I believe some cities have limits on protesters, but they seem to waive them when they want to whether their residents want them waived or not.
For instance, does the first amendment guarantee you get to protest when and where you want? I don’t think it does, but it seems lately that for certain groups restrictions are waived, and enforced for other groups.
For example, many cities allowed the Occupy wall street protesters to set camps for extended periods. Violating health and safety laws. I would think cities should be requiring permits and make the groups pay for the costs of police. If I have an event in a park with more than 20 attending, I have to pay for the police. Why don’t the protesters pay up front. And should there be limits on the times. For example protest have to be a certain location from 1-3pm only. Perhaps you have to pass through metal detectors etc.
None of these restrictions limit someone from protesting, it just limits the damage they can inflict on communities. If they want more than peaceful protests, it really isn’t free speech anymore when it becomes throwing things and destroying property.
I believe some cities have limits on protesters, but they seem to waive them when they want to whether their residents want them waived or not.
For instance, does the first amendment guarantee you get to protest when and where you want? I don’t think it does, but it seems lately that for certain groups restrictions are waived, and enforced for other groups.
For example, many cities allowed the Occupy wall street protesters to set camps for extended periods. Violating health and safety laws. I would think cities should be requiring permits and make the groups pay for the costs of police. If I have an event in a park with more than 20 attending, I have to pay for the police. Why don’t the protesters pay up front. And should there be limits on the times. For example protest have to be a certain location from 1-3pm only. Perhaps you have to pass through metal detectors etc.
None of these restrictions limit someone from protesting, it just limits the damage they can inflict on communities. If they want more than peaceful protests, it really isn’t free speech anymore when it becomes throwing things and destroying property.
Should we have / enforce restrictions?
Restrictions by definition are limitations. Permits for protesting is a bad idea. Someone will get to decide what causes are eligible to protest against. To ensure that doesn’t happen they would all have to be rubber stamped rendering it meaningless and unnecessary. Plus that’s just more govt involvement.
How can the destitute protest something if you require fees? You’re limiting freedom of expression to those who have money. That’s unfair.
Limiting to certain hours means that people who work other shifts will never be able to participate without taking off work. Want to protest an event? Too bad, they will have it outside of your approved protest times meaning your protest is ineffective.
For instance, does the first amendment guarantee you get to protest when and where you want?
The first amendment guarantees that there is no interference to peaceably assemble. The problem with this doesn’t lie in the first amendment it lies in the structure of our current society.
Other amendments protect property rights as well. IOW the government can not prevent a “Peaceful” assembly at any time and day on private property. However most assemblies and protests don’t take place on private property, they take place on public property. On public property you are at the whim of any law or decision made by anyone in power as to when and where you can assemble and protest. So the issue is NOT with the first amendment the issue is about public property “Rights”.
Obvious “Public” means that everyone owns it. If I’m a rich person that owns several corporations, I own a chunk of that property. So if occupy wall street comes and and wants to protest my companies and me in essence you have a conflict of forcing me to allow a protest on what is partially my property against myself. Clearly this creates a conflict and is exactly why you have such willy nilly decision making for protest etc. The KKK, while allowed, is very often kept in a rather tight box. OTOH a well liked protest, like OWS, is given far more leeway. Guess that should make you wonder if what you’re seeing is really a protest or simply a show you’re being allowed to see. Not saying that is the way it is but clearly there is potential for people in power to prevent and subdue “Unwanted” protests simply due to the fact that they control the most desirable places to protest.
Restrictions by definition are limitations. Permits for protesting is a bad idea. Someone will get to decide what causes are eligible to protest against. To ensure that doesn’t happen they would all have to be rubber stamped rendering it meaningless and unnecessary. Plus that’s just more govt involvement.
How can the destitute protest something if you require fees? You’re limiting freedom of expression to those who have money. That’s unfair.
Limiting to certain hours means that people who work other shifts will never be able to participate without taking off work. Want to protest an event? Too bad, they will have it outside of your approved protest times meaning your protest is ineffective.
