Posted on 02/10/2003 10:11:50 AM PST by areafiftyone
(1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) The First Amendment rights of anti-war demonstrators have not been violated by the city's decision to block them from marching past the United Nations on Saturday, a federal judge ruled Monday.
Citing "this time of heightened security," U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones said the city's need to protect the public outweighs the right of demonstrators to proceed with plans to march past the UN.
"While the court recognizes the distinct importance of marching, the city's restriction on marching is not a restriction on pure speech, but rather a restriction on the manner in which plaintiff may communicate its message," Jones wrote.
The protesters will be allowed to demonstrate in a designated area near the United Nations. The demonstration is being organized by United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of anti-war groups that is sponsoring rallies throughout the world on Saturday.
The city had rejected a parade permit for Saturday's rally because police could not assure public safety for up to 100,000 people without better information from organizers, city lawyer Rachel Goldman argued in court last week.
"The First Amendment right is not absolute. The plaintiffs do not have a right to march or protest any way they want, wherever they want and how they want," Goldman said. "We don't have a general ban against protest marches in the city of New York."
Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, argued that the city was using "a theoretical possibility something terrible is going to happen to cancel the right of people to participate in peaceful protest."
He accused the city of quietly adopting a blanket policy of refusing parade permits for certain parts of Manhattan.
The United Nations is considered an especially sensitive security landmark after it was included in 1993 as a target of terrorists who plotted to blow up five New York City landmarks. The plot was thwarted and a dozen men were eventually convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Again I have difficulty with the issue on its face. I doubt I will ever answer the question of government restriction on assembly to my own satisfaction.
But if a group who has applied for the permit has potential protesters clamoring for more than peaceful assembly, that probably does not bode well for its case overall. NYC is worried about security and disruption. I don't see how United for Peace can dispel those fears.
Then again when is the next new moon? For all this protesting may become academic. For when America is at war there are few options available to those who dissented beforehand.
A couple of questions:
1: several of these socialist marches have stated publically that they plan to disrupt traffick, and on the last three marches in DC they stated not only a wish to disrupt traffic, but a plan to purposly disturb the peace in order to get themselves arrested...did they mention traffic disruption and other disturbance of the peace as two goals for the NYC march?
2: How many FReeps have been relegated to certain designated areas due to security precautions? (NOT the ones where the anarchists already had the street, and FReepers needed someplace safe to counterprotest) I seem to remember that happening at several FReeps of Clinton.
I haven't seen much except from the odd poster over on the Dark Side(DU, bartcop etc). However the black bloc is not going to annouce their intentions on a website, though you can check for the aftermath on indynews in San Francisco. They have posted pics before. The black bloc will definitely be there and make their presence known. They will have their agents in the crowd ready to pick up stragglers to run amok, inviting police response and arrest. Any Starbucks, McDonald's World Bank or INS office had better be prepared. These morons are actually hoping for a repeat of the 68 DEM convention in Chicago as a way of bringing attention to their cause.
2: How many FReeps have been relegated to certain designated areas due to security precautions? (NOT the ones where the anarchists already had the street, and FReepers needed someplace safe to counterprotest) I seem to remember that happening at several FReeps of Clinton.
Free speech zones became a way of life during the Toon administration. Even more despicable is Planned Parenthood using RICO statues to shut down pro-lifers.
Although some misguided moron across the street from my laundromat hung a gigantic peace sign in lights on his fire escape. Coincidentally, the same apartment is displaying window posters for "tougher rent laws".
It's hard to fold my laundry and roll my eyes in disgust at the same time.
I can't retaliate personally, since I live on a different street and my apartment is in the back of the building in any case. So I will have to reach out to someone who lives across the street from the peacenik, and provide them with an American flag in lights for their fire escape...
Just reading through i was wondering when someone was going to get to the real point.
Thanx doug
LOL ever drove past a Hog farm? .....About the same smell i would imagine.
Doug, actually, no--but it's as good an excuse as any :-))
Very true. IAC sprang up around Milosevic and the Kosovo war with a "Free Slobodan" campaign and appears connected with the free-mumia people. ANSWER was created almost immediately after 9-11.
Funny how these groups "spring" up to denounce the evil that is the US immediately proceeding US action against evil in the world; Milosevic, the Taliban and now Saddam. And then they get agitated for calling a spade a spade...in this case being called anti-american(though I will allow that a majority of peace protesters are more anti-Bush than anything else). And yet folks who see the CIA as creating aids and selling crack can't make the leap that these groups do not have America's interests in mind. Is that these guys are such darn good organizers? Or do the protesters know full well who these people are and agree with these organizations?
Tough spot to be in; unwitting accomplice, ostrich, or full bore anti-american. Well when you lie down with dogs what can one expect?
I probably ought to mention here that if they were not allowed to protest at all, I'd be screaming my fool head off - and thinking "I can't believe I'm defending these creeps" - but if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.
Yes, alot of them(not all) are ardently in favor hate speech codes & conservative speech restrictions, but will screech at any restrictions placed on what they see as valid speech. Basically the antithesis of what the 1st amendment is intended to be.
I probably ought to mention here that if they were not allowed to protest at all, I'd be screaming my fool head off - and thinking "I can't believe I'm defending these creeps" - but if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.
I would to. The day we do not stand for free speech for those we disagree with is the day we no longer deserve it ourselves.
You sat that like it is a bad thing!
I've been lurking at DU, as I am wont to do. A lot of them are talking about going down anyway.
I think I will pop some popcorn Saturday, sit down, and watch as therse animals are hauled off to jail.
Should be fun ;)
LOL! Hmmm, maybe that accounts for "global warming."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.