Hacker News Reader

Comment by veidr | Hacker News Reader

It is similar in the USA (the basic right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by the Constitution), but it is not explicit about the details.

So various localities have tried to interpret that as meaning 'you have the right to do it if you do X, Y or Z' (such as obtaining a permit in advance, or not being too loud too early in the morning, or not blocking traffic, etc etc etc).

In general, you do not need a permit in the USA to hold a protest or demonstration. But in practice, in many cases police will interfere if they want to, leaving it up to courts to decide (much later) if the police actions were permissible under the law. Having a permit in advance will make such police actions less likely.

Source: IANAL,BYDNTBAFLTCOBCRILTO

View on HN

I tried applying for one of these permits on the largest stage in the US -- NYC -- on several occasions. The Parks Dept, which issues such permits, is a nightmare to deal with: they charge per application, require multiple applications merely to check different dates, and regularly lie about the availability of parks.

You might think spontaneous assembly is an option, and in some cases it is, but if you're going to have speakers (people), you need a sound system, and to set up a sound system you need a police permit, and to get a police permit you need a Parks permit. Start setting up without these and you'll be arrested before anyone utters a word.

Then there are the various "public-private spaces". Try applying for a permit to rally in Zuccotti Park and the go-to person will put you on hold, only to come back and say they are only issuing permits for cultural events. So the developers get their air rights, while the public gets the muzzle. Bullshit. Anil Dash has written about this some: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/03/captive-atria-and-living-in-p...

Indeed, the very frequency with which the Farmers' Market is now held in Union Square, the most central spot in NYC and a place rich in social movements, might be construed as little more than cover for crowd control, have as it does the effect of making this space all but inaccessible to protesters.

the very frequency with which the Farmers' Market is now held in Union Square... might be construed as little more than cover for crowd control, have as it does the effect of making this space all but inaccessible to protesters.

Not saying your argument is unfounded, but may be overstated. I do most of my grocery shopping at union square, and there seems to be a protest there about 30% of the time. I'm sure some people get turned down, but it is clearly accessible to protesters often enough that there are basically permanent police barriers there.

Yes, but how many of these are rallies (with people speaking)? Even though the south end of the square is usually free, including on market days, Parks will tell you that they do not issue permits when the farmers are in the other parts of the square. Ask them why they issued one to, say, March Against Monsanto, and they'll say that event was "grandfathered in" (ie, has been happening for several years). (And ask MAM and they'll tell you it was a huge hassle for them as well.)

Meanwhile, on the north end of the square the city is privatizing park space: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/restaurant-union-...

Much of what you describe may be unconstitutional. If you can substantiate these claims, and want to make a difference, I strongly urge you to find a lawyer. If you're serious, feel free to email me and we can talk more.

I'd be happy to talk. What's your email?

Great. It's my user name at gmail.com.

It certainly isn't explicit, which is why US courts have ruled that while the government can't restrict the content of what you say, they can restrict where and when you say it. 'Where' in the past has included 'somewhere where the target of your protest can't actually notice you'. It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

> It seems an internally inconsistent position; you can say whatever you want, but not where we don't want you to say it.

Totally consistent if the assumption is that the constitution is not the foundation of the government power, but a obstacle to be overcome for it to be able to fulfill it.

But you don't need to be a fucking lawyer to...?

...comment on basic civil rights issues like this one. ;-)

Can't believe bthomas hadn't encountered that abbreviation in the wild before!

The short answer is that a locality may impose "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." Such a restriction, to be reasonable, must be content neutral, serve a significant government interest, be narrowly tailored to further that interest, and leave open ample alternative fora.

So, for example, if you want to lead a large march down a busy street, you generally can't do that in advance without a permit. The reason for this, I take it, is fairly obvious. If a government wants to restrict your ability to conduct a large protest in, say, a public park, on the other hand, they're going to have a harder time in court explaining why the restriction is reasonable.

Courts review these restrictions under "intermediate scrutiny" which means that, while they don't look as hard as they would if the restriction were content based (for example), they are still supposed to conduct a meaningful and detailed review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com