Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:You have the right to peaceful assembly and getting a permit shows that you're going to be real peaceful. Showing up out of the blue and just protesting probably has a higher chance of being violent compared to one that was carefully organized and implemented.

I'm not disputing that, however REQUIRING that I get a permit is unconstitutional. Requiring it in any cases where police will need to block a road or something is totally fine.

I have no obligation to PROVE that I'm going to be peaceful. The constitution requires law enforcement to treat that as the default. Until I actually BECOME VIOLENT, I cannot be considered violent.

Well... here's the deal the place that they're at is privately owned. That park is a private area and the owners just don't have the power to evict everyone, they do have the right to evict them, but can't get enough power to enforce it.

Also, a lot of places people like to protest are parks which require a permit because they are protected areas and if a protest has a chance to damage a protected area it leaves free speech zones. However, if you can find a public area that is not a federal/state/local protected park then you can protest there. Sidewalks are sometimes owned by the business they are in front of so that makes them private as well. Face it, most places are either privately owned or are marked as 'parks' which are protected by some government agency for various reasons.

Also the first amendment doesn't say that the government can't make you get a permit in order to protest, all its says is that they can't pass a law prohibiting you from protesting. Making someone get a permit isn't against the first amendment because its not a law that says you can't protest.

first amendment wrote: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.

You're not understanding my argument.

If I can legally BE in a place, then I can legally PROTEST in that same place. The idea that walking through a park without a sign and walking through a park with a sign are such utterly different activities that one is no longer protected by the first amendment is super stupid.

No dude, speech doesn't damage trees. That's a huge cop-out. I don't need a permit to have a ton of people go to the park and NOT protest, but I need a permit for the exact same people to go and protest? No, that's unconstitutional.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

From their website.

The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal was founded in June, 2005 in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. We are a non-partisan, non-profit, education and outreach organization which aspires to engage and mobilize the millions of African Americans, Hispanics, women and other minorities in this country who share conservative values.

Clearly its possible to be nonpartisan and conservative, but its pretty difficult in a two party system.

FURTHER, sidewalks are almost NEVER private property and when you DO own a sidewalk, you are ALMOST ALWAYS required by law to keep it open and freely used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.

That is 100% unconstitutional.

Rented Tritium wrote:Not really a huge fan of the idea that if me and some friends make some signs and walk down a sidewalk just like everyone else on that sidewalk except we have signs, we can be punished for not asking for permission to exercise our free expression.

While I agree with you in principle, keep in mind that permits aren't usually required for protests, they're usually required for large gatherings of people. However, any permit requirement that allows any discretion on the part of a city official has typically been found unconstitutional.

I still think there's a Constitutional problem with what are essentially "free speech permits", but they do serve a public policy other than limiting protest.

Rented Tritium wrote:That is 100% unconstitutional.

Apparently it's not, since it has been going on for quite some time and hasn't been struck down by the courts.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Not really a huge fan of the idea that if me and some friends make some signs and walk down a sidewalk just like everyone else on that sidewalk except we have signs, we can be punished for not asking for permission to exercise our free expression.

While I agree with you in principle, keep in mind that permits aren't usually required for protests, they're usually required for large gatherings of people. However, any permit requirement that allows any discretion on the part of a city official has typically been found unconstitutional.

I still think there's a Constitutional problem with what are essentially "free speech permits", but they do serve a public policy other than limiting protest.

Yes. Like I said before, if the police are going to need to block off a road or if it's a very popular protest spot like the Washington mall, I want some kind of scheduling in place. Permits definitely enable that.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.

That is 100% unconstitutional.

Actually, if its a large gathering of people you do need a permit in some parks in order to reserve it. Other people may want to use the park as well, but if you want to protest without a permit and infringe on their right to also enjoy the park, you are also going against the Constitution by denying them their right to enjoy a public area. The protestors are not exactly being the cleanest of all people either, and they are neglecting all of the park's rules; it closes at 1am, tarps/tents/sleeping bags are not allowed, and most importantly they are making a mess and the owners of the park can't clean it like they normally would.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:That is 100% unconstitutional.