There are already laws about damaging property.
Actually lots of places require permits to protest so I don’t think that is necessarily unconstitutional. I think it depends on what the limitations are. For instance, last week several protests took over NYC and CNN was saying how odd that was as normally they require permits and approved routes etc.
The destitute can stand on a corner and protest for free. But if they draw a 50 person crowd they should pay for police support just like I would have if I organized a 5k in a park. Of course local practices vary, some places may not charge for crowd control. Perhaps s 5k should just label themselves as a demonstration for good health and avoid paying fees.
Limiting the hours of demonstration does not limit somones right to demonstrate, it just sets a safe time and preferably place for the demonstration.
On public property you are at the whim of any law or decision made by anyone in power as to when and where you can assemble and protest.
Not “any” law or “any” decision! It’s ultimately up to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. There is a wealth of case history developed through the civil rights movement and earlier that brings a lot of definition to the First.
Hague v. CIO on using public property for protests SCOTUS: "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”
Actually lots of places require permits to protest so I don’t think that is necessarily unconstitutional.
There are a WHOLE lot of limitations put on individuals that enter public property that would be entirely unconstitutional on private property. Quite honestly I’m not even sure how well public property is defined in the constitution and what rights you have on them. I think we mistaken assume that all of the constitutional rights extend to public property but just like the owner of private property can set limits or prevent all together access to his property it logically makes sense that such limits also apply to public property. Clearly I can’t run into Central park and plow up a couple acres for a nice garden now can I? I may be able to do something like that if I got permission though.
Not “any” law or “any” decision! It’s ultimately up to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. There is a wealth of case history developed through the civil rights movement and earlier that brings a lot of definition to the First.
Ultimately that is correct. But if the Mayor and City council decides to put a law in place that is presently constitutional and that has not been ruled on by the Supreme court or other courts, they can do that. Furthermore if that law is deemed constitutional, even if it does infringe upon your right to assemble, then basically that means the city council and mayor made a law limiting your right to gather.
Ultimately everything in the US is up to the supreme courts interpretation, but in general they interpret different when private and public land is considered.
Again, you can pretty much assemble any time you want on private property and do so without permission or permit. Granted there are a few restrictions to this but FAR fewer then there are on public lands.
Ultimately that is correct. But if the Mayor and City council decides to put a law in place that is presently constitutional and that has not been ruled on by the Supreme court or other courts, they can do that.
Fortunately the Supreme Court has made - and this is the correct legal term - a shit-ton of decisions on protesting on public property.
. But if they draw a 50 person crowd they should pay for police support just like I would have if I organized a 5k in a park.
I think the variance you see is because there’s no national policy. Matt’s right in a sense that the decisions are local.
So it’s a judgment call.
Limiting the hours of demonstration does not limit somones right to demonstrate, it just sets a safe time and preferably place for the demonstration.
I’m with veganerd that I think there’d have to be more justification than just an hour limitation alone. Because that is, by definition, a pure limit. If I limit you to an hour per day, that’s a huge limitation. I could see using hour limitations in cases where maybe there’s risk of violence at night (either against the protestors or by them). Or if constant presence interferes with other uses of a public space, e,g. blocks access to a park. But if I want to park myself in front of the White House 24/7 and lecture against ObamaCare to anyone who’ll listen without getting in anyone else’s way, I don’t think my right to do that should be time-limited.
The government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Such a restriction cannot be content based, and in most circumstances, it cannot be absolute, meaning there must be some legitimate and reasonable means still available of expressing the speech. Courts may sometime follow some type of balancing test weighing the need for and scope of the restriction against the First Amendment interests favoring speech. While there are gray areas, there also has been quite a bit of case law on the subject, so that in most situations, it’s pretty easy to tell whether a particular restriction or limitation will survive a court challenge.
In most cases, a municipality will likely be allowed to impose some type of permitting process for an assembly at a park. But it may also be pretty easy to get the permit. At the same time, it’s not always easy to put an end to an unpermitted protest, especially when the cameras are rolling.
