Bo: I think what you have down there is a politically touchy situation with a lot of media attention, and a County Sheriff’s office that is savvy enough to recognize the fact and which is “walking softly,” so to speak, through the situation. Add in the fact that the protests/demonstrations have been, by all accounts, peaceful. Which is why, IMO, the local law enforcement hasn’t cleared out the protestors/demonstrators, even if they could have legally done so for various reasons (like the initial lack of adequate sanitation).
Now, add in a few neighbors who, for various reasons (and I’ll be the first to admit that one of those reasons may very well be political), are fed up with the traffic congestion and overall commotion, and are frustrated by the fact that the Sheriff’s office isn’t enforcing the law to the fullest extent possible.
And there you are: you have a petition to the County Commissioner’s Office to shut down the protests/demonstrations, essentially forcing the Sheriff’s office to go in and clear them out (tell them to move along, go home, or face citation and/or arrest)
MAGunter: IIRC, the “march” was at or near Northwest and Buckner, and had something to do with minority city workers or police, or somesuch. I lived at Northwest and Skillman at the time, and the eastbound traffic was backed up to where I lived because of it, which I thought (and still think) was quite ridiculous.
So, a law restricting pedestrian access to the Golden Gate Bridge is unconstitutional because protesters want to use the GGB as a surprise protest site? This is the type of thing I’m talking about, not some dumb petition thought up to specifically prevent a protest. That kind of stuff should get shot down as a matter of course.
Generally speaking, laws that are on the books controlling where we can and cannot be are pretty limited in scope and really help improve quality of life. We need these laws, otherwise public spaces become a free for all, and we all suffer. It’s when you get cranks trying to deliberately inconvenience tens of thousands of well-meaning people that we really get problems. I think the simplest and fairest way to manage protests is to require each protesting individual to follow the law that everyone else is required to follow. If that is going to be impossible, given the design of the protest, then the local government should be involved.
Once you say that you no longer need to follow law X during your protest, then one might ask if law X is valid for a protest of 1 instead of 100, in which case, how to you ever enforce it?
I was just trying to show that because a law is “legally enacted” doesn’t make it correct or proper.
I admit I have some problems with some of your thoughts, but I also admit I am unsure of what the proper solution would be. For instance, I think we can all agree that a protest designed to clog the streets of New York City, bringing all vehicular traffic to a standstill, would be illegal. But what if hundreds of thousands of people spontaneously decide to protest, resulting in clogged streets? Should all those people be arrested, or are they simply engaging in their right to peacably assemble, with unforseen consequences? (I know it doesn’t happen often anymore in this country, but look at the streets of Moscow, or of Poland, or of South Africa in certain years gone by.)
I’m not sure I get where you’re going with this one
I should also point out that there is a safety issue with restricting access to public roads. I certainly wouldn’t want some heart patient to not be able to get to the hospital because a bunch of hippy dirtbags are holding their “Rights for gay Nazi lesbians to smoke crack and have abortions” rally.
What does make it “correct and proper”? If you don’t think it is “correct and proper” then you can engage in civil disobedience. But that is altogether different than a “protest”. One is a small subset of the other.
You don’t make laws based around the once in 100 years occurance. If half the population of NYC decided to “protest”, the governor would probably declare a state of emergency and ask the national guard to step in. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with requiring a protest organizer, depending on thesize of that protest, to apply for a permit and/or to restrcit that protest to certain areas for public safety purposes. Not for arbitrary political purposes, but for public safety purposes.
The right to peacably assemble can be restricted, but those restrictions can only go as far as necessary for reasonable public safety, noise & sanitation purposes. To me, restrictions on protestors that are put in place whenever Bush speaks, for instance, are not reasonable. I exaggerate, but it sure seems like whenever Bush speaks in NYC the protest zone is tucked away in New Jersey somewhere just to Georgie doesn’t have to come within miles of it.
So… would you have a problem with some heart patient not being able to get to the hospital because a bunch of well-scrubbed right-wing gun nuts are holding their “Rights for white Christian landowners to dictate religion” rally?
The partisan slander was totally unnecessary, msmith537, unless you wished to clarify that you only support rights for groups who’s goals you approve of. That’s the main impression I get from your post.
This is a popular debate question because unfettered speech is one of our most time-honored freedoms.
We already limit speech (by assembly) in public places (parade permits, park permits etc…). The obvious reason to do this is to maintain a reasonable level of peace-and-quiet in our daily lives. It’s not a black and white line that delineates the size limit or duration. It’s fluidic and subject to community standards.
Regardless of it’s form, freedom of speech does not include a mandatory audience.
I’ll clarify. Let’s say a group of 200 decides to protest something by marching down Broadway, and it results in clogged traffic. We state that this is an acceptable exercise of their right to assemble, and should not send the police out to break it up. A month later, a group of 20 decides to do the same thing. A month later than that, one guy decides to wander around Broadway as well. Can you state that the smaller groups do not have the right to assemble and exercise their right to protest the same way the group of 200 did? There’s no reason to suggest that you need large numbers to justify exercising your rights, so the lone wolf should have just as much right to clog the streets as the crowd.
Thus, anyone can make a mockery of these perfectly reasonable laws by claiming they’re protesting the bad pizza at Ray’s. By requiring groups like the Broadway 200 to have a permission to march down the street, you prevent random cranks from disrupting all our lives.
And yet, slavery was Constitutional until the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, IIRC. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had to amend the Constitution.
Constitutional rights are not absolute or unlimited. You know the old cliche, “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose?” That’s what you have here.
I have a right to travel, to get to my place of employment, to go to the doctor, or just to go that way for shits and giggles. Their right to protest doesn’t mean they can deny me MY rights.
As long as the peaceful assembly does not infringe on others, the answer is no. But if the assembly blocks pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or keeps people awake, or something similar, then they need to go somewhere else to do their thing.
Every protest march is going to inconvenience somebody, somewhere, in some way.
Even if it’s only 100 people holding signs and marching on a sidewalk, that may affect traffic and other people who are trying to pass on the sidewalk. I consider this to be incidental, rather than intentional, interference with other people’s rights. The right of people to peaceably assemble should be considered close to an absolute right, and not restricted except in cases in which the protest is intended to cause a disruption that is not necessary for the purpose of the protest. (I’m thinking about cases like the Golden Gate bridge protest that John Mace mentioned.)
As for the OP about Bush’s neighbors in Texas, I would like to see the law changed so that sitting politicians, when not engaged in their official duties, (campaigning and fundraising are not official duties) would be surrounded by a “protest doughnut”; an area not less than 50 feet, and not more than 100 feet, from their body, in which any person or persons would be allowed to protest (verbally or by signage only, no physical attacks or abuse would be allowed) said politician’s actions between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday.
To point one: Rights enumerated in the first 8 amendments do NOT carry more power than unenumerated rights protected by the ninth amendment. Ref: Griswold v. Connecticut (especially Goldberg’s concurring opinion). Madison also expressed this view in a letter to Jefferson discussing the bill of rights.
To point two: I was being sarcastic. Severe limitations are put on the second amendment (try to buy an assault rifle especially via mail-order). Why should peacable assembly not likewise have restrictions when they interfere with the rights of others?
I meant no office to pregnent crack smoking gay Nazi lesbians. My point is that just because someone’s cause is important to them, that does not make it important to the rest of us who just want to go to work.
Peaceful assembly would include the right to peace and quiet. Where is the line drawn on harassment? How would Cindy Sheehan feel if people protested her position (on the war) where she lives and works. In a twist of irony, she discussed her position on the matter.
How will the supporters of Cindy react to her requests for privacy when a bunch of Marines march in front of her house?
