Forum Post: Debate : Requiring a permit for a protest is Unconstitutional. Agree or Disagree.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 9:06 a.m. EST by cristinasupes
(145)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"free speech zones" What happened America
I am no legal or constitutional expert, and unfortunately I'm not the best researcher, so I'll just speak from my heart.
OWS is a form of civil disobedience is it not? While I think it is great that folks are concerned with what the laws of the land do and don't say, at this point we are breaking them every single day. We are doing this because it is necessary to do so. When you believe a system is corrupted to the point where it no longer serves the citizens it is supposed to protect, why would you possibly worry about obtaining some bureaucrat's blessing to protest? I don't particularly feel the need. This doesn't mean I can't concern myself with the well being of others. I do. But I'll just go ahead and follow the golden rule there.
I also feel our fore-fathers would not only nod in approval but probably take up arms - in a manner of speaking - and join us. The U.S. and the world at large is mostly broken. We need to fix it and that will likely mean ignoring a few traffic signals along the way.
If a permit is needed to protest then there is no need for the constitution in the first place.
Permission to peaceably assemble and petition the government shouldn't require an extra government approval that could feasibly be denied.
Good hearty debate folks, that's why I posted this in the first place. To see if the people on this board were capable of having a discussion with various proofs and evidence. I am pleased to say I feel the love from both sides of the equation. It IS possible to have discussion without name calling. For the most part...
Permits cost money. Requiring money to allow a protest or peaceful assembly is a limit on both. The fourteenth amendment prohibits the states from enacting laws that restrict constitutional rights, therefore the permit laws are unconstitutional in the context of expressing first amendment rights. My opinion. I understand there is precedent in law for supporting the contrary, but precedent is a guideline...not law. It is an interpretation, and interpretations can be wrong, or manipulated by those with power to influence.
Thanks!
I agree you should not be required to obtain a permit. It defeats the purpose of a protest.
NY State Constitution. Please note Number 9 under the bill of rights. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htm
From the NY State Constitution: No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government
And no state can make a law superseding those of the federal government. To find precedence limiting the 1st Amendment, look right above this post to the one I replied with before.
Protest and dissent in an unjust social system is a natural right set out by Jon Locke, the philosopher who I credit with planting the seeds of revolution in the American colonial people AND the French middle class. In a democracy, the idea that we need permission from our government to protest actions we as a populous deem unjust carried out by that same government is absolutely ludicrous and we as good citizens have a moral obligation to overturn such injustice. I would go as far to say that we not only have a right to protest and dissent but a moral obligation to snuff out any opression we witness.
here here!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Westchester/274093539289447
No article written shall be used to deny any other rights held by the people. No government body can stand between people and their rights. No paperwork or process is required to obtain your rights, since it may be used to deny those rights. The people do not seek consent from the government, The government must seek consent from the governed.
The fact that courts have decided in favor of permits does make it law, but doesn't mean it isn't "bad law".
The TSA is legal.
Jim Crow was legal.
Etc.
Is establishing residence on any land you want granted to us under the first amendment? Public or private parks across the country are being turned into small neighborhoods. Medical areas, dining areas, sleeping areas. The basic cause may be good, but I doubt the first amendment covers much more then the general assemblies of the various occupy movements. It certainly doesn't grant squatters rights to groups under the guise of peaceful assembly. The other major issue is what happens when our right to assemble conflicts with the rights of others? We have the right to assemble, with that comes a responsibility to gather in a way that doesn't take rights away from others.
of course it is. We need get organized to achieve real change.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
wonderful! Common Sense is in the public domain.
I agree, to me this is unconstitutional to have to get a permit to protest, ridiculous, we need prrmission? Its pretty lame, sorta like XXX, think your free, take a piss down town and see just how free you are
If you need permission, then how is that free?
Extremely unconstitutional. The fact that there is ZERO places in Tampa to gather more than 50 people, shows how long the people of this country have been asleeep at the wheel
I have been working on getting something started in my local community and am even having a hard time trying to find the information online regarding said permit.
Call town hall and ask for a copy of the statutes regarding demonstrations.
agree
Our rights only extend so far as that they don't interfere with other people's rights. Permits are legit.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Saturday-Night-Politics/194650163906116
If you are on State property, ( roads, Parks.. etc) you have to have a permit.. and it's part and Parcel of Income for the County..
But.. if you are on City Property, you can Register.. and that should not cost a thing..
