I'm sure most of you are familiar with the first amendment:

This weekend witnessed many across our nation exercising their right "peaceably to assemble." We also heard of the incidents in Colorado where some were tear-gassed and shot with rubber bullets for "failing to disperse." Article Police fire tear gas, rubber bullet at Colorado Springs war protest

I would like to discuss the idea of needing to be permitted, for length of time and location, in order to assemble. Do you agree that is just? Should a group be allowed to peaceably assemble without consent of any authority provided they did not infringe upon anyone else's rights?

Yes i do believe groups should be able to protest & peacefully

but i don't think they need to start beating up officers:

See last paragraph

Goamerica, you did not answer my question.

Should people be allowed to peaceably assemble without permits?

yes they should be able to protest without permits

people should not need to get permits top assemble, the first amendment doesn't say "the right to peacefully assemble with permission" by needing to get a permit, they can refuse to let you assemble, and if you do, arrest you. it is not freedom of assembly if I must get permission first.

goamerica, self-Defense is not a violent act. a violent act is to teach a man or women not to defend themselves when they are the constant victims of brutal attacks. those protesters probably thought that if it is okay for the president to attack preemptivly, it is okay for them to. and how do you know they didn't start "attacking" cops until after the cops started beating protesters?

Yes, I think that people should be able to peacefully assemble as long as they are not infringing upon anybody else's rights. That is a basic right given to us in the first amendment, and limiting that right is another form of the government trying to limit our freedoms.

True, the first amendment doesn't state the right to peacefully assemble with permission, but given the venues for protests sometimes, ie....city streets, there should at least be some mechanism. You never know when a life could be lost by having an ambulance roll up on a protest and get surrounded and stuck.

I have gotten those permits. In some ways it lets the authority know who is there so they do not panic and wonder who and what is going on. When I was on public property it is good to let them know who is there.

It should not be required to have such permits. It is a convenient to get that out of the way but it should not be illegal to peaceful gather and demonstrate.

Jaime, I'm not certain that the Colorado Springs example that you gave is an example of the police stopping a peaceful assembly due to the fact they didn't have a permit. The police did not hinder the protest at all until the protesters decided to stand in the middle of the street and block traffic. I think it is way to easy to make the police out to be these evil people that are merely tryng to maintain the normal flow of traffic. So, I guess, you can't technically "peacefully assemble" anywhere you want. . .like the middle of a street. Also, a peaceful assembly can turn into an angry mob really quick. And, unabomber, in what example do you have of protesters being "beaten" by the police, for no reason . . . because police just go around beating random people all the time.

-Kisov

Actually, Kisov, my concern was with the fact that some protesters were gassed for "failure to disperse." The article indicated that it was because their protesting "time limit" was up. People should not be forced into time limits if they are peaceful.

As I've already stated NUMEROUS times if protesters are NOT infringing upon the rights of others, they should be allowed out there as long as they want. OBVIOUSLY, blocking throughways IS an infringement and therefore NOT in accordance with the First Amendment.

It's like this. There are already laws on the books in most states against mob action, obstruction of justice, obstruction of roadways, etc. Why do groups need to get additional permits? Shouldn't these existing laws merely be enforced when necessary? The idea of permits is ludicrous to me.

A few here who seem to be "pro-permit" keep ignoring my initial premise. Can anyone explain why permits are needed when there are already laws that can be enforced when necessary?

Not to be too argumentative, Jaime. But were in that article does it say that the peaceful protest was ordered to disperse when they had protested too long a period of time. I'm not the most observant person in the world, but I can't seem to see that part of the article. I do, however, see:



But I don't seem to notice any comment about them running out of protest time. Maybe I need glasses.

-Kisov

Kisov, I was referring to the incident at Peterson AFB.

This does not indicate whether or not the protesters were infringing upon anyone's rights or if they merely failed to leave when the time was up. The article is ambiguous in that respect.

Are you interested in addressing whether or not permitting is needed to peaceably assemble?

