We all know by now that during past national politcal conventions, the right of the people to peacably assemble and demonstrate has been restricted. People have been barred from moving into certain areas (usually those areas near the event they are protesting against). Now, comes this story: Bush Neighbors Ask Commissioners For Protest Ban.
And so I ask, as a topic for debate: should the right to peacably assemble be restricted, and if so, how much restriction is reasonable?
My own position is that while I can see some vague sense in the arguments for restriction, they effectively make a mockery of the intent of a demonstration. I don’t know where the line is drawn, exactly, but I feel that barring a demonstration, for example, in Washington, DC because of “security risks; and people need to get to work” and only permitting protests outside the city limits would be a case of negating the right to assemble. I feel that the tack being used in Texas smacks of a disregard for the Constitutional rights of those gathered, and feel that the county should deny the petition with prejudice (or whatever the proper legal term is, IANAL).
Spoken as a man who doesn’t work in DC. Protests are annoying as hell…they tie up traffic, tie up the sidewalks, and tend to turn me against whatever somebody is protesting. I guess they have the right to do it, though.
No right is absolute. But the right should be restricted only inasmuch as it causes a public nuisance, a public danger, or becomes violent.
Examples:
A demonstration/protest decides to shut down a major road in a city (happened in Dallas in '92 or '93, IIRC), or a group of protestors camp out along (and restrict traffic flow on) a public thoroughfare.
Large gatherings of protestors that don’t have some form of sanitation (toilets, port-a-pots, garbage collection and disposal, etc) are a public hazard.
The Crawford gathering was verging on both by most accounts I’ve read, but have since rectified the sanitation issue, and a cousin and neighbor of the shotgun-shooter opened his property to the protestors, getting them off of the road and off of other people’s property.
The Protest Ban Request should fall flat on it’s face, but even if it doesn’t it may be a moot point: Pres. Bush will be off of his ranch and back in D.C. before the County Commissioners vote on the petition.
I guess it might still apply to future protests, though.
As a broad statement, of course the right to peaceably assemble shouldn’t be restricted…as long as the assembly is on public land or on private land with the endorsement of those who own the land. I suppose where we could quibble is exactly what ‘peaceably’ means. Does it mean I can block or restrict traffic on public roads? How about public roads where I’m blocking or restricting traffic to private land? How about if the protesters are blocking or restricting access to a movie theater, a restaurant, a night club…an abortion clinic?
Myself, I think that ‘peaceably assemble’ means that you don’t block or incontinence anyone trying to get too and from work or too and from the store, their house, a movie, etc. As long as you aren’t infringing on someone else’s rights in other words.
The only other instance I can think of where restrictions are needed again touches on ‘peaceably’ and that’s where there are counter demonstrations that have the potential for violence. To use extremes say there was a KKK demonstration and the Black Panthers or a similar group wanted to stage a counter demonstration. I’d say it would be wise to restrict one of those groups at the least.
IANAL either so it will be interesting to see their thoughts if any of them wander in to the thread.
I have to agree, but let’s make sure we understand what “peacebaly” means.
For instance, ACT UP (the AIDS awareness organization) staged a protest several years ago which shut down the Golden Gate Bridge during commute traffic. That is not “peaceable”. The GG Bridge is essentially the only artery connecting Marin County with San Francisco. It supports an enormous about of traffic every day of the year. ACT UP’s right to protest surely does not trump another person’s right to get to work, to visit a hospital where a relative may be dying, or for emergency personel to get to where they are needed.
So, **rjungb]'s response, though technically correct, ignores the complex issue of what consitutes peaceable and what does not. People should be able to air grievances, to assemble and to protest. But we will forever be debating the exact point when a “peacebale” assemly of people crosses that line into “not peaceable”. It’s not unreasonable for large groups to have to get a permit, or to be told they can protest only is restricted areas, so long as there is a legitimate concern that the protest may adversely affect the population as a whole.
Trying to craft law that covers every instance is probably a fruitless endeavor. Better to craft broad outlines, and let the judicial system sort out the details of individual cases. Restrictions that do not serve the public interest, but are chiefly aimed at stifling certain political views must not be tolerated.
Let me describe a hypothetical situation/argument:
Roads are public property. Demonstrating is a constitutional right. Why shouldn’t a demonstration take place on public roads, even if it blocks people from going to work? How can the exercising of a constitutional right be trumped by something as mundane as going to work, going to the store, etc?