Fortunately the Supreme Court has made - and this is the correct legal term - a shit-ton of decisions on protesting on public property.
They’ve also made a shit ton of decisions on many things. That doesn’t mean that public officials don’t make a few changes and put version 10.2.1.15.129 out which has to go thru the entire process and be determined constitutional or not, if they are challenged at all in the first place.
Or if constant presence interferes with other uses of a public space, e,g. blocks access to a park.
I think this is where the “Reasonable” can be used “Constitutionally” to prevent protests. From one aspect it makes sense. If we look at this as “Public space” of which all of us should have access to then protest in such a manner that prevents our access is limiting our rights as well. This is the “Conflict” I’m speaking of that pops up between public and private lands.
From the other aspect if I’m a mayor and there is some big protest planned against something I’m supporting then I can come up with many reasons to limit a protest based on “Reasonable” assumptions of public safety, public access, over usage etc etc.
But if I want to park myself in front of the White House 24/7 and lecture against ObamaCare to anyone who’ll listen without getting in anyone else’s way, I don’t think my right to do that should be time-limited.
I doubt people are all that concerned about the individual lunatic…and I mean that in pink and not pink. A single individual won’t “Get in the way” either by blocking anybody, or gathering any attention to the cause being protested. Protest, by their very nature, are a show of solidarity and the larger the group the larger the impact…and all the more reason they need to be controlled and limited, assuming it is not a protest you want to happen.
The government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Such a restriction cannot be content based, and in most circumstances, it cannot be absolute, meaning there must be some legitimate and reasonable means still available of expressing the speech. Courts may sometime follow some type of balancing test weighing the need for and scope of the restriction against the First Amendment interests favoring speech. While there are gray areas, there also has been quite a bit of case law on the subject, so that in most situations, it’s pretty easy to tell whether a particular restriction or limitation will survive a court challenge.
In most cases, a municipality will likely be allowed to impose some type of permitting process for an assembly at a park. But it may also be pretty easy to get the permit. At the same time, it’s not always easy to put an end to an unpermitted protest, especially when the cameras are rolling.
Where do cities stand legally, when they don’t limit a Ferguson Rally that has spilled into hundreds of cities, but do limit many other rallies. Is there no fairness standard? That some groups are afforded more access than others?
Fortunately the Supreme Court has made - and this is the correct legal term - a shit-ton of decisions on protesting on public property.
They’ve also made a shit ton of decisions on many things. That doesn’t mean that public officials don’t make a few changes and put version 10.2.1.15.129 out which has to go thru the entire process and be determined constitutional or not, if they are challenged at all in the first place.
~Matt
Some public officials, usually the elected ones, may want to push the limits on certain issues. But most municipalities don’t like being sued – most don’t like being the test case on a new law or a new interpretation. Most stay clear of the legal gray areas. And when a new case comes down, municipalities usally scramble to adjust their current policies so that the line up.
The government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Such a restriction cannot be content based, and in most circumstances, it cannot be absolute, meaning there must be some legitimate and reasonable means still available of expressing the speech. Courts may sometime follow some type of balancing test weighing the need for and scope of the restriction against the First Amendment interests favoring speech. While there are gray areas, there also has been quite a bit of case law on the subject, so that in most situations, it’s pretty easy to tell whether a particular restriction or limitation will survive a court challenge.
In most cases, a municipality will likely be allowed to impose some type of permitting process for an assembly at a park. But it may also be pretty easy to get the permit. At the same time, it’s not always easy to put an end to an unpermitted protest, especially when the cameras are rolling.
Where do cities stand legally, when they don’t limit a Ferguson Rally that has spilled into hundreds of cities, but do limit many other rallies. Is there no fairness standard? That some groups are afforded more access than others?
I’m not sure that the fact that it has spilled over into other cities is relevant.
