Florida Gov Shuts Down Tea Party - (Too many might show) (NOT Satire)

Tax Day Tea Party ^ | 3/30/09 | Eric Odom

[GeorgiaDawg32]

(SNIP)

You don’t remember that pre-revolutionary history? I should say you shouldn’t, because it didn’t happen. But flash forward a few hundred years and you’ll find it is happening today in Cape Coral, Florida where city officials canceled a tax day tea party gathering because they “feel too many people could show-up.”

That’s right, folks, the God-given, long-held American right to assemble and protest the actions of our government has been canceled due to too much popularity of the protest.

(SNIP)

[BenLurkin]

Requiring insurance based upon the amount of expected marchers is an ordinary part of processing a request for parade permit.

What makes it unconstitutional is if the insurance requirement is onerous in general or — more particularlyy — if it is applied differently depending on who is seeking a permit.

[Centurion2000]

Send in the lawyers!

Backed up with militia if necessary. Oh yeah, government will respect our rights ..... frakking IDIOT municipalities.

[justiceseeker93]

Tenacious 1 was absolutely correct.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Numerous SCOTUS cases have extended this prohibition against Congress (and the feds) to state and local legislatures and administrative agencies as well.

Many local jurisdictions require permits to hold demonstrations, but can't deny the permit arbitrarily - as seems to be the situation in this instance.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Danae]

I take it they are going to do it anysay eh>

Certainly a great way to increase popularity of the event! LOL

Thanks Gov!

[gargoyle]

...No, Hell no! Arrest me!!!

[TomasUSMC]

Well don’t ask. Just say to all your friends, hey lets meet at this or that place for some tea. Ain’t against the law to have tea is it?

[Freedom2specul8]

unbelievable.... !!!

considering all the peaceful protests that have occurred across the US..just what are they really worried about. Hearing the truth?

[philetus]

Bring a rainbow flag and claim the government is suppressing your rights.”

Why make believe?The Gov. IS suppressing your rights.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Glenn]

Defy them!

Hold the rally. Here is your chance to replicate the actions of your ancestors.

[ml/nj]

Many local jurisdictions require permits to hold demonstrations, but can't deny the permit arbitrarily - as seems to be the situation in this instance.

My impression was that they told the organizer she needed insurance and maybe some other things that cost money if she wanted to have a demonstration where more than 500 people were expected and she declined. I don't think it is as unreasonable as the headline would make it seem.

ML/NJ

[yantis]

"Freedom Works.org, an advocacy organization that fights for lower taxes, less government and more freedom and is headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has stepped in with an organizer and an insurance policy to save the Cape Coral, Fla., Tea Party.

You can't keep a good Tea Party down!

[Eagle Eye]

Do I sense a “Dan’s Bake Sale” type gathering?

[WalterSkinner]

..I see another Bull Connor event coming...

[Sam's Army]

UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS PAGE OF THE ARTICLE AS OF THIS MORNING:

"First of all, in case it has not already been posted: the April 1 Cape Coral Tea Party is back on and is sponsored by a group named FreedomWorks. I encourage everyone who can to be there!

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/cape-coral-tea-party-is-on

So, the following may be somewhat of a moot point, but I will post what I know…

I have been in contact with both Lynn Rosko (the original Cape Coral Tea Party organizer) and the Cape Coral City Manager Terrance Stewart. I sent a protest email to Cape Coral officials, and I received a response from Mr. Stewart. I was subsequently involved in an email discussion between Ms. Rosko and Mr. Stewart. I have never met either party, and I will let these highlights speak for themselves. You can make your own judgements.

Ms. Rosko: They are the ones that insisted there would be 500 or more people at this local gathering which would enable them to invoke all their rules which would have included indemnifying the City with $1 million dollars of insurance, cost of Police, Fire, EMS and cleanup fee and leaving me in an untenable liability situation and significant costs.

Mr. Stewart: The City did not insist there would be greater than 500 attendees, we merely raised the concern because of our awareness that this type of event was garnering significant press and interest nationwide and believed that interest may draw more than 500. With that knowledge it would have been totally irresponsible to Ms. Rosko and to our community to let her proceed without informing her of that concern. We even offered to post a ranger at the park entrance to count heads and stop further entrants at 499. One must ask oneself why we would do this if we were attempting to stop the event. She says that she was left in an untenable liability situation with possible significant costs. Our rules did not create the liability situation, only the event itself would have done so. As to the cost for Police, Fire and EMS, those cost would be incurred and must be borne by someone.

Ms. Rosko: This is not true! Mr. Pohlman was adamant that there would be 500 people, bringing into play all the rules and regulations in their attempt to stop the Tea Party of “local residents” to discuss local issues! I was told by Mr. Pohlman that he would have a Park Ranger there to count the people as they came into the park and if it was over 500, basically it would be shut down! It was not offered, it was stated as a fact.

I sent the following question to Mr. Stewart: Was Ms. Rosko required to accept liability for everyone’s actions if the group size was less than 500? To me that is the crux of the issue. Requiring that an individual accept responsibility for the actions of 499 other individuals (or be faced with paying for an insurance policy to avoid such personal liability for small crowds) seems unreasonable to me. If this was the case, I think the system is broken, because it would definitely have the effect of curtailing free speech rights. No one in their right mind would accept responsibility for other individuals, meaning that if they can’t afford to pay for insurance, there is no protest — even of 499 people.

I did not receive any further response from Mr. Stewart. You can judge for yourself what silence indicates."

[Myrddin]

The politicians are only sensitive if the rights being suppressed belong to some protected minority. Leverage that fear. Bring the protected parties out to get their attention.

[facedown]

Show up anyway.

[justiceseeker93]

If this issue of a requirement for an insurance policy as a condition for a permit were ever litigated, I'd guess that the municipality's insurance policy requirement might be considered by a court to be an "undue burden" (or something similar) on the demonstrators' rights to peaceful assembly and to petition for redress of grievances. The court would have to consider, among other things, the cost of the insurance policy and whether other groups in similar circumstances would be required to do likewise.

I don't know offhand if this type of a case has ever been litigated, and I'd hope that the municipality and the Tea Party organizers would come to an agreement so that such litigation would not be necessary.