I'm sure Most of you will remember Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star Mother who protested outside George W. Bush's Crawford Texas ranch while he was on his eight week vacation. Some of you may even know she was arrested a few weeks ago for protesting outside of the White House, and was convicted yesterday. What you may not know is the charge she was arrested and subsequently convicted on.
Protesting without a permit.
To properly describe my reaction upon discovering you need a permit to protest in the United States I'd like to borrow a line from my favorite television show: The West Wing. (Slightly altered to conform to the present situation.)
Ahem, "What plaid flannel-wearing, cheese-eating, yahoo of a milkman president signed that idiot bill into federal law?"
Since when do you have to have a permit to protest in the United States, or any civilized country for that matter? Isn't the whole point of protesting to "rise up against the establishment?" Doesn't having to stop to get a permit ruin the spontaneity of the protest?
I think Americans should organize a protest of whatever body passed that law, not obtaining a permit beforehand of course, and rise up against their evil overlords and slay them!. Well, ok that's too far but you get my point.
Now, the punishment according to CNN is only a fine of $50, but the point is the law itself is idiotic, especially in situations where you are protesting the government.
Imagine if those noble Merchants in Massachusetts had to get a permit before staging the Boston Tea Party, or if the African-American protestors had to obtain a permit to protest segregation. Don't you think they'd have been hauled off to jail before they got the chance to protest?
Of course, this makes about as much sense as everything else the government is doing in the U.S. these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
According to the Constitution, the law to require a permit is unconstitutional:
"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."
The application here being "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to peaceably assemble"
If they require a permit, your right to protest can be denied on whatever grounds they see fit. It also is no longer a "right" since I take it one would have to pay for the permit. It certainly "abridges" the right to peaceably assemble.
A couple of years ago a man used to stand on the corner of Main and hwy 30 going through town with a sign supporting the troops. I wondered out loud to a friend if he needed a permit to do that. They didn't think so. I said if I wanted to stand there in protest of something I shouldn't need a permit either. They said that was different. I said that would be discriminatory.
I so not not liberal, but I 100% agree with you on this one friend!
I'm all for protesting and I agree that the law about needing a permit to protest is simply an easy way for the government to silence voices they wouldn't like heard, BUT I think it's fair to point out those that protested segregation WERE locked in jail ("Letter from a Birmingham Jail Cell" anyone?). Sometimes going to jail is worth fighting for something you truly believe in. Those who fought to desegregate schools spend nights, weeks, sometimes longer sitting in jail cells. If they could do that, then we can pay a fifty dollar fine.
Just protest whatever you want, then once you get the fine fight it and see if you can take it to Supreme Court to overturn the law haha, although I doubt it'll go that far for such a small matter.
I think like with most things its situational and juridictional. For example if I only had 5 people and I was protesting, and I am not on private property, nor am I on public property and disturbing the peace, then you can protest without a permit. However, if there is a situation where my protesting and when I am expressing my free speech, if that happens to be infridging on someone else's freedoms or I am forcing my free speech on them, then I would need a permit. For example, if I was blocking a road or being so loud that I am forcing people to listen to my free speech when they don't want to listen, then I believe that requires a permit. Also if you're protest is over a certain amount of people for example 50 or 100, such that it becomes a public safety issue, ie you may need an ambulance, or there is a risk of inciting a riot and therefore the city would have to plan for the protest, such as putting up barriers, hiring more police officiers and having ambulances on call. Then you would need a permit as it is a public safety issue. I think in general you can protest as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others, not forcing your free speech on others, and not taking up too much public resources, then you can protest without a permit. But as soon as you go over those limits your protest would have to stop and you would need to apply for a permit and protest on a scheduled day or time. In other words, Free Speech does not mean you can do whatever you please, you must notify others if there is a chance you will impinge on their rights.
@Jonny, I can't dispute the legality or constitutionality... for the simple reason that I'm not well enough informed. However I do believe that requiring a permit is clearly a conflict of interest. Additionally a permit itself is an official request for permission, and therefore clearly emphasizes the lacking of a right. So just as a personal opinion, it's fairly self-evident that the people's 'rights endowed' aren't always exactly 'rights'. I'm not going to debate where the ideal medium exists, but it's obvious you're terrible definition would be putting 'public safety' FAR ahead of civil liberties. I'm not even sure how anyone could think that's acceptable, except for possibly a law enforcement professional. I'd also like to specifically address "... and I am not on private property, nor am I on public property ...". Please explain to me which type of property is neither public nor private?
Post a Comment