[HairOfTheDog]

Well, if one is cynical, one could assume that they selectively enforce the ordinance (and we still don't know for sure there is one - that was my question)

However, I would imagine that they are not selective about stopping disruptions and protests on the bridge. I am going to guess that the police take a dim view of all points of view that choose the bridge as a place to announce it.

I am not taking sides on this... I commented because the "political protests" are not inherently illegal and subject to the stiff penalty mentioned... but disrupting traffic on the bridge might be. If they have written an ordinance about the bridge, it would apply to all, not just "our side"... and we should at least be honest about what happened and not assume we have been victimized until we know for sure.

[Dakmar]

What's the situation out there, LN? Are protests on the bridge a commonplace event?

[William Tell]

HairOfTheDog said: "However, I would imagine that they are not selective about stopping disruptions and protests on the bridge. "

When their was a public desire to celebrate an anniversary of the building of the bridge, traffic was disrupted completely while the bridge was solidly populated by people on foot.

It isn't about traffic, it's about values and control.