PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Assembly


E Pluribus Unum
08-08-2008, 4:04 AM
I saw a bit on the evening news where citizens were forced to leave a public park by police because there were so many people out for the event and there was concern that it would turn violent.

In my time going downtown, one sees it quite often; the police telling people to leave an area for one reason or another.

What happened to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble? Where is the cutoff legally? Are there any court cases I can read on it? I have googled and have yet to see anything decisive.

If I am at the park with 100 other people and two of those people get into a fist fight, does that now effect the whole crowd? Can they now be removed by police because 2/100 were not assembled peaceably?

For that matter... we have the freedom of speech 24 hours a day; how can cities close public parks at 10:00pm? If it is a public place, I should have a right to peaceably assemble there at any time provided I don't break a noise ordinance or some other time-sensitive law.

Anyone know the ins and outs of first amendment assembly decisions?

ZapThyCat
08-08-2008, 8:17 AM
Our rights have become headaches for the police state. They want to just get rid of all our rights so that they can protect us all better.

l_Z_l
08-08-2008, 10:27 AM
what kind of event was it?

maybe it depends on the event and police discrimination...odd hours would make them assume your in the process of/or breaking the law

i know if church events w/ 100~200+ people wearing matching shirts it's usually not a big deal...

jamesob
08-08-2008, 10:59 AM
some cities have an ordnance that you have to have a permit to have a function in a park i.e concert or rally.

GenLee
08-08-2008, 11:04 AM
Freedom of Assembly. A right? lol

Just like our RKBA? lol

"These rights you people think you have". I have had an attorney in a Landlord Tenant case quote that gem.

E Pluribus Unum
08-13-2008, 10:39 AM
what kind of event was it?

maybe it depends on the event and police discrimination...odd hours would make them assume your in the process of/or breaking the law

i know if church events w/ 100~200+ people wearing matching shirts it's usually not a big deal...

It was a low-rider gathering at the local park.

100-200 churchgoers should have no more right to be there than 100-200 non-offending criminals. Freedom of assembly is a basic right; like the right to live.




I expected more from this crowd; you are so knowledgeable everywhere else. :)

JDoe
08-13-2008, 5:30 PM
How did the police force people to leave?

E Pluribus Unum
08-13-2008, 11:04 PM
How did the police force people to leave?

They walked through the park telling people to leave. The ones that argued were threatened with arrest.

Matt C
08-13-2008, 11:07 PM
You have all the rights you are willing to defend with deadly force, they can kill you, but they can't take your rights. And they can't kill us all.

dustoff31
08-13-2008, 11:19 PM
They walked through the park telling people to leave. The ones that argued were threatened with arrest.

I could be wrong, but I though such assemblies had to be officially declared unlawful assemblies before people could be forced to leave or arrests could be made.

Of course, if the police simply tell you to leave and you do that's another matter.

Theseus
08-13-2008, 11:21 PM
You have all the rights you are willing to defend with deadly force, they can kill you, but they can't take your rights. And they can't kill us all.

Apparently you never heard of the soldiers that marched on the White House in demand for the pay and benefits they were promised for their military service that were gunned down on the front lawn of the White House by our own?

They can kill us all. . . They just won't. No need to kill people that will obey mindlessly.

It is late and I will try to dig up the above mentioned massacre of our loyal troops...For those that think it can't happen.

pizzatorte
08-13-2008, 11:21 PM
It is a lovely catch-22 that the only way to be able to sue for this sort of egregious violation of rights is to personally face criminal prosecution.

l_Z_l
08-13-2008, 11:45 PM
i'm guessing they were in the wrong place @ the wrong time. i used to goto car meets that were pretty big and we'd eat and occasion drive in the canyons. i know some of those cars weren't street legal but we didn't have any problems. maybe some called and said there seems to be a "gang" @ the park. i'm sure the cops felt they were doing their job by dispersing a "mob" as to prevent and crime that might get committed.

i use the church example because there would be so much back lash from the community if the police made a church even dispurse. other kinds of meets...well i dunno how far people would be willing to take things to make it right.

it just takes one stupid mistake to ruin it for others. isn't that y irwindale had problem because of a few people burning out leaving whatever the event was. neighbor w/ connections got the issue brought up city meeting.

just my 2 cents

Matt C
08-13-2008, 11:59 PM
Apparently you never heard of the soldiers that marched on the White House in demand for the pay and benefits they were promised for their military service that were gunned down on the front lawn of the White House by our own?

