So. Why DO you guys need permits to peacefully assemble?

[tuvor]

Nothing about permits in the Constitution.

Is it a cash-grab? Are there really limits to freedoms?

Or is it plain illegal?

[LSK]

1. because the Constitution is now a useless old relic

:sarcasm:

[longship]

10. I think the word is "quaint"

Yes, that's it. The Constitution is a quaint relic of days past.

[spuddonna]

21. Just like them there Gee-nee-va Conventions... yup... n/t

[tyedyeto]

27. The Constitution is not applicable to today's standards

It's only brought out when the religious right thinks it is necessary.

[rodeodance]

2. it is part of liberalism-the regulation of freedom.

[brainshrub]

3. Time, place and manner..

I think it's reasonable to ask for permits, it's just that the govt loves to abuse the permit process.

For example: I see nothing wrong with refusing a permit to burn an effigy of the president on the front lawn of the whitehouse. Time, place manner.

However, arresting someone for using a bull-horn, or sitting in front of the White House, is ridiculous.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. It's not resonable, it's unConstiutional

If the founding fathers wanted there to be permits it would have been mentioned in the first amendment. It's totally unConstiutional because we're supposed to be heard to our elected (or stolen) electors and now we can't even be listened to! They work for us and we need to send that message loud and clear for Bush and his administration and any administration in the future whether democratic or republican!

[skooooo]

4. Cindy Sheehan has said that she will essentially...

...put this law on trial as unconstitutional by not paying her $75 fine.

It's a BS law, because they often deny permits for political reasons.

[eggman67]

17. She'll lose

The constitutionality of protest permits has already been adjudicated: Cox v. New Hampshire 1941. Good luck overturning it.

"The obvious advantage of requiring application for a permit was noted as giving the public authorities notice in advance so as to afford opportunity for proper policing. And the court further observed that, in fixing time and place, the license served 'to prevent confusion by overlapping parades or processions, to secure convenient use of the streets by other travelers, and to minimize the risk of disorder'."

"If a municipality has authority to control the use of its public streets for parades or processions, as it undoubtedly has, it cannot be denied authority to give consideration, without unfair discrimination, to time, place and manner in relation to the other proper uses of the streets. We find it impossible to say that the limited authority conferred by the licensing provisions of the statute in question as thus construed by the state court contravened any constitutional right."

Full SCOTUS Opinion at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/312/569.html

[skooooo]

22. whatever...the "winning" is not in the verdict...

the winning is getting people to talk about the issues, and raising awareness.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Thanks for that all-or-nothing answer. Funny... your profile says...

..."All or nothing thinking generally results in getting nothing."

Just sayin.

NGU.

[eggman67]

26. What all-or-nothing answer.

I just pointed out the existing case law on the subject and my opinion of the likely outcome of the case.

[Toots]

25. Can you imagine if the Boston Tea Party had asked for a Permit?

When the Constitution was written the Boston Tea Party was fresh on people's minds. It was not written to make people get permission to protest, in fact the exact opposite was the intent but then the constitution has not been followed for many many years so why should we expect it now?

[LynneSin]

5. Permits means you've aquired all the necessary groups to have the protest

meaning, you'll have police coverage, ok from park services to use their space and insurance to cover anything that might happen to cause problems.

Plus there might be another event going on that weekend.

When you're trying to get 500k people into one place you need permits.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Aren't they supposed to protect the people anyways?

Why do you need a permit for you to be protected by the police that works for us? Don't they work for the government and thus us? Or do I have that all wrong?

[LynneSin]

20. They are but...

when you have that many people and, of course, counter protestors you need additional cops working to ensure everything goes smoothly. Permits just ensure you have enough police covering the protest.

And outside of the confusion with the start of the protest, there were no incidents between protestors and police

[PowerToThePeople]

6. Answer - fascism. n/t

[jobycom]

7. You clearly do not understand rights or government

Rights are inalienable only as long as we don't use them. Whenever we want to use them, we must ask permission and fill out the proper paperwork. I'm sure that's exactly what our founders risked their lives, and more importantly their fortunes, to win.

[applegrove]

8. Law & order. Was a time when if you gathered on a street to have

a strike - the local rich asshole or evil mayor could send out the police and goons and thugs too. How they tried to stop the labour movement all across the West 100 years ago.

Cause if you were allowed to gather as a group - the thugs were allowed to too.

So with the permits. In that case..you follow the permit and the police are the only ones there and they direct traffic around you and such.

