Tim Pawlenty wants to start fining protesters http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/03/28_ap_protestcosts/
I don’t think he will get his way, but I am not sure what he is asking. It seems to me that the courts already have the right to fine people. The problem seems to be more the police using the power of arrest to clear a demonstration and then releasing people later.
A protest is a lot like a parade. If it’s big enough and requires a permit, then a fee makes sense. Gotta be careful about this, though, and make sure it’s evenhanded in enforcement.
Making people pay for their own arrests? Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Many of the people arrested inthe Chicago protests weren’t doing anything beyond just standing there; some were trying to leave and go home. I have spoken to eyewitnesses who say the cops were pretty much grabbing random people off the street.
I think protesters should be fined on exactly the same basis as people who are arrested for other alleged offenses, which is to say, not at all unless there is a conviction for an actual crime. Plus $200 isn’t what I would call “nominal.” If anything, people who are grabbed off the sidewalk for the simple act of exercising their free speech rights should be able to sue the police for false arrest.
Is the permit price unreasonable?
If I’m upset enough about something to participate in a protest march, my willingness to play by rules (any rules) is premised on your willingness to do likewise.
You have reason to want me (and the other marchers) to restrict ourselves to predictable behavior (e.g., we will restrict our protest activities to a specified march path and/or rally point, given the ability of the attending people to fit; we may end up blocking your path or progress as a result of us being there but will not deliberately prevent you from free travel, nor threaten you or your property with damage or injury of any sort; we will not deliberately do any damage to public property either; and we will disperse peacefully after the event).
We have reason to want you (and others in the community) to restrict yourselves to predictable behavior as well (e.g., you will not block our path or progress or attempt to prevent us from congregating; if you or your community requires pre-approved permits for these events, you will not refuse to issue them when duly requested; you will not assault us, disperse us, or arrest us for participating in the event, nor retaliate against us after the fact for participating).
We don’t get unilateral rights to call for a march or rally at any time, occupying any public (or private) space without regard to its disruptive effects. You don’t get to arrest us or charge us attendance fees or force us to register individually.
It smells of an attempt to supress speech, by spooking potential protesters away. “Gee, I’d like to attend the rally, but if I get arrested, that’s $200 that I can’t use to pay the rent this month!”
No, sir, I do not like it.
So how much does it cost to get a permit?
Pawlenty’s idea is goofy. If a protestor is convicted, certainly the sentence should include the costs of arrest. Part of civil disobedience is a willingness to bear the burden of your civil disobedience.
But imposing a sentence without a conviction is, how shall I put this? a fuckwit and unconstitutional idea.
Sua
erislover, did you read the article cited in the OP? The Governor of Minnesota wants to impose a special fine on protestors who are arrested during a protest, for restitution of the costs of processing their arrest.
The OP isn’t arguing against permits, but against the idea of imposing a charge for being arrested.
“…imposing a charge for being arrested.”
Well that phrase looks goofy. I meant a financial charge. An arrest fee.
Sort of a handcuffing service remittance.
Fuckwit and unconstitutional is not strong enough.
This is a blatant attempt to limit free speech to the wealthy.
So: add anti-democratic and repressive as well.
The guise of an ‘arrest charge’ is pretty thin, Xeno… the arguments about innocence are strong enough, plus the point that the judge can fine if it’s appropriate.
I think Pawlenty’s remarks were a knee jerk reaction. I can’t think it would get through the courts
No fan I of protestors.
But if we want them to pay for their arrest costs, we ought to convict them of a crime. If we cannot, then we have no business imposing a fine. This is absolutely wrong-headed…
Well, here, I think, is an idea that will eventually get its’ legs once the following is done…
-
Codify an ordinance based upon state law that states something like…
" Any person interfering with the normal and just activities of another person by means of protest shall be ticketed, for (enter state law/local ordinance here) and fined by this municipality a fee of no less than (enter arbitrary number here) and no more than (ditto). -
Once this is done, then the failure to pay will act as a revocation of rights in the issuance of a civil bench arrest warrant, enforceable by police departments.
-
We’ll create then, an entire sub-class of low-level criminal in protesters who choose to block streets, and throw paint on people, and interrupt commerce beneficial to the greater good.
IMO, I think there ought to be a flat fine for disruptive protestors of any stripe. Speak your mind, wave signs, sing, write letters, whatever, but your right to protest ends, where my right to pursue happiness begins. As a protestor, you’re guaranteed free speech, and I am guaranteed the right to enjoy a nice walk down the street without being involved in a gathering mob.
In my humble opinion, if protesters are made to pay for the extra police overtime and such, then politicians(including El Presidente) should be subject to the same fees when they visit.
Czar…generally when a dignitary comes in, he, or she, bring their own security force, and is only augmented by state or local authorities. In some extreme cases, there is some remuneration. For the most part, agencies large enough to facilitate executive protection, already have a budget for it (i.e. large city PD’s and State Police agencies) and it’s only a matter of reassignment.
Finally, for those agencies, it’s generally an honorable thing that they WANT to participate in, I can’t think of a police agency anywhere in the US that actually wants to clash with angry misguided dunderheads that spit at them, call them names, and hit them with bottles and rocks and turn cars over, loot from stores and set fires. No police agency wishes to take away the rights to freedom of speech of any person or group, they just want to maintain order within their jurisdiction, and make sure innocent civilians do not get hurt.
I know it may seem that’s not the case with the occasional protestor getting tuned up by an overzealous police officer, but I’ll chalk that up to occupational hazards…
Ummm. Got a cite for your claim that dignitaries bring most of their own security?
I see an awful lot of Boston Police lining the parade routes and riding around the limos. I expect they get paid for that… whether they enjoy it or not is immaterial. As is whether it ‘in the budget’ or not.
The plausible argument for a protest fee are 1) to get people not to protest or 2) to pay the costs of the protest, including arrests. Since 1 is not right, 2 must be it. And if the goal is to pay costs, you have to charge everyone, whether its the hippies, yippies, Hell’s Angels, or politicians. The law certainly must see those people the same way.