# What's the rationale for allowing the immigration rally on the closed national mall? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763 "2013-10-09T09:56:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/41 "2013-10-10T13:20:23Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Well, not to Godwinize this thread, but [the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Nazis could march in a heavily Jewish suburb on Yom Kippur.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie) So, um, yeah. Whose permission did they need? Why? By the tenor of some in this thread I’m led to believe that a group can exercise their free speech rights willy-nilly, whenever they want, wherever they want. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/42 "2013-10-10T13:31:20Z")
I’m still trying to figure out what universe you live in where people looking at a monument should be afforded greater access to public spaces than people gathering to ask the government for a change in laws. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/43 "2013-10-10T13:31:38Z")
Magellan, as I explained upthread, a traditional public forum (which is a small subset of public spaces) can have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. What it cannot do is be closed to speech entirely, even if that rule is applied neutrally. The question is whether a shutdown of the park during a lapse in appropriations is a reasonable time-based regulation. I can see arguments for and against, and notably the arguments against are similar to the ones conservatives are making about the Lincoln Memorial. It is true that large groups generally need permits. But the issuing of the permit or not is still just a question of whether it is a reasonable regulation of the time for speech. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/44 "2013-10-10T13:39:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. It’s one thing to allow individuals to visit the memorial, it’s another thing for the government to facilitate that. Not seeing how it did from the article. Unless “letting it happen” constitutes “facilitating” ? > [@](#): > > So, if there were no barricades, the vets could have just visited as they planned to. Same with non-vets of any stripe. Yes. And if Macy’s didn’t close at 8pm, I could shop there at night. What’s your point ? > [@](#): > > But if you want to hold a rally and you need the government’s assistance and have to bring it toilets, sound equipment, etc., “Sorry, you’ll have to come back when we’re up and running.” But it seems that, per first amendment (and, I’ll underline again, \*because \*they had their hands twisted into allowing the vets in the first time around) they simply couldn’t deny the rally from taking place. And if the rally itself can’t be prohibited, they’re kinda forced to provide it with hygienic necessities - assuming for a minute that gvt officials brought in the toilets, and not the rally’s organizers. The article doesn’t make it clear either way - because it’s that or people shitting on the lawn. Would you rather the government had let people shit on the lawn ? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Also, aren’t there a different set of rules for large groups? I expect there are different rules for public property, which I understand the National Mall is. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/45 "2013-10-10T13:50:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out what universe you live in where people looking at a monument should be afforded greater access to public spaces than people gathering to ask the government for a change in laws. Tell me, why do you think memorial monuments exist? what is their primary purpose? And why do public spaces exist? What is their primary purpose? Of course the answer to the former is to allow people to pay respects and reflect on the sacrifice of others. The answer to the latter is that they create area people can walk through, sit, ponder, meet, gather, etc. Using it as a forum for a group to address the government with grievances is a very legitimate but secondary use. So, with no services offered, both primary uses could still be enjoyed. And they vets did not get _greater_ access. I have no idea where you’re getting that from. Like I said, closing the services makes sense. Closing an open air area like that doesn’t. Especially since it cost more money to keep people away than to have them mill about. A large group is different, which is proven by the fact that they had to get some kind of authorization and the gathering had to be facilitated by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/46 "2013-10-10T13:55:27Z")
You’re saying that a protest/rally/whatever got special treatment. You don’t seem to be saying that veterans got special treatment. Plus, you’re saying that it is a secondary purpose for pulic spaces to be used for political speech, and that the primary purpose is milling around. Why do you gloss over the simple fact that milling around isn’t a specifically protected activity under the Bill of Rights, and political speech is? Plus, the government doesn’t provide port-a-potties. The event organizers have to rent them from a private company. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/47 "2013-10-10T13:56:00Z")
Looks like the Lincoln memorial was undergoing [mural restoration](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-07-31/features/1996213155_1_murals-lincoln-memorial-cunningham) during 1995-1996. It doesn’t appear that the photo submitted is depicting the Lincoln memorial closed due to a government shutdown. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/48 "2013-10-10T13:57:38Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But it seems that, per first amendment (and, I’ll underline again, \*because \*they had their hands twisted into allowing the vets in the first time around) they simply couldn’t deny the rally from taking place. Sure they could have. For the reasons I mentioned. If the group was the NRA, do you think they would have been treated the same. HA! > [@Kobal2](#): > > And if the rally itself can’t be prohibited, they’re kinda forced to provide it with hygienic necessities - assuming for a minute that gvt officials brought in the toilets, and not the rally’s organizers. The article doesn’t make it clear either way - because it’s that or people shitting on the lawn. But it can be disallowed. If a group applies for a permit(?) and the permit is denied, then they can’t so what they were seeking, correct? Otherwise, what’s the function of the permit and the application process? > [@Kobal2](#): > > I expect there are different rules for public property, which I understand the National Mall is. I don’t see how this answers my question: “Also, aren’t there a different set of rules for large groups?”