Forum Post: Shouldn't the 1st Amendment supersede local park regulations?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 8:53 a.m. EST by unarmed
(213)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…
"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"
Yes. They are shutting that down, just like they are shutting down speech all over.
https://www.freeandequal.org/revealed-journalists-leaving-us-networks/
If President Obama meant what said when he spoke concerning the Egyptian uprising in his speech on January 28th, He should stand up for OUR rights NOW!
Ahhh, uncleduck, you forget politics. He wasn't running for reelection back then.
Yes and no, if it is a publicly owned park you may have a strong argument, but not if it is privately owned. No matter how much I would like to, I can't get a thousand people together to hold and occupy rally (or a Tea Party rally, or a politically motivated pizza party) in your living room if you don't want me to be there. Also, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld limitations to the 1st Amendment, you are not allowed to yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater no matter how much you feel that abridges your freedom of speech.
PS Way to go unarmed and jay1975! You guys beat me to the punch.
I don't understand this myself. Requiring a permit to protest seems to be unconstitutional.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the government will provide you with a place to protest?
Park regulations that prevent you from camping on public property do not infringe on your 1st Amendment rights. You can still say what you want, when you want. The 1st Amendment does not say that the government will provide you a place to exercise that right. By your logic, you should be free to walk into anyone's home and protest there if you feel like it.
Isn't it implied that "people peaceably to assemble" is to happen on public property? After all there are only 2 types of property Public and private, the !st amendment doesn't apply to private property.
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private property? So you cannot say what you want to, practice your religion or assemble on your property? It isn't protected when you invade the property of another. No one is saying that you cannot say what you want, but you are not guaranteed by anyone the time or place to say what you want. This website is the perfect example of our 1st Amendment protection. Military bases are public property, do you think you have a right to enter and set up camp there to express your right, or do you think that there are reasonable limitations to where you can assemble?
What's not reasonable about a protest in a public park?
Using your logic, there would be no venues left to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In your view, where?
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.
This is a false pretext. No one else wants to protest at the park. The Tea partiers are worn out after a night of debauchery and are peaceably sleeping in the comforts of their mansions by the country club.
I believe one of the pretexts used in the Oakland case was public safety. It is an example of government intrusion into our lives: when the government thinks it knows better what is best for the public then the public itself. It is unrepresentative and dictatorial.
I hate to tell you, but public parks are not only used for areas of protest. many people like to simply walk in them and enjoy a bit of nature. Families like to go there to spend a day together. When you have thousands of people "occupying" those areas and restrict their equal use by others, you are disturbing the peace and are no longer peaceably assembled. Your rights do not trump the rights of others.
So again using your logic, a woman walking her dog in the park should be tear gassed and arrested because she is occupying public park space that could be used for waiting protestors? Why hasn't this happened?
You go to extremes when you compare a woman walking a dog when compared to thousands of people impeding the movement others. By your logic, anyone should be free to "occupy" military installations as well since they are public lands. If you read what the Founding Fathers meant with the 1st Amendment, it was not about protesting and occupying public lands, the 1st Amendment protection of assembly was in regards to assembling for lawful purposes such as circulating petitions, holding meetings and such. We do not have a right for the government to provide us with a venue to voice our grievances, but we are protected when we do voice those reverences. The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank concur with the Founders that assembly is in regards to petitioning government, not simply crowding up a place.
So what you are saying is that, although protest is constitutionally allowed activity, providing a place for said activity is not, thereby nullify your right to protest all together. Reminds me of a JFK quote.
"Those who make peaceful protest impossible, make violent protest inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy
Your rights are not nullified, but the government does not have to provide you land to protest on. Should the government give every citizen a gun that wants one since the 2nd Amendment says I can have one? Of course not. There are reasonable limitations to how we exercise our rights. If we can assemble and protest anywhere we wish that is public lands, then try to take your protest onto a military installation or into the White House, after all, they are public lands, are they not?
Again, your entire argument is addressed in JFK's quote.
"Those who make peaceful protest impossible, make violent protest inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy
Who is making peaceful protest impossible? Cities issue permits for use of public lands for protest with reasonable limitations. You can hold a protest in your front or back yard or at the home of a friend. You can hold a virtual protest through the internet now. No one is saying you do not have a right to petition the government or assemble in a reasonable manner, but there are limitations to how far you can go.
"Who is making peaceful protest impossible?" That's just silly. The fact remains, when thousands of peaceful protesters are forcibly removed from public parks around this country. That will as JFK states, "make peaceful protest impossible". People like yourself will be completely responsible for, as JFK again states the "violent protest", which will be inevitable.
The anger that hundreds of thousands of Americans will not easily dissipate in a cloud of Tear Gas, that anger will inevitably be released. It's up to thinking Americans to decide how.
unarmed, you keep citing JFK, but the Supreme Court decided a couple of decades before him to set reasonable limitations on assembly. Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) states that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions might be imposed on the right to assemble.
[Deleted]
When your protest is large enough to infringe on other peoples right to assemble at the same place, limitations must be created to ensure everyone has equal access to the public site. You cannot claim that your 1st Amendment right is more important than others so your protest trumps everyone else's right to use that land as well.