Good Question on Freedom of Speech and Public Property

 "Texaswoman" wrote:

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.

She is referring to an earlier post on this blog where I linked to an article out of Richmond, Virginia.  The article suggests that Teaparty organizers are going to try and recoup the costs associated with putting on a public event at a park in Richmond because the "occupiers" aren't being forced to abide by the same requirements.  Because El Paso's city council has waived the rules for their own group of "occupiers," I pointed at the city would now have let everyone wanting to use the park abide by those same rules.  Obviously "Texaswoman" doesn't agree, but asked me to "explain" if I "see it differently." I will do that here.

"Texaswoman" uses common sense (as we all should) when she points out that a family reunion held in a public park is much different  than a protest.  That's pretty obvious to you, me and any other normal person.   The requirements set forth by the city for gathering of certain sizes are there to protect the city, the facilities and the people having the event. 

Most of the requirements are no-brainers.  If you're going to have a lot of people at an event it behooves you to have insurance to protect yourself and others in case of an accident.  Having a permit for amplification (sound system) ensures that you're the only person in the park broadcasting that day and helps you entertain your attendees.  And who wouldn't want the proper amount of bathroom facilities on site?  Security allows your event to be safe and for you to control the actions and activities of those attending - always a good idea when you have large groups of people in one place. Again, most of the stuff the city requires for an event in a park is beneficial to everyone.  However, those things are expensive and the fact that you have to have all of them to have a large event at a park is a barrier to usage.  In special cases the city has chosen to waive certain things, like insurance, with the caveat that the city would pick up the cost of whatever the organizers were lacking.  There's a special budget item just for those occasions.

Now, what has happened with the occupiers is a little bit different than the usual waiving of requirements.  There are several reasons for that and I'll explain them first before I get into protest use vs. nonprotest use and what exactly constitutes a "protest" or "freedom of expression/speech."

The "occupiers" gathered once down there, found out that they'd need a permit to gather again and applied for one.   Lots and lots of exceptions had to have been made for the "occupiers" in order to issue them a permit for their event.  Believe me, I've helped a few organizations put on events in public places and it's a hassle.  Just take a gander at the paperwork and fees HERE.  Do you see all the requirements for filing deadlines ahead of the event?  Do you think the "occupiers" met those deadlines? Do you think they are paying $100 a day to be there?  Are they following any of those rules? Are they following the park rules? Read the simple park rules HERE.

So - we can all agree that heaven and earth were moved for the "occupiers" - at least the heaven and earth between El Paso's city hall and San Jacinto Plaza.  You have to figure that some elected officials intervened on their behalf in order fast track their requests/paperwork and dismiss almost every single customary requirement for having such an event over such a long period of time.  This would never happen for you, even if your event was aimed at curing kids with cancer for free.  You aren't that connected.

The big quesiton on everyone's mind is - Why?  Why were they allowed to camp out at the park even before the city council voted to suspend the rules against doing so this past Tuesday? Why weren't they arrested on day one?  Why did they get to break the rules first and get permission to do so later? 

Protests of any kind can turn into real nightmares very quickly for government at all levels.  They have to strike a balance between upholding the law and not causing a riot (the idea of "causing" and who is to blame is always a bone of contention).  If you don't think the city manager, police chief and fire chief haven't all been educated on how to deal with these types of events - you're wrong.  It's something they go to conferences to discuss best practices on all the time.  They know exactly how to deal with the situation - it's the elected people who are clueless, as I will show you later.

The first thing city officials want to avoid is the ACLU and its lawyers.  If they had tossed the protesters out of the park at 6:01 p.m. on the first day of the protest, a lawsuit would have been filed seconds after the doors of the courthouse were unlocked the next morning.  A frivolous lawsuit for sure, but a costly one that would bring attention, and more people to the park to illegally camp out.

Second, removing a group of eager youths wanting to bring attention to themselves would have devolved the situation into a mob scene.  The press would have been all over it and the size of the crowd would only grow larger and more agitated after the police stepped in.  They'd also have a new issue to protest on top of "Wall Street" - alleged police brutality.  Bottom line - they didn't want to turn these people into "martyrs" and incite further "occupation."

I'm sure the protesters were told they weren't supposed to be camping there.  If they weren't told that, then the police were not following the rules.  In New York the protesters are told daily -"you're not allowed to camp out here, but we're not going to ticket you or remove you today."  It's a matter of keeping the legal grounds to remove them in place - a proper warning, if you will.

The city manager and the police chief probably figured that these "occupiers" would hang around for a couple of days, get bored and move on.  There was no reason to start a fight with them if they were just going to be there for a short time.  Well, they exceeded the city's expectations and questions started to be asked about the legality of the protesters staying over night - which was clearly against the rules.  Something had to be done. 

Instead of explaining to the "occupiers" that they can no longer camp in the park because if they get to camp San Jacinto Plaza then the city has to let people camp in all their parks and then every park becomes a bum motel and that is bad news because parks are for everyone and not just bums who want to squat there because they have no other place to go. 