Pounding the Pavement, is suppose to be free and open to all, So.. if you get a permit, you have security.. If you pound the pavement for free.. you get blisters.
hard to know actually, Each town's Laws are different. I think 'Patience' is going to be our Best Ally here.. With Growth comes Strength, with longevity.. comes credibility! ..After That, we will be able to protest more Freely.
I think there's a huge difference between a peaceful assembly and an encampment for the purpose of demonstration. Despite the pretense of non-violence, I am yet unable to find the word, "confrontational," contained anywhere within the definition of "peaceful." And this demonstration is certainly confrontational.
The initial British investment required that America be "peopled," and through a process of negotiation, the very first planters secured for themselves the right to all manner of self-governance, provided, of course, that laws thus instituted were not in any way "repugnant" to those of merry old England.
From that day forward, the British soldiery was viewed as an occupying force.
The British in Boston were an occupying force.
Be that as it may, this clause in the Constitution was not, as some have suggested, directed at the right to protest military occupation but rather at the desire of the Dissenter (i.e., "Pilgrim," "Separatist," "Puritan," etc.) to assemble privately for religious purpose because all such assemblies had been outlawed in England.
I'm generalizing here but do not misinterpret - you do not have a Constitutional right to assemble in such manner anywhere in the US. Nor do you have the right to violate the statutes of the municipality. (And personally, I would tend to lay this one on our educational establishment for its failure to historically educate you - you're growing up in America, if nothing else you should be fully informed, possessed, of your "rights.")
The police are those who have confronted the people. You may intend to misinform some, without affect. The rights are secured by the people, The government of The United States of America derives it's power from the consent of the governed and when the government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Agree
That's true. So you are in open revolt? You are taking up arms? The founding fathers are demeaned when people use their words in a Pollyannish way.
Stay on the sidewalk. You have ventured too far off here.
You need to take a class in constitutional law. You're interpreting a law by only looking at the statute itself, without taking the whole picture of case law into account.
That's why I posed a debate. Am looking for the proof. Can you post the laws from your state.
I think they've gotcha on all three, but number three is a definite. So did we really need to have this discussion of things we already knew?
I'm not buying your interpretation here. And the very people who wrote it would not have bought it, either. Peaceful is not confrontational. More, we're talking "rights" versus privilege - you neglect the rights inherent in public ownership of a municipality..
That is not my interpretation. That came from the ACLU. If you want to argue about this then you need to argue with the US Supreme Court, not me. The interpretation of the First Amendment is indeed debatable, but that debate happens in the court system.
I didn't ignore your words; I know what they represent. I'm just saying that I'm not buying your interpretation and that perhaps we need to run it up to the Supreme Court all over again. That's the way Oakland has interpreted it and that's the city of NY is going to interpret it, too.
It was intended to institute a maximum freedom. And enslaving the people of Manhattan to the public disruption of a few, is not a maximum freedom. It is misinterpretation at the hand of corrupt attorneys.
The limitations on the freedom of speech have been very deliberately worked out through legislation and the court system over centuries. If you think that all of those people got it wrong then you might want to look into going into law, participating in the system, and working toward change. Sitting on the outside of the legal system looking in, and criticizing the result of two centuries of effort, is not useful in any way. It's a little like saying that you think that the world of art paintings has it all wrong because they should use more magenta. If you're not a painter then your opinion is only marginally interesting. If you want to have a more relevant opinion about constitutional law and the interpretation of the First Amendment, then you'll need to learn more about the topic.
When you impede the use of public land for other people, you can be seen as disturbing the peace which is no longer protected. Are your rights more important than the rights of others? If not, then there has to be compromise. That is why there are permits required for most use of public land, to ensure that everyone has fair and equal access to the land and that those using the land are afforded the proper protection to exercise their rights.
a peaceable assembly is however by definition, peaceful. So how is that disturbing the peace?
When you impede the free movement of others or the use of that public land by others, you are disturbing the peace.
Then the person at the head of traffic jams should get charged with disturbing the peace? Is that how this works?
If they are causing the traffic jam on purpose, then yes or they could be cited for impeding the flow of traffic.
beating on your bongos at midnight is disturbing to anyone who can hear it.
It's all in where you protest. I can't enter your living room and protest because the law does not allow that because it is private property. And public property isn't sacrosanct either. For instance, I can't go down to the local public school and protest in the third grade classroom, even though that is public property. I also, being a male, cannot go to the women's restroom at the mall, which is a public accommodation, and protest.
Your premise doesn't hold water.