Apparently it's not, since it has been going on for quite some time and hasn't been struck down by the courts.

You're aware that was said about slavery, right?

I'm not saying this was slavery, but I just want to remind you that the fact that something hasn't been struck down is absolutely not proof that it's constitutional. The whole idea of "free speech zones" is insane. We already have one of those, it's called the United States.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.

That is 100% unconstitutional.

Actually, if its a large gathering of people you do need a permit in some parks in order to reserve it. Other people may want to use the park as well, but if you want to protest without a permit and infringe on their right to also enjoy the park, you are also going against the Constitution by denying them their right to enjoy a public area.

That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.

The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.

No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".

halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".

Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.

Rented Tritium wrote:That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.

The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.

Actually, the park in question is privately owned. There is a right to free expression, but there isn't a Constitutional right to block people from enjoying something either.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:That is 100% unconstitutional.

Apparently it's not, since it has been going on for quite some time and hasn't been struck down by the courts.

You're aware that was said about slavery, right?

I'm pretty sure slavery actually was Constitutional.

You know, that's why they had to amend it and all that.

Rented Tritium wrote:

halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".

Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.

I don't know, I never saw an amendment where its says a government agency can't require permits for free speech. All it says is that the government can't make laws against free speech in its entirety.

So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.

halonachos wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.

The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.

Actually, the park in question is privately owned. There is a right to free expression, but there isn't a Constitutional right to block people from enjoying something either.

If it's a private park then nobody has a "right" to anything the owner doesn't want.

But if it is a public park, the second half of your post is not how the constitution works.

The first amendment grants EXPLICIT RIGHTS. The fact that there ISN'T a right to disturb people doesn't override the EXPLICIT RIGHTS granted by the first amendment.

It doesn't specifically say that the government can't require a permit to protest, so that line of reasoning seems flawed.

Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.

YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:It doesn't specifically say that the government can't require a permit to protest, so that line of reasoning seems flawed.

Have you READ the first amendment?

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?

Is that what you're saying?

Because that's stupid.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?

Is that what you're saying?

Because that's stupid.

Nope, that's something he has the right to believe and say.

halonachos wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".

Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.

I don't know, I never saw an amendment where its says a government agency can't require permits for free speech. All it says is that the government can't make laws against free speech in its entirety.

You added that "in its entirety" part.

It's not in there. At all.

Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?

Is that what you're saying?

Because that's stupid.

Would you also have the right to enter, assemble, and speak in a courthouse? They are, after all, publicly owned.

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.

Do you just not know what the word "abridging" means?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There have been no budget cuts. there haven't even been cuts to growth. You think that is what has destroyed consumer confidence?

Not just me, but a good number of economists.

Substance isn't always important to consumer confidence.

Sorry show me the economist that has stated federal budget cuts have hurt consumer confidence. As there have been no budget cuts its not a possibility in the 3 dimensional universe.

protip - as the Senate never signed off on a budget, there isn't one, so its going to be extremely difficult to win this argument.

Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?

You brought up things being "specifically mentioned" in the Constitution. I was applying your own standard to your statements.

Way to auto-lose the debate with name calling though.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?

You brought up things being "specifically mentioned" in the Constitution. I was applying your own standard to your statements.

Way to auto-lose the debate with name calling though.

The right is specifically mentioned. I'm not responsible for your failure to parse.

Who did I call a name?

Rented Tritium wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.

Do you just not know what the word "abridging" means?

Yep, means you can't deprive somebody of the right. Permits don't deprive people of the right to protest though, it just makes people more orderly when they do protest.

halonachos wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?

Yup.

It doesn't mention permits at all.

Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.

Do you just not know what the word "abridging" means?

Yep, means you can't deprive somebody of the right. Permits don't deprive people of the right to protest though, it just makes people more orderly when they do protest.

So an abridged dictionary is not a dictionary then? It's just blank pages?