefull....as a trade off let people know and prepare (city and citizens) to allow you to do it.

But people think they have a get out of trouble free card under the constitution.....that is not what the constitution protects. So yes Tenchiro saying only law breakers/criminals care about civil rights is somewhat correct. If they can hide behind a constitution, you can sure as sh!t know they will care. Believe it or not I care about our right to speach but I can see past reading a few lines of the constitution to the real world and aknowledge what teh permit process is trying to do....prepare for situations caused by large gatherings of people intent on impede everyday life.

Please define peace in a context of a protest. How much can you impact a community before it is no longer peacefull? If you are saying short of throwing bottles and breaking windows that is called much closer to a riot than a peacefull assembly. but if that is where you draw the line......

Once the group impacts a community more than standing on (not blocking) a side walk by stepping into traffic they are no longer peacefull. Your intentions may be peacefull but your effect is anything but peacefull. Assemble in a park, less community dissruption, park distruction just by the shear numbers. Why not have a permit to rent the park...like weddings and company picnics? Free speach....oh, OK, it is your right to destroy the grounds of a city park...I forgot. That is protected by the constitution.

Right to free speach and peacefull assembly is protected. Destruction and dissruption is not. If you think there is a possiblilty that it might let the locals know you are coming.

 

[$tinkle]

in buffalo earlier this week:

check out the sign on the right. He is either:

• giving dem's a bad name
• a product of no-child-left-behind
• an RNC implant
• spelling it in a manner which he thinks bush will understand it

 

[ohio]

I pay local and federal taxes every year so that the governement can afford it for me or anyone else, including people I disagree with, to protest whenever and wherever (publicly) I or they choose. If these protests are somehow breaking the bank, I have no problem with my taxes being raised to protect this RIGHT.

And yes, assembling in ANY number we choose is a right, not a privilege. Rhino, I find your position as laughable as you seem to find everyone else's. I want you to try to imagine our founding fathers applying for a permit from HRM to protest British rule. Good thing they could sue.

You are aware that the government has to ALLOW itself to be sued? One cannot simply bring lawsuit against the government. If the government chooses not to accept the lawsuit, you have ZERO LEGAL RECOURSE.