It's already happening in Richmond, Virginia and it's spreading like wild-fire to other cities. Seems as if cities allowing "occupiers" to break the rules is making law abiding citizens look for the same break.
Read HERE.
You can't give privileges to one group on public property and not extend the same ones to everyone else. The government can not pick and choose between groups of people.
If I were renting space at city park or city facility in the near future, I would demand I get the same deal as the "occupiers." That means no insurance for the event, no security (the city has to provide uniformed officers like they are for the occupiers) and porta-potties are optional. If you have ever put an event together on city property, you know how expensive it can get having to have a myriad of different requirements to meet. There is no way the city can deny you the same access to those facilities as they have given to the "occupiers." If the city does not cut you the same deal, you can sue them.
Again, because council is made up of morons, they've put the taxpayer's money in jeopardy.
it needs more research...political speech is the most protected right...a premitted protest is a little differant fact than nonpolitical homeless fact, the homeless have a 1st amendment right to gather but it does not mean all homeless gatherings are political speech...the flip side to this issue is that actually it is the homeless only who have legally been able to sleep on a city plaza park bench eg case law has shown when all shelters are full the homeless have beat tickets and jailings for sleepy on park benches without a permit with the help of ACLU type orgs. A city can exercise time place and manner re 1st amendment...in other words while a city cannot ban protests a alternative site can be offered.
Posted by: Carl Starr | October 27, 2011 at 01:36 PM
in other words had the tea party apllied for a permit and denied then a unequal treatment argument is stronger but simply saying then all classes of people must be treated same ie homeless, disabled etc is not exactlly true only similarly situated with similar facts.
Posted by: Carl Starr | October 27, 2011 at 01:49 PM
I think David you are wrong. This is a protest. An exercise of one's First Amendment Rights not family reunion. Insurance for the reunion is quite proper. Insurance for a protest is suppression of speech. That's how I see it. If you see it differently please explain.
Posted by: Texaswoman | October 27, 2011 at 03:10 PM
Nope, he's absolutely correct. The Tea Party groups were required to pay permit fees (in a couple of cities they were in excess of $10,000, purchase insurance, security and provide sanitation facilities of 2 porta's per 50 people). If you have food available (even if you don't charge for it) you have to have health permits, inspections and food handler cards for all your workers, and your food must come from inspected food distribution and prep facilities.
In El Paso's case, the group did apply for and receive a permit, but they have also received variances that other groups do not receive - including overnight use, food service and not providing porta-potties. Therefore, when Pastor Brown's group makes the same requests, the city will have to bend.
Posted by: dot | October 28, 2011 at 08:39 AM
The city changed rules this past Tuesday to allow for flexibility in it's park usage rules. Remember this is a protest not an event like the Tea Party put on. Therein lies the difference.
Posted by: Texaswoman | October 28, 2011 at 10:12 AM
When is a gathering a protest versus and event?
I seem to remember the Tea Party things were called rallys - if they said they were protests would they qualify?
Posted by: Tim Collins | October 28, 2011 at 10:43 AM