And if I block your access to an abortion clinic? How about a hospital? How about if I block access on a public road that has an ambulance on it rushing someone to the hospital? Or one that blocks access for use of a fire engine?
Nope, just giving some counter hypotheticals. Its a more complex situation than people think, and just saying ‘No’ as rjung did is extremely simplistic. I’m sure I could come up with examples where he would be outraged if folks were allowed to protest and in doing so block access to the rest of the public to some event or area.
It comes down to who’s ox is being gored (yeah, I’m using that a lot lately…I like the mental picture of it) as to whether you feel blocking public access is a pain in the ass (or worse) or every citizens right and even duty. All one has to do is look at extreme’s and think about your reaction.
If there is a reasonable detour, I agree. In the example I gave, there was no reasonable detour. Have you ever tried to get from Marin into SF without going over the GG Bridge? Yes, there are ferries, but they are not designed for the traffic that the GG Bridge handles.
Oh, and I forget to add. If you are a doctor going to the hospital to operate on a patient, I’d hardly call that “mundane”. And you don’t have to be doctor for your job to entail life essential work.
IIRC, they didn’t stop the protest-they just ticketed arrested people that didn’t cross the street in a reasonable amount of time, and they were actually given a huge amount of time for this.
That particular demonstration occured with the primary intention of shutting down traffic by having healthy men and women cross streets at a snail’s pace, and as mention before was shut down because of that-and mostly because it would restrict the movement of emergency vehicles.
As for my thoughts;
There are only two times a protest/demonstration should be restricted:
They provide a clear and obvious danger to person(s) and property. This would fall under being too close to the President, the rise of a violent mob, assault on police, etc. Clear and obvious though should be restricted to mean just that, the crowd should only be dispersed if violence is obviously going to be a result, and even then dispersed the most peaceful way possible.
A protest intentionally impedes the flow of traffic along a major thoroughfare to the point that emergency vehicles cannot get through.
That means, to me, a petition to restrict assembly is bunk, assuming the assembly doesn’t meat the above criteria. If they’re-say-on the sidewalk and peaceful, then a group should be able to protest to their heart’s content.
Two points:
Why should I have to give up my rights of going to work, store, etc. so that some protestors can block a thoroughfare? This attitute reminds me of the people that block my driveway because “I wanted to park there.” By the way, freedom of movement can easily be deduced to be a Constitutional right under Amedment IX.
Can the people who are protesting carry automatic weapons, handguns, shotguns, rocket launchers, etc. since “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”?
I don’t believe it is legal for a pedestrian to run around on a road willy-nilly tying up traffic. There are rules (often local laws) regarding right of way, what side of the street to walk on, sidewalk use, and restricting bicycle/pedestrian use of roads. Adding 1000 more pedestrians and a cause doesn’t suddenly make it legal to break all those rules.
If you protest without individually breaking any laws, then I think you should be unrestricted. However, once you start saying that your right to speak trumps legally enacted laws, you’re getting into tough territory. If your protest is, by design, going to result in individual protesters breaking the law, then you should be going to the government for a permit allowing you to.
Oh, and work/shopping is not mundane. It is as fundamental a concept to our survival as procreation. Work provides us with money to get our most basic needs, food, shelter, clothing. Shopping provides us with a place to exchange money for those needs.
The right of the people to peacably assemble is specifically noted in the Constitution, tho, and does not need to be inferred or deduced.
And I would say, yeah, the people protesting have a right to carry arms, regardless of how many of them are in one area at a time, under the US Constitution. Why wouldn’t they have that right? I don’t read anywhere in the 2nd Amendment where it says “except when a whole bunch of people get together.”
Legally enacted laws are often incompatible with the rights delineated in the US Constitution tho. Slaveholding was a legally enacted law. And in many cases, laws restricting protests to certain areas are legally enacted, but serve a purpose which is contrary to our rights. In the current case, I believe that the petition filed in Texas was not drawn up for any reason other than to stifle the protest, and I believe that is wrong. In fact, I think it shows contempt for the very rights which our soldiers supposedly fight for.
I still think that in many cases, restrictions on the exercising of one’s right to assemble amount to essential emasculation. The right of one group to peacably assemble cannot, IMO, trump the right of another group to peacably assemble, which is what seems to be the attempted outcome in the Texas case cited in the OP.
Protests are annoying as hell…they tie up traffic, tie up the sidewalks, and tend to turn me against whatever somebody is protesting. I guess they have the right to do it, though.