They can kill us all. . . They just won't. No need to kill people that will obey mindlessly.

It is late and I will try to dig up the above mentioned massacre of our loyal troops...For those that think it can't happen.

Actually I am well aware of it, and although it's I would point out a few things since you are WAY off...

A. Two veterans were killed, of 43,000 demonstrators. Not exactly a "massacre".

B. They were not on the front lawn of the white house, but rather across the river in a "camp".

C.They were demanding pay they were promised, but they were asking for it 12 years early.

D. The President order the attack on the marchers halted before anyone was killed, but Gen. MacArthur ignored this order and attacked anyway (he thought they were communists :rolleyes:).

E.The incident in which armed U.S. Army soldiers attacked desperate American veterans of WWI later prompted formal veteran relief funds, and, eventually, establishment of the Veterans Administration and what became the G.I. bill.

But what is most important is they they were generally unarmed and did not resist with arms. If they had, things would have turned out a bit different.

DrjonesUSA
08-14-2008, 12:04 AM
I saw a bit on the evening news where citizens were forced to leave a public park by police because there were so many people out for the event and there was concern that it would turn violent.

In my time going downtown, one sees it quite often; the police telling people to leave an area for one reason or another.

What happened to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble? Where is the cutoff legally? Are there any court cases I can read on it? I have googled and have yet to see anything decisive.

If I am at the park with 100 other people and two of those people get into a fist fight, does that now effect the whole crowd? Can they now be removed by police because 2/100 were not assembled peaceably?

For that matter... we have the freedom of speech 24 hours a day; how can cities close public parks at 10:00pm? If it is a public place, I should have a right to peaceably assemble there at any time provided I don't break a noise ordinance or some other time-sensitive law.

Anyone know the ins and outs of first amendment assembly decisions?


Just STFU & keep your hands where we can see them.....it's all for your own good.......

domokun
08-14-2008, 12:05 AM
It was a low-rider gathering at the local park.


If there was over a certain number of people gathering at the park with low-riders that looked like an organized event to the city or police, the police can require that you present a permit to use the park or public space for such a large private event to ensure that you have the proper liability insurance to cover anything that might happen to attendees and make sure that you have the required amount of police/security in the area to prevent any skirmishes or problems from getting out of hand.

If they consider the gathering as mentioned above, they can and probably will tell you to break it up and disband your gathering in their interest for public safety and lack of permitting.

E Pluribus Unum
08-14-2008, 2:40 AM
If there was over a certain number of people gathering at the park with low-riders that looked like an organized event to the city or police, the police can require that you present a permit to use the park or public space for such a large private event to ensure that you have the proper liability insurance to cover anything that might happen to attendees and make sure that you have the required amount of police/security in the area to prevent any skirmishes or problems from getting out of hand.

If they consider the gathering as mentioned above, they can and probably will tell you to break it up and disband your gathering in their interest for public safety and lack of permitting.

Do I need to get a permit to say what I want? Do I need to get a permit to open a church? Do I need to get a permit to exercise my right to liberty?

If it is public land how does the government have a right to require permits or to close the parks at a certain time? What court case gives them the right to do this?

RomanDad
08-14-2008, 7:29 AM
I saw a bit on the evening news where citizens were forced to leave a public park by police because there were so many people out for the event and there was concern that it would turn violent.

In my time going downtown, one sees it quite often; the police telling people to leave an area for one reason or another.

