…Yes, because Poll Taxes were also oh so constitutional. :rolleyes: Jesus christ, does this man know the meaning of the fucking first amendment?
Wow. This guy is *ridiculously *tone deaf. There’s an active and extremely fired-up recall campaign aimed squarely at his dumb ass, and now he passes a policy that has “First Amendment violation” written all over it? Even if it passes a legal challenge, does he really want this kind of press leading up to a recall election?
Too stupid to breathe.
Maybe I am wrong, but aren’t there places where if you schedule your march / demonstration you might have to pay a fee?
There was the Tea Party rally with Trump:
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/06/tea-party-bailout-trump-to-pay-local-groups-disputed-6000-bill-for-boca-raton-rally-he-headlined/
If you have a rally or march that results in the need for cops, porta-potties, etc. - who is supposed to pay for it all?
Yeah, maybe. But the first amendment does not state:
Part of me agrees with that sentiment, but I think the proposal goes beyond that. This is the part that really sends red flags up for me:
That’s absurd. Conceivably, even if the group doesn’t even require porta potties and the like, the state can fine a group of four people just for being near a state building.
There is a difference between a planned even (where you now have the right to sole use of the facility) and a protest.
Protests are kind of an impromtu event and are disruptive by definition. This is a transparent attempt end protests.
Sure, but with modern tech, some “impromptu” protests like OWS are also partially planned. If you put 500 people in the park overnight in a protest, and the city has to bring in porta-potties and pay cops overtime - at what point does the city have the right to ask for a fee in compensation?
I looked up what the City of LA requires:
(PDF): http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/New%20SEPU%20Application%2010-11-07.pdf
The only fee they discuss is for cleanup:
When it is an event and not an occupation. If you have to ask permission and apply for permit, you are no longer protesting. Protests HAVE to ruffle feathers, they HAVE to fly in the face of the powers that be. Protests, by their very nature, are disruptive.
The point though, is that Walker’s plan is for a group to apply, then be denied. They are outlaws as soon as they show up. Which gives munincipalities all the cover they need to have the police crack down on them.
My point is that municipalities already have a lot of that power. If 100 people show up to protest and block the street without a permit, they can be arrested. If they file their permit, they are not. This is already going on.
We now have the “free speech zones” at large events like the the political national conventions. We have had parade permits for a long time. The occupy movement has shown that you can’t just wait for a protest to stop, sometimes they never stop. Where I live, they arrested a group of students protesting the Israeli ambassadors speech after proving that they students collaborated to disrupt (emails were collected as part of a search warrant). The students could not claim spontaneous protest when it was obvious that is was all pre-organized.
Not defending any of this, but someone please tell me what ADDITIONAL restrictions Walker is throwing down that aren’t already in play across the US. If not, I will happily join in a debate regarding what are reasonable restrictions when the Nazis want to march in Illinois. We have to let them march, but does there come a point when we say either “no” or “only if you cover the costs of the cops.”
Well, he did define a protest as four people. That’s a kinda laughable restriction, don’t you think?
The “$50 per cop per hour” thing caught my attention. Seems that might be a way to price permits out of the range of protestors. “You’re going to have about twenty protestors in front of the state house between two and three o’clock? Okay, we’re going to need 100 cops providing cover during that period, plus a two hour period both before and after the protest, for security reasons. Will you be paying that $25,000 in cash, or do you have a check?”
Vladimir Putin says: " I strong endorse this law."
I can hardly think of a better use of my tax money than to preserve our first amendment right to protest - and that strongly includes the right of people I disagree with to protest also.
Apparently though we can’t afford liberty any more because it might mean rich people might have to pay more.
I have an idea. Since newspapers and magazines are a major source of litter, and the government pays to clean it up, and the government can’t afford to do this any more, why not force publishers to get a stamp to help pay for cleanup. After all, this idea has a nice long history.
Do you know where the ‘free speech zones’ are? Out of the way, where no one attending can be bothered by them. Which makes any kind of protest there moot. Might as well stay home and suck it. Which was the point of ‘free speech zones’, to nullify any protests. That’s why we put the term in quotation marks.
Gatherings the government likes will pay little or nothing. Gatherings the government do not like will be taxed into oblivion. Seems fairly obvious.
Why should a non-spontaneous protest be discriminated against? How bizarre!
No, I don’t think so.
So if you had a few thousand in the bank and wanted to protest the Gov S.W. himself just be sure you only have 99 people in your group. If a few dozen-dozen other groups of 99 people happen to show up at the same time, it’s not your fault! (Be sure all your planning is done via snail mail that you burn after reading and disposable cell phones).
I don’t really have a problem with any of it except the “security charge”. I’m pretty sure the government is already paying people to keep the capitol building and its grounds secure.
Except you’ll never get the permit in the first place.