[beardog]

works for me.

[Riley]

When you're talking about 10,000 G-8 protestors, 'speech' means burning dumpsters, overturned cars, harassed citizens and smashed windows of businesses.

[An.American.Expatriate]

While I am always leary of any restrictions on the First Ammendment, I can understand the city's standpoint in requiring a deposit for the cleanup effort and placing limits on the types of poles used to carry the placards. Both of these "limitations" in no way infringe upon a individuals right to speech. They do pose some limits on groups, although a group of 6 or so obviously won't be creating the mess that 10,000 would. In effect the city is saying that the organizers of the protests are to be treated the say way that organizers of any other type of gathering. They are responsible for the "cleanup", and, in some cases a deposit for such services may be required.

I think this is a good, common sense approach to a difficult problem.

[kevkrom]

I'm in two minds on this... no person should have their free speech rights infringed, and the right to "peacefully assemble" is guaranteed by the Constitution... however... group protests, especially of this size, do pose a bit of a problem for civil order, maintenance, security, etc.

Any organized gathering like this probably should have to post some kind of assurance that they will cover any "above and beyond" costs, but it seems like the Georgia law is overly restrictive.

[freeeee]

The new laws are a response to the violent protests during the 1999 World Trade Organization (news - web sites) meeting in Seattle and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Protesters flew planes into buildings on 9-11? WOW! I heard it here first!

[zeugma]

These types of restrictions are getting more and more common, and more and more restrictive. This is not a good thing IMO. Many Freepers chafed at the restrictions that often accompanied the impeached one, and justifiably so. Just because many of the protesters in this case are socialist/communist/anarchists doesn't make it right.

Freedom is for everone or it will be for noone.

[lilylangtree]

Can see a lawsuit by the ACLU down the road.

[FreedomPoster]

You're in the neighborhood. Thought you might want a ping, and might even want to comment.

[Vigilantcitizen]

First, the headline is totally misleading:

"Georgia Passes Laws Limiting Protests"

Second paragraph of the article...

The coastal city of Brunswick, where Randall hopes to gather up to 10,000 people to protest the world leaders' summit, passed a law last month that places conditions on public demonstrations.

Second, the protesters are in for a bad day if they start trouble...I'm sure the security personnel will be heavily populated with local prison "goon squad" employees. Not a nice bunch of guys at all.

[DoughtyOne]

Free speech? Yes. Deal harshly with violence and destruction? Yes.

I understand the thought behind this law, but view it as unconstitutional. Further, I do not like protesters being moved miles away from the activity of summits or meetings. Within reason those attending these conferences should see what the public thinks about what they are doing.

Now I realize there needs to be security concerns, so I'd make sure these peckerheads were disarmed before allowing them to protest, otherwise the leaders who are just glorified citizens anyway, should have to put up with noise and discomfort to screw the populace, if that's what they are doing.

Those who are doing right, should have the character to stand up for that right, and damn the protesters, full speed ahead.

[Tamar1973]

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) has threatened to sue, saying the laws "place impermissible limits on free speech."

This is the same group that supports the laws which tell anti-abortion protestors they can't protest within 500 ft of an abortion clinic.

Another example of liberal, ACLU hypocricy.

[Glenn]

Poll taxes were deemed illegal and this set of laws amounts to a poll tax on protestors. That's not right and will surely be found illegal down the road.

And if these morons think a rule is going to stop 10,000 apparent scofflaws from tearing through their hamlet, they are in for a surprise. The only thing they will do is push this to a Kent State situation where the guard will be called to clean up the mess.

[upchuck]

Brunswick is the nearest inland community to Sea Island, which will be off limits to demonstrators. Savannah, 60 miles north, will house 5,000 international journalists and dignitaries.

Brunswick is a pretty small place. I doubt it can hold 10,000 protesters without stacking them :)

I wonder why they're heading north on I95? A quick glance at a Georgia map shows heading south on I95 to Jacksonville, FL to be closer. Jax is considerably larger than Savannah also.

Regarding the free speech issue.. IMHO, it makes sense for the city to require a permit. This gives the city notice of the event so the city can plan for it. Requiring a deposit is pretty much on the edge for me. I'd rather have the police disperse the gathering if they (police) felt the protesters were making a mess.

As far as overtime pay, etc. goes, the city and state should consider this a "cost of doing business" and build this into their respective budgets.

[lodwick]

Welcome to the NWO's new america.

What steenking 1st Amendment?

[spunkets]

This is only possible, because of past leftist failures to punish those that were out, not to protest, but destroy. This sort of prior restraint is abhorent to Freedom.