I think it is quite fair to get protesters to go through the permit process. But these permits should be granted liberally unless the demonstration as described would violate laws that Jaime has already laid out. Public officials should know when something is going to happen that requires additional security. So I am pro permit, but using the permit as a tool to stop dissent is wrong, (E.g. Martin Luther King's march from Selma to Montgomery which was not granted a requested permit.)

let's see kisov, portland, 2002, when bush was in town. the police indiscriminatly started pepper spraying the crowd, even though they were staying behind the barrier the police set, they then moved the protesters dow a couple blocks, and repeated the process, but this time told them to disperse (there were children at this protest, as it was supposed to be peaceful) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/.../bush-a24.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0823-01.htm photos of that event http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/...ests/index.html (not the protesters didn't escalate this, the police did by showing up in riot gear, which is when the protesters started getting "violent(the police had already doused the crowd with pepper spray several before riot gear pigs showed up) http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.p...3&group=webcast I could really go on post sources, but that list would go on for a while.

on december 8, 2001, at a mumia abu jamal rally/protest, the cops moved in and started indiscrinately started to beat people, this is according to an eyewitness that was there, and I dmit may not be 100% reliable (what is?) http://www.mobtown.org/news00250.php

I don't need to remind you about the battle of seattle, in 1999, do I? in case I do: http://www.axiomatic.net/ragnar/wto.html http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00303.htm (from 6 different people that were there) http://www.louisbeam.com/seattle.htm http://www.observer.co.uk/global/story/0,1...,525093,00.html

I could really go on, but this post is getting long, and I don't want to take a whole page. give me a week or two and I can probably find reports of this weekends protesters getting attacked by police.

Your reports are useful, unabomber, but how does that address the issue of permitting to protest?

sorry jaime, kisov asked for instances when the fuzz attacked protesters for no reason. perhaps this is why they insist you get permits, so they know where to send the riot police.

I am against having to get a permit for protests because it is too often used to limit the assembly rather than enable it. Protest and dissent are the lifeblood of this republic. A permit process should be a means to enable peaceful protest, not curtail it.

In many of the protests I've been in or seen, the tear-gassing and billy-clubbing was frightening, and almost always in response to peaceful civil disobediance. I have respect for police officers, and I know they have a tough job, but in these situations, they are sent in wearing riot gear, and are probably given orders about where to draw the line. I've seen good cops at protests, ably keeping the peace, but I have also witnessed a lot of cops who acted so brutally towards people doing something totally nonviolent.

I'd like to see the permit process being more of a "heads up" for the officials, so they can say, "ok, we'll have the police block off traffic on Maple street Saturday from noon till 4."

I'll bet when parade participants don't disperse fast enough, they don't get shot at!

I would think that there would be less chance that a permitted peaceful protest would end up being an angry mob than a spontanious protest would. Kind of like the same reasons there is a waiting time to buy a gun.

BTW: unabomber, thank you for the examples. . .I'll get back to you on another thread about those.

-Kisov

Securing a permit to protest. That is truly a unique concept.

When I think of the greatest protest in American History, I think of the Boston Tea Party. 150 guys boarded government ships and dumped the cargo into the ocean.

Was it illegal? Yes. Did they secure a permit? I doubt it.

Mike

The right of dissent and protest is one of our most important constitutional rights. But I can't help but think there must be some counter-balance somewhere.
If protesters held a sitdown on I-65, and decided to stay for two days, that's a little extreme isn't it? But with no mechanism for permit or heck, even a heads up, what's to stop anyone from doing such. If we end up going to war in Iraq, I can bet there will be quite a few people whop would love nothing more than to shut down a city in protest. There has not been any constructive ideas on how to keep infrastructure running and vital services flowing, while letting citizens execute their right to protest when and where they wish.

Well, since I tend to disagree with "preemtive" anything, I see the current laws as being sufficient.

If a bunch people were to block any infrastructure, arrest them. Laws already exist to deal with this. That's about as constructive as it gets.

I think that Jaime has a good point, though. We have other laws designed to control activities that would shut down a city. Why can't we enforce those laws without requiring protestors to acquire a permit? I don't understand the necessity for that. It's seems like bureaucratic red tape that is designed to dissuade people from showing dissent.

I do think these regulations (probably not even laws) are intended to dissuade people from showing dissent. They are written by people who are in power and they want to keep it. They do not want opposing viewpoints.

Such permits on a voluntary basis would have some use but they should not be required.