I could see a problem if a city selectively enforced otehrwise reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in a way that was not content neutral. In other words, they let some protests go forward without a permit because of the subject nature of the protest, but forced others to get the permit. Such an approach could undermine the constitutionality of their restrictions and make future enforcement difficult. For example, if the Black Panthers were allowed to protest without a permit, but the Klan was prohibited from doing so and forced to go through the permitting procedure, the Klan might have an argument that requjireing them to get a permit was now constitutional.
But mere disparate treatment may not be enough if the reason for it was something other than the content of the speech. For example, a failure to enforce in a particular instance may be the result of incompetent staff of mere oversight. Or perhaps the nature of the protest is so big that limited resources are necessary to keep the peace in those areas where the protest got out of control rather than evicting otherwise peaceful protesters from a park. And a once-in-a-lifetime exception in a small community might not be enough to undermine the permitting rules.
Looks like I left out a clarifying point. CNN was reporting that the protest in NYC were contrary to their normal process of requiring permits and review of routes, etc. The Ferguson spillover protest in NYC were unstructured marauding through the streets and Times Square.
Looks like I left out a clarifying point. CNN was reporting that the protest in NYC were contrary to their normal process of requiring permits and review of routes, etc. The Ferguson spillover protest in NYC were unstructured marauding through the streets and Times Square.
Same problem the Chinese have with the Hong Kong protestors. Forceful termination of a protest is a risky operation that can seriously backfire in myriad ways. Particularly today with everything videoed by everyone. Many famous protests in the world were “won” not on the original act of protest, but on the act of ending it. Rosa Parks. Tienanmen Square Tank Dude. Selma march. UC Davis pepper spray dude. You name it. Often the stated goal of a protester is to get arrested, e.g. the art of the celebrity arrest for chaining to a tree, etc.
Sometimes the best way to defeat a protest is to walk away and let the hype die on its own.
The public has a limited tolerance for disruptive protest. Occupy wasn’t going to occupy forever because even supporters get annoyed with it after a while. It’s a judgment call. Sometimes the best thing to do is eat some cost and ride it out, just preventing truly excessive cross-over into something closer to “riot” than “protest.”
Some public officials, usually the elected ones, may want to push the limits on certain issues. But most municipalities don’t like being sued – most don’t like being the test case on a new law or a new interpretation. Most stay clear of the legal gray areas. And when a new case comes down, municipalities usally scramble to adjust their current policies so that the line up.
I think that may be the case for the smaller ones but not true for the larger ones. A town like mine or Ferguson doesn’t have the resources to go up against a national group like the ACLU. OTOH places like Chicago are pretty much known for flying the middle finger. There’s been more then a few “Well if that is deemed unconstitutional we’ll change it a little and make that a law and then go thru the whole process again until that is deemed unconstitutional.”, rinse and repeat. In essence they create, implement and maintain unconstitutional laws by simply enforcing laws that are being challenged and then continuing to make new laws that will end up getting challenged.
Issues like this for instance
After the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Chicago’s ban on gun ranges in 2012, the city rewrote the law but added restrictions that made it difficult to find a location in the city to open a range, gun advocates said. That case still has not been resolved.
Chicago has also been known to do similar things with protest. Basically stopping the protest or controlling it. By the time you get to the supreme court the protest has long since died…if they lose they will just “Rewrite” in such a way to get what they want but get’s around the ruling.
FWIW, as far as I know, there still aren’t any gun ranges in the city of Chicago.
I could see a problem if a city selectively enforced otehrwise reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in a way that was not content neutral.
While I can not quantify the difference and or definitively say there is a difference it most certainly seems to me that enforcement is based on content. While maybe you could make the argument that certain content is more inflammatory and thus more dangerous and more necessary to contain and control, isn’t that restricting based on content?
I can’t remember exactly but I could have sworn that several rallies that were “Undesirable” were very curtailed around the country. Your not going to curtail a breast cancer awareness rally but you’re most definitely going put up a few road blocks for a KKK rally.