What happened to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble? Where is the cutoff legally? Are there any court cases I can read on it? I have googled and have yet to see anything decisive.

If I am at the park with 100 other people and two of those people get into a fist fight, does that now effect the whole crowd? Can they now be removed by police because 2/100 were not assembled peaceably?

For that matter... we have the freedom of speech 24 hours a day; how can cities close public parks at 10:00pm? If it is a public place, I should have a right to peaceably assemble there at any time provided I don't break a noise ordinance or some other time-sensitive law.

Anyone know the ins and outs of first amendment assembly decisions?

Yes.

Its called a content neutral, reasonable, "Time Place & Manner" restriction, and there are dozens of Court cases that uphold them.

In short if the government is regulating when or how you exercise your rights, and they have a good reason to do so, its fine so long as they arent doing so BECAUSE of what you might say.

You have a right to free speech.... I have a right to get to work without 50 hippies sitting in the middle of the bridge millions of commuters have to take to get to the city every day.... The government says I WIN.

The governmental entity responsible for the park can require permits for large groups to gather. The reason for this is fairly simple. If its a controversial group, extra police presence may be required to preserve the peace; other park patrons may want advance warning so that they can decide if they want to use the park that day; They may not want two large groups showing up on the same day and overfilling the park; or two groups who dont get along and may lead to violence, etc.... As long as the permits are granted in a reasonable and fair manner, its fine. If youre a large group, and you didnt bother to ask for a permit, they can ask you to leave. You and your immediate family can go to the park and as long as you arent bothering anybody else, nobody will bother you.



As far as parks being closed at 10 pm... again, its a reasonable Time Place & Manner restriction based on the fact that the city cant patrol them or they arent lit well enough; or they want to prevent crime (which goes up in parks after dark); or they want to prevent vagrancy in them etc.... As long as there is a REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP between the ordinance and the compelling harm the government wants to prevent, its Constitutional.

Theseus
08-14-2008, 10:24 AM
Actually I am well aware of it, and although it's I would point out a few things since you are WAY off...


I am not surprised I was not completely accurate, I was sure I didn't have it completely right. . which is why I was trying to find reference to it and got tired so posted anyway. But I dont' intend on hijacking this thread...only apologize for being off this one.

AJAX22
08-14-2008, 10:32 AM
Actually I am well aware of it, and although it's I would point out a few things since you are WAY off...

A. Two veterans were killed, of 43,000 demonstrators. Not exactly a "massacre".

B. They were not on the front lawn of the white house, but rather across the river in a "camp".

C.They were demanding pay they were promised, but they were asking for it 12 years early.

D. The President order the attack on the marchers halted before anyone was killed, but Gen. MacArthur ignored this order and attacked anyway (he thought they were communists :rolleyes:).

E.The incident in which armed U.S. Army soldiers attacked desperate American veterans of WWI later prompted formal veteran relief funds, and, eventually, establishment of the Veterans Administration and what became the G.I. bill.

But what is most important is they they were generally unarmed and did not resist with arms. If they had, things would have turned out a bit different.


One more point that is critical,

They were completely unarmed.

Had they been equipped to fight back, chances are that protest would have not been run off as easily.

Matt C
08-14-2008, 12:12 PM
One more point that is critical,

They were completely unarmed.

Had they been equipped to fight back, chances are that protest would have not been run off as easily.

Actually I am well aware of it, and although it's I would point out a few things since you are WAY off...

A. Two veterans were killed, of 43,000 demonstrators. Not exactly a "massacre".

B. They were not on the front lawn of the white house, but rather across the river in a "camp".

C.They were demanding pay they were promised, but they were asking for it 12 years early.

D. The President order the attack on the marchers halted before anyone was killed, but Gen. MacArthur ignored this order and attacked anyway (he thought they were communists :rolleyes:).

E.The incident in which armed U.S. Army soldiers attacked desperate American veterans of WWI later prompted formal veteran relief funds, and, eventually, establishment of the Veterans Administration and what became the G.I. bill.

