Can government use curfews & other restrictions to outlaw peaceful protests?

clownboy · May 4, 2015

jamesrage said:
As far as I know this was not done during the occupy protests.They took over a public space,camped out and refused to leave.

It was in Portland.

clownboy · May 4, 2015

joko104 said:
Your second sentence is a false assumption since that did not happen. Your last sentence is an oxymoron.

It did happen which you'd know if you were following the events and now you think the US Constitution is an oxymoron? Your problem is that you seem to believe that riot==protest. That chanting, shouting and threatening==peaceable assembly.

Helvidius · May 4, 2015

joko104 said:
Except blocking traffic is illegal.

Therein is another problem with how things were handled. The police should ticket or arrest (depending on the offense) those breaking the law. That'd go a long way to stop it growing and escalating.

Instead, the police typically create a defensive battle line and do nothing about those actually committing crimes - even if outright within their view. To just stand back and watch it happen. In doing so, it escalates. THEN, after the escalation allowed to happen, to declare some crisis that could have been avoided in the first place.

Go to ANY poor crowded community and declare police aren't going to do anything and there will be looting and arson. And it will escalate. So nothing is done for a couple of days/nights allowing it to escalate nearly out of control, and then suspending legal rights in an extreme reaction beyond what is necessary.

The first media pictures should have been of looters being arrested by scores of police - not the police standing back and just watching.

Blocking traffic is not illegal if you have a permit. And that is EXACTLY why there should be permits issued for protests. Parades and protests block traffic all the time in cities, but the city has time to prepare for the protest and redirect traffic, setup security, etc. when a permit has been given.

The OP suggested this was about protests in general, but I am guessing this is related to Baltimore. No doubt, you are correct, the situation in Baltimore was handled very poorly. Yes, anyone committing a crime should be arrested or ticketed. However, I still think government has a right to limit protests as long as they do not discriminate based on content and viewpoint.

Napoleon · May 4, 2015

Helvidius said:
Blocking traffic is not illegal if you have a permit. And that is EXACTLY why there should be permits issued for protests. Parades and protests block traffic all the time in cities, but the city has time to prepare for the protest and redirect traffic, setup security, etc. when a permit has been given.

And therein lies the problem. I understand that, from one point of view, government-issued permits may be necessary in some circumstances for safety and/or logistical reasons, but it defeats the purpose of having a right to assemble.

radcen · May 4, 2015

Napoleon said:
And therein lies the problem. I understand that, from one point of view, government-issued permits may be necessary in some circumstances for safety and/or logistical reasons, but it defeats the purpose of having a right to assemble.

That's what I've always thought. Doesn't getting permission kind of defeat the purpose?

coyotedelmar · May 4, 2015

Yes the can, though it should be (I don't know the law off-hand) only for public safety. Ideally they shouldn't use curfews though, and don't really agree with doing it in Baltimore. If you think about it, they basically punished people and businesses for a group of criminals that took to looting and starting fires, in part because the genius idea of policing was stand in riot lines and do nothing. Block traffic from any other directions even? Nah, better just standing blocks away while people do dangerous things that could get someone killed.

As far as permits, agree permits are good for protests as it helps allocate resources and the such. As long as a protest isn't going to block off streets though, not a big deal if it isn't permitted. Police should try to get on the scene though and work the people to keep them out of the streets, if need be help with crossing streets and other things (and arresting those who are just there to cause trouble).

Helvidius · May 5, 2015

Napoleon said:
And therein lies the problem. I understand that, from one point of view, government-issued permits may be necessary in some circumstances for safety and/or logistical reasons, but it defeats the purpose of having a right to assemble.

Idt it defeats the purpose at all. That would be like saying, "What is the point of free speech if I can't make terrorist threats against my neighbor?" Just because the right to assemble is not absolute does not mean it is not significant. The fact is, you can ask the government for a permit and the government cannot refuse your request because they disagree with your message. They have absolutely no discretion in that regard. All they can say is the time