What happened instead was far worse than anything I could have imagined... or should is say - far dumber than anything I could have imagined.  The city council made an official exception to the rules for this group and they did it by vote in a meeting where it was recorded.  They idiotically set a "precedent" in an effort to coddle rule breakers.  Because they are stupid, they didn't realize that by setting that precedent in one case, they suspended the rules IN ALL CASES!

Some of you, like "Texaswoman" are saying "but but but but FREE SPEECH! THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE!" And you're right - people have rights in this country, but they don't have the right to violate the law in order to exercise those rights.  There's a misconception out there that you can do whatever you want on public property and call it "freedom speech" or "freedom of expression."  You can hold a sign in a public park as long as  you abide by the rules - and if the rules say you can't be in the park after six, you have to leave.  You can't block sidewalks, you can't block access to public, or private buildings. The list of things you "can't do" while protesting is quite long.  

Bottom line - you can "say" whatever you want to say, but you can't do it where ever you want to whenver you want to.  I'm sorry, that's the law.  If you sit down in the middle of a public road with a sign and you don't have a permit to do so - you're going to be arrested if you refuse to leave on your own accord.  Even in Washington DC  - in front of the White House, you have to get a permit to protest and you have to follow the rules or they will arrest you.

Just so we're clear here:

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SCREW OTHERS OUT OF THE USE OF PUBLIC SPACES.  

Why do you think state funded colleges came up with "free speech zones?"  So that the students wouldn't block access to the Chemistry building during a protest.  Those protesters don't have the right to bar tuition paying students from attending classes in that public building.  Everybody has equal access to public areas and your use of the area can not infringe on other's ability to use the area as well.

"Texaswoman" argues that the "occupiers" should get special treatment because they are "protesting" and exercising "one's first amendment rights."  Who is to say what is "protesting" and exercising "one's first amendment rights" and what is not?  The city council surely is not in a position to judge whether one group is protesting and another is not.  That would require the city council qualify a person's issue as "valid" or "not valid," and they haven't been given that kind of power.  They'd also have to define what constitutes a "protest" and they'd have to put it to paper and make it law.  These people don't understand simple state procurement laws, they'd be entirely out of their league defining something as complicated as what constitutes "free speech." 

Some might say that the "occupiers" are "camping" and that a few signs with nonsensical or vague statements on them don't constitute a "protest."  Others would argue that their mere existence in this time and space continium is a "protest."  The whole definition of "protest" gets hard to define, which is why the federal government pretty much stays out of defining exactly what is and what isn't a "protest."

Here's where city council messed up. Because they made a special exception for a group of people - no matter what prompted that special exception - they have to make it for everyone.  The city council can not qualify any one individual's request to use the park against another individual's request. 

If a group of homeless crackheads want to "occupy" the park in December to protest the high price of malt liquor, the city council has to extend to them the exact exemptions and accomodations they extended to the "occupiers" protesting the vague idea of "Wall Street." City Council can not decide they don't think their issues are good enough to provide them the same advantages that were provided to the "occupiers."

They also have to do all these "favors" for the crackheads in the same amount of time they did it for the "occupiers." 

Why do they have to do all of that? Because they (city council) set a legal precedent for doing so by voting on it in council.  Previous to the vote there was no institutional/official permission for them to break the rules - the city could have kept a legal standing for control over the park had they just kept ignoring that a rule was being broken.  The city council took what was illegal, and made it legal for a single group of people - or actually, legal for everyone if you know how the law works.  You can't make it so for one and not the others.

A lawyer can point out to a judge the specific actions taken by the city government to accommodate a group of individuals - therefore a judge can quite easily rule on that question in front of him and the law is very clear on how the government must treat us... something about being created equal blah blah blah equal protection blah blah blah.

Does "Texaswoman" have a point about the family reunions?  You bet.  In fact, most people would never try to circumvent the park rules because they know they are there for a reason.  Porta potties, security and insurance are all good ideas - things that should be done to ensure you have a great event.  Most people/groups are not going to ask for special treatment in light of the privileges extended to the "occupiers."  However, they have the legal standing to do so if they want to.  And if there is an advocate for homeless people out there who want them to have the ability to sleep in parks (like they do in DC - no permit needed, you are welcome to stay forever), they can force the city to allow it now.  There will be someone out there who will use this against the city - I guarantee it. 

I would like all of you to take away a couple things from this post.

1. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right exercise your free speech after the posted closing time at the public park.  Because you were educated by a bunch of unionized America hating constitution ignoring liberal teachers, you are under the impression you can do whatever the hell you want whenever you want as long as it makes YOU "feel" good.  The truth is that in America  we have a good mix of the concepts of liberty - positive and negative liberty (look it up). We have the "freedom to..." and the "freedom from..."  For example, you should have the freedom to express your thoughts on the Dallas Cowboys.  I should have freedom from being forced to listen to your thoughts on the Dallas Cowboys.

