5 ms·
The right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment of the Constitution SHOULD mean that the government cannot require a permit to do so (otherwise, it would
by mckoss 11y ago
The right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment of the Constitution SHOULD mean that the government cannot require a permit to do so (otherwise, it wouldn't be a RIGHT).
If a large number of people want to get from point A to point B, even on foot, an accommodation of normal traffic laws should be made to allow that.
Why the hell are police arresting peaceful protestors?
- joshkpeterson 11y agoPreach. There is effectively no right to assemble.
- joshstrange 11y agoI agree, it's not a right if you have to ask permission first. OTOH I can see why cities require it because as another comment pointed out a random guy could sit/stand in the middle of the street and call it a protest but I still feel there are better ways to address that other than requiring a permit. A permit requires a level of planning that is not needed for a lot of these protests that get organised over social media and the like.
- Johnie 11y agoIf I'm reading what you're saying correctly, this is EXACTLY how it works. The protesters were allowed to peacefully assemble in Union Square. The protesters were allowed to peacefully march on the sidewalk to anywhere they wanted to go in the city. What the protesters were NOT allowed to do is obstruct traffic and walk in the middle of the street without a permit. The people that were arrested were the ones that were walking on the streets and blocking traffic. You only need a permit if you intend to march on the streets. It's the same as you or I needing a permit to host a parade through Midtown.