IMHO

[tuvor]

9. That's in conflict with the "peaceful" part though, isn't it?

[Cleita]

11. Personally and speaking for myself,

right now I don't feel any compunction to honor any laws I feel are unreasonable and unfair. The people who supposedly are our lawgivers and enforcers don't seem to think our laws and Constitution apply to them so therefore I don't feel their laws apply to me.

Of course as a graduate of convent school, I also don't intend on getting caught. I'm almost an expert in threading my way through fascist regimes unscathed.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. The Rainbow Family of Living Light has assembled peacefully

on Forest Service Land for the last 33 years without a permit, so it can be done if you want to stand up for your rights.

[Southsideirish]

13. Because we live in a POLICE STATE ! n/t

[NYC]

16. Good question. In NYC, we don't need them to march on the sidewalk.

We can't block the sidewalk, but we are allowed to be there without a permit, regardless of number.

Need I say, this causes involved discussions with the police.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. Try walking down the street in Boston........

.......near the Planned Parenthood clinic on Tremont Street on a Thursday. That will answer you question.

[nashbridges]

19. The rules vary

Permits only come into play if conditions set by local/state/federal legislatures are met. For example, there is no law on the books that says you can't hand out pamphlets in front of the white house. If you are going to use amplified sound devices - permit. If you are going to include fire - permit.

Cindy's crowd was arrested because you need a permit for an organized gathering in front of the white house if it is greater than a specified number (I believe 50 - but I could be completely wrong).

Permits were a by-product of competing concerns, and they arose long before any modern day protests of 100,000 people or more came to be. Waaaay back in the day any person could plop himself down with a crowd of people in front of you house and attempt to keep you awake 24/7 with noise, or perhaps just keep you awake because they were protesting your neighbor. Their right to free assembly just ran headlong into the right of the government to "promote the general welfare".

It's a trade-off. The SC is wary of allowing local governments to deny permits once they are applied for, but they have no problem requiring them. They also have no problem enforcing restrictions on protest locations. While Cindy was arrested simply for being on the wrong side of a sidewalk, you have to remember that the same rationale is used to prevent anti-abortion protesters from protesting within a certain distance of a clinic. Both restrictions have been ruled constitutional.

If you get rid of a permit requirement for all areas, then you open up the possibility of "flash mobs" commandeering an area with no legal way to control them. You can't arrest them, as they are not breaking a law. But 100,000 people on YOUR front lawn isn't something you would want, nor would your neighbors. If an abortion doctor lived in your neighborhood and 500 people routinely camped out on your street to protest, you'd be wishing there was a law on the books to get rid of them. That's where permit laws come into play.

Ironically, most permit laws in the states are local, not federal. Your city or county decides the number of people a venue can handle and require a permit if a number exceeds that. That includes your house. Your right to free assembly is balanced against the right of the government to protect its citizens..

The bad thing about any law is that it can be abused, and it can seem ridiculous. The good thing about any law is that it applies in cases we've never thought about.

[Silverhair]

24. It resolves a lot of problems.

You want to hold a march on a very busy street during rush hour. That would be a very big conflict. After all, the people who are trying to get to work also have a right to use the street. But with a permit (Probably denied for rush hour, but allowed at another time, maybe a different street.)then you get to have your march and others get to drive.

It is a good thing when used properly. The rights we enjoy often exist in tension with each other. Few rights are absolute.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Depends om the city

here locally I don't need a permit, as long as every participant knows they are on their damn own.. no leaders if you get my drift

Why does the Police like the permits? Locally so they can get traffic control set up and here is the kicker... saturday, before the freepers showed, I asked a police sergeant,. sarge why the show of force?

Well it is not you guys that worry us... (almost on cue the anti demonstration assembled) it is them.

Hmmm...

the show of force is for them...

As he was telling me this, the cavalry (literally) was forming ranks behind the freepers...

You see they are white supremacists and if we don't show en force they will do something, so we do to avoid them doing something... (n the early days when we started we had no protest warriors or any of that shit, so at most three officers was all we got for ... traffic control)

here is the ratio folks

2000+ demonstrators
200 PD (and a horse unit)
20 freepers.

[Just Me]

29. The "reasoning" is to ensure public safety.

I'm uncertain who is protecting whom,...from whom.

We have engaged in historical protests, with faint incidence in comparison to the right-wing, pro-war, manipulation of Jesus regime,...and WE have been far more "contained" than those who have wreaked domestic terrorism on this country.

Somethin' really f*cked up with that.