2. Your city council is dumber than illiterate dirt and they've put you in a bad situation because they can't out-think a fence post.  Their emotional motivation for their votes is idiotic and costly.  If you don't contact the members of council who voted to allow this, you're as dumb as they are.  There's a reason El Paso is behind every other city of its size in the nation - and far behind them - because of votes like this.  You are an embarrassment to the rest of Texas when you let your elected officials do things like they did here.  And you wonder why you get nothing from Austin. 

Comments

[Carl Starr]

A city can give many reasons for denying a permit, most along the subjective logic of public health and safety, maybe such as the Plaza there may be even other reasons eg Holidays, Commerce etc...what the city cannot do is deny a permit based on Content.

The city can also offer alternative time place and manner accomadations etc based on logestics etc, no doubt each non political event or political protest requires varying police presence etc, some event need horse and donkey accomendations exceptions etc....I dont thing it is discrimination that a city encours more expense for one public event versus another, its to be expected to some extend depending on the logestics etc of each event. What the city cannot do is dicrimnate based on content of the event or protest.

on another note:
"The Supreme Court has made it clear that once a private organization has a permit to assemble in a public place they also have the right to determine what groups they will include in their assembly and to exclude others for any reason - including discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. n119"

[tired of worthless public employees]

who on council voted for it and who didnt ? why didnt mcnabb say something ? he is paid 195k a year.

[Tim Collins]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/richmond-tea-party-sues-city-charge-occupy-protesters-or-refund-10000-for-rallies-at-plaza/

Richmond Tea Party Sues City: Charge #Occupy Protesters Or Refund $10,000 For Rallies at Plaza

[WAYtooSMARTforTHIScrowd]

Yesterday I was calling one of those "adult" book stores to reserve my order for the Lindsey-Playboy mag, (the limited, deluxe 3-D scratch n' sniff edition) when I realized,"Hey, why don't we raise some money to pay for the costs that the local occupiers are incurring?" And if we have any money left over, the occupiers can use those finances to pay for food and drink, because let's face it, Mad Dog 20/20 doesn't grow on trees.

What do I have in mind? Can you say bake sale?! Sure, I knew that you could. I am definately going to do my part by selling home-made fudge near busy intersections. In fact, I'm going to brew up a variety of flavors that any good leftist would be proud of. They include: 1) Wicked Wall Street Walnut 2) anti-capitalist caramel, and a local flavor that will have the lefties goose stepping with glee 3) Zionists can go to hell Jalapeno.

Whoever could have imagined that wealth re-distribution could be so darn scrumdiddlyishous?!

[Texaswoman]

Well David if you wish to have a 1% counter protest up there on Rim Road have at. The new flexibility that council passed is for everyone including the 1%. So quit crying.

[Gossip Girl]

It doesn't surprise me that our cracker-jack city council would allow this in the name of progressivism, after all they do nothing to stop the throngs of beggars who love to suck off the charity of drivers stuck at intersection so they can get enough money for their next beer/wine/crack rock!

[Texaswoman]

True enough but you cannot paint all with the same brush. There are surely those who need help but fall through the cracks and end up begging. So at what point do you say no? Do you take measures to help those in need knowing such measures will be taking advantage of by others or do yo just walk away?

[Gossip Girl]

You say no at the curbs edge and force them to make a choice between going for help at the agencies that will help them or the bottle. Take the proposal at council to fund $75k to have a van go around to offer to pick up the homeless begging to take them to those agencies that was instead treated like a funded cart to take them to the ovens. The demogoguery (sp?)is astounding that occurs in city hall. Instead we are comfortable with the Police Explorers giving there time on Saturdays to clean out the shanty camps around the off ramps that those "homeless" choose to live in risking those kid's safety. And the homeless do choose because they could get to the Mission and give up the bottle or drugs or stay on the street. I also recommend reading the book by Guilani on when he cleaned up New York. The "homeless" had a whole lot of outstanding warrants or was mentally ill needing real help and should not be on the street. By stopping and checking IDs for the homeless they reduced greatly the danger to the public. When you give the beggar change on the offramp you are perpetuating the problem and become the problem as well.

[Carl Starr]

The case law also gives examples of a curfew or gang injunction ie exceptions made for protected 1st Amendment activities not parties or general socializing but political speech including demostrations, also education activities, in such cases a city or county has been unable to restrict those type of activities, normal socializing yes.

[Texaswoman]

GG

Really. If you talk to the homeless you hear tales of how bad these so called shelters are. They will tell you it's safer not to be there. If you are a homeless family do you really want to be there in such a shelter. Many homeless who are on the street are there because of mental illness and services to address their problems are scarce and the first to be cut or elimanated at the whim of politicians.

As far as getting off the bottle or the drugs or any other addictive behavior all I can say is if it was easy we wouldn't have this problem. Problem is it's not. I've seen in friends who have struggled to beat alcohol only to fail time after time after time. Some eventually reach a draw with the addiction but they never win as a return is as close as the next unguarded moment. It ain't easy and your implication that it is is a disservice to those struggling to quit their addiction.