But what is most important is they they were generally unarmed and did not resist with arms. If they had, things would have turned out a bit different.

Welcome back to the FAIL, I mean forum!;)

AJAX22
08-14-2008, 7:08 PM
Welcome back to the FAIL, I mean forum!;)

pffft

that should have been a bullet point so It didn't slip past.

I still blame you for not calling the attention to it that it deserved ;)

Theseus
08-14-2008, 9:52 PM
Yes.

Its called a content neutral, reasonable, "Time Place & Manner" restriction, and there are dozens of Court cases that uphold them.

In short if the government is regulating when or how you exercise your rights, and they have a good reason to do so, its fine so long as they arent doing so BECAUSE of what you might say.

You have a right to free speech.... I have a right to get to work without 50 hippies sitting in the middle of the bridge millions of commuters have to take to get to the city every day.... The government says I WIN.

The governmental entity responsible for the park can require permits for large groups to gather. The reason for this is fairly simple. If its a controversial group, extra police presence may be required to preserve the peace; other park patrons may want advance warning so that they can decide if they want to use the park that day; They may not want two large groups showing up on the same day and overfilling the park; or two groups who dont get along and may lead to violence, etc.... As long as the permits are granted in a reasonable and fair manner, its fine. If youre a large group, and you didnt bother to ask for a permit, they can ask you to leave. You and your immediate family can go to the park and as long as you arent bothering anybody else, nobody will bother you.



As far as parks being closed at 10 pm... again, its a reasonable Time Place & Manner restriction based on the fact that the city cant patrol them or they arent lit well enough; or they want to prevent crime (which goes up in parks after dark); or they want to prevent vagrancy in them etc.... As long as there is a REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP between the ordinance and the compelling harm the government wants to prevent, its Constitutional.

This seems to be the same train of thought that allows an officer to enter your house if they receive a 911 call. . . But if the government can control when you can do it, they most certainly can control if they don't like it...like by not allowing a TV station a license. . . Or by removing the tax shield for a church. . . or perhaps even revoking an FFL license from a dealer that speaks out.

metalhead357
08-15-2008, 4:09 PM
I dunno what to tell you. My first run ever with 1st emendment stuff was at college where the *Free Speech* area...that IS what it was called-- Required you TO GET A PERMIT to speak there:eek:

Nuttin' in life has made much sense since then.................:TFH:

motorhead
08-16-2008, 10:42 AM
erosion goes slowly. they get to decide what is "reasonable". remember what happens when we surrender rights for safety. too many want to feel "safe" these days and it's getting worse not better.
BTW, the incident in question before is labled the "Bonus March" for you history buffs and searchers. for fans of atf, google the "Whiskey Rebellion".

Meplat
08-16-2008, 7:42 PM
George Washington was indeed a great American, but, I think his response to the "whisky rebellion" may have been his greatest mistake. Freedom has been on a slippery slope ever sense.:(




erosion goes slowly. they get to decide what is "reasonable". remember what happens when we surrender rights for safety. too many want to feel "safe" these days and it's getting worse not better.
BTW, the incident in question before is labled the "Bonus March" for you history buffs and searchers. for fans of atf, google the "Whiskey Rebellion".

pizzatorte
08-16-2008, 8:38 PM
George Washington was indeed a great American, but, I think his response to the "whisky rebellion" may have been his greatest mistake. Freedom has been on a slippery slope ever sense.:(

Things tend to go downhill as people try to exert control over other people's lives.

n6nvr
08-17-2008, 4:50 AM
I am not surprised I was not completely accurate, I was sure I didn't have it completely right. . which is why I was trying to find reference to it and got tired so posted anyway. But I dont' intend on hijacking this thread...only apologize for being off this one.

"Not completely accurate" isn't that kind of like saying "I did not have sex with that woman"

Posting patently inaccurate information with intent to deceive or inflame is usually the hallmark of politicians and the LA Times.