Posted 2 years ago on March 27, 2012, 5 p.m. EST by francismjenkins
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Okay, I know this is an issue that must have been discussed often, and I fully understand the objection. Why should any group need to get a permit to hold a protest or other event in a park that belongs to us, the public?
However, there are some valid reasons for this requirement. For instance, where two groups apply to hold an event on the same day and time. We don't groups fighting over territory in a park.
The idea of asking the establishment for permission to protest against that same establishment is obviously a bizarre thought. If our founders requested permission from the crown to protest British occupation, I'm fairly sure it would have been denied. But in our system, we do have checks and balances, and they occasionally work. A city cannot deny such an application based on political viewpoint. If they're inventing reasons that really have no basis, and makes it obvious they're merely trying to suppress speech, the denial can be challenged on that basis.
I don't personally have an opinion here. I think there's valid arguments on both sides ... but I'm curious, what do people think about this issue?