—on public property, like the National Mall. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/49 "2013-10-10T14:01:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Closing an open air area like that doesn’t. It does. We’ve had this discussion before on this very board. Look for posts by **WreckingCrew** in particular, who works at NPS and broke it down for us. > [@](#): > > Especially since it cost more money to keep people away than to have them mill about. It doesn’t, least not in terms of manpower. Again, we’ve talked about this before. IIRC the numbers were something like ~30 park rangers to block the entrance, versus multiple hundreds to keep an eye on the crowd when the memorial is open. > [@](#): > > A large group is different, which is proven by the fact that they had to get some kind of authorization and the gathering had to be facilitated by the government. … but the vets did have to get some kind of authorization too. Even now, they don’t just allow “veterans” in period, but only specific organized tours (Honor Flight I think was the name ?). And I’m still not seeing in what way the government \*facilitated \*the rally, exactly. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/50 "2013-10-10T14:03:14Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Looks like the Lincoln memorial was undergoing [mural restoration](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-07-31/features/1996213155_1_murals-lincoln-memorial-cunningham) during 1995-1996. It doesn’t appear that the photo submitted is depicting the Lincoln memorial closed due to a government shutdown. Of course the story was written by Jayson Blair so it could be a complete fabrication 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/51 "2013-10-10T14:07:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sure they could have. For the reasons I mentioned. If the group was the NRA, do you think they would have been treated the same. HA! Until you can point to an NRA rally getting turned down, you only have your preconceived bias here. > [@](#): > > But it can be disallowed. If a group applies for a permit(?) and the permit is denied, then they can’t so what they were seeking, correct? Otherwise, what’s the function of the permit and the application process? I’m not saying there was no possible legal recourse for the government to disallow the rally - there obviously is. I’m talking about PR and image. If they _had_ refused the permit, and offered “there’s a shutdown” as the justification, the people in the rally would be shouting bloody murder the same way you are right now. Only with better grounds to, since they could cite actual precedent going the other way. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/52 "2013-10-10T14:17:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re saying that a protest/rally/whatever got special treatment. You don’t seem to be saying that veterans got special treatment. > > Plus, you’re saying that it is a secondary purpose for pulic spaces to be used for political speech, and that the primary purpose is milling around. Why do you gloss over the simple fact that milling around isn’t a specifically protected activity under the Bill of Rights, and political speech is? > > Plus, the government doesn’t provide port-a-potties. The event organizers have to rent them from a private company. My point is twofold. One, it was dumb, petulant and mean spirited to attempt to keep the visiting vets away form the memorial. people have said that this was done before, but we have no evidence of that. The two pictures offered by those attempting to defend Obama by creating the perception that restricting access in SOP do not show that. One shows (as per **Yorick’s** investigative work) that the area was closed for a mural restoration. The other shows the information booth closed, but does not show the area being closed. Prior to any of this happening, I would have thought that the logical thing to do in the even of a shutdown would be to leave the public spaces public, but not have services offered, like the information booth. And it appears that is what was done historically. The second point is the rally. It makes perfect sends that the national mall remain open for everyone’s use. As it always is. As a normal procedure, groups that want to hold a rally need some kind of permission. I assume there are two reasons for this. One is that if there is going to be a huge crowd, that there needs to be increased law enforcement, facilities, and clean up. The other is that you don’t wind up with two opposing rallies at the same time. I don’t know the criteria by which a group seeking permission is denied that permission, but it seems logical that there would be some criteria. Otherwise, why have a permit process. So, it was idiotic, petulant and mean spirited to deny the vets. And it was, I believe, very partisan to allow the rally. If the government is closed, it’s closed. Hell, the administration is keeping people from walking in National Parks, just to dial up the pain. But a rally for his side, with Nancy Pelosi front and center, is given special permission. And if that isn’t bad enough, some of those in attendance at the rally were illegal aliens. So, the vets, who just want to visit a memorial, get the back of Obama’s hand and he relents only after his arm is twisted into a pretzel. Bu the amnesty crowd gets special permission because what we need to do is reward people who are here illegally and attract more illegals in the process. Again, what do you think wold have happened if the NRA was the group wanting to hold the rally? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/53 "2013-10-10T14:18:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For the reasons I mentioned. If the group was the NRA, do you think they would have been treated the same. HA! Just because someone is afflicted with the Conservative Persecution Complex does not mean that they have valid points. Just the opposite, actually: hypothesizing about whether the NRA would be prohibited from protesting on the Mall is even more silly than claiming that there’s a war on Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/54 "2013-10-10T14:20:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My point is twofold. One, it was dumb, petulant and mean spirited to attempt to keep the visiting vets away form the memorial. people have said that this was done before, but we have no evidence of that. The two pictures offered by those attempting to defend Obama by creating the perception that restricting access in SOP do not show that. One shows (as per **Yorick’s** investigative work) that the area was closed for a mural restoration. The other shows the information booth closed, but does not show the area being closed. > > Prior to any of this happening, I would have thought that the logical thing to do in the even of a shutdown would be to leave the public spaces public, but not have services offered, like the information booth. And it appears that is what was done historically. > > The second point is the rally. It makes perfect sends that the national mall remain open for everyone’s use. As it always is. As a normal procedure, groups that want to hold a rally need some kind of permission. I assume there are two reasons for this. One is that if there is going to be a huge crowd, that there needs to be increased law enforcement, facilities, and clean up. The other is that you don’t wind up with two opposing rallies at the same time. I don’t know the criteria by which a group seeking permission is denied that permission, but it seems logical that there would be some criteria. Otherwise, why have a permit process. > > So, it was idiotic, petulant and mean spirited to deny the vets. And it was, I believe, very partisan to allow the rally. If the government is closed, it’s closed. Hell, the administration is keeping people from walking in National Parks, just to dial up the pain. But a rally for his side, with Nancy Pelosi front and center, is given special permission. And if that isn’t bad enough, some of those in attendance at the rally were illegal aliens. > > So, the vets, who just want to visit a memorial, get the back of Obama’s hand and he relents only after his arm is twisted into a pretzel. Bu the amnesty crowd gets special permission because what we need to do is reward people who are here illegally and attract more illegals in the process. Again, what do you think wold have happened if the NRA was the group wanting to hold the rally? So yes, you think taking a tour group of veterans to a memorial is more important than the free exercise of First Amendment rights to petition government for the redress of grievances. I don’t understand why you’re arguing with my characterization of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/55 "2013-10-10T14:21:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Just because someone is afflicted with the Conservative Persecution Complex does not mean that they have valid points. Just the opposite, actually: hypothesizing about whether the NRA would be prohibited from protesting on the Mall is even more silly than claiming that there’s a war on Christmas. Guess we’re done. Unless you’d like to continue this in the Pit. Your choice. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/56 "2013-10-10T14:26:50Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It does. We’ve had this discussion before on this very board. Look for posts by **WreckingCrew** in particular, who works at NPS and broke it down for us. > > It doesn’t, least not in terms of manpower. Again, we’ve talked about this before. IIRC the numbers were something like ~30 park rangers to block the entrance, versus multiple hundreds to keep an eye on the crowd when the memorial is open. > > … but the vets did have to get some kind of authorization too. Even now, they don’t just allow “veterans” in period, but only specific organized tours (Honor Flight I think was the name ?). > And I’m still not seeing in what way the government \*facilitated \*the rally, exactly. Let’s say you are right in that it costs less to keep the area closed. To the tune of 30 or rangers versus hundreds if it is merely opened. Then it seems to follow that when the mall is 1) open and 2) is known to be having an even larger crowd than normal, that the number of rangers needed would be in excess of the normal hundreds. That is logical, right? Well, if so, then how can anyone claim that the rally didn’t cost the government more than not having the rally. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/57 "2013-10-10T14:28:21Z")
Not sure anyone claimed that. ETA : but then, by that same rationale it also costs more to let the veterans in than not, neh ? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/58 "2013-10-10T14:38:30Z")
At least one representative has said that it costs more to close the open-air memorials then to keep them open. I wonder if it cost more to take down the websites of government agencies than to leave them up and not update them. Did they pay someone to go in and turn off the panda-cam as opposed to leaving it on? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/59 "2013-10-10T14:44:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Guess we’re done. Unless you’d like to continue this in the Pit. Your choice. Sure, whatever. But I strongly believe that if the NRA. the Tea Party, or anyone else wanted to organize a similar issue-oriented protest on the Mall, they would also receive approval. I don’t think there’s a single microscopic shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763/60 "2013-10-10T14:55:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Whose permission did they need? Why? By the tenor of some in this thread I’m led to believe that a group can exercise their free speech rights willy-nilly, whenever they want, wherever they want. ["On April 29, 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an injunction against petitioners. The injunction prohibited them from performing any of the following actions within the village of Skokie, Ill.: “[m]arching, walking or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America; [m]arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; [d]istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry or hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion.”](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=432&invol=43) I grew up in the town next door, so I remember the whole craziness pretty well (my homeroom teacher decided to make it a teachable moment about freedom of speech and how to react to extremism). I don’t remember offhand how the injunction got entered to begin with; I was 10 years old at the time. I might be able to poke around later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-rationale-for-allowing-the-immigration-rally-on-the-closed-national-mall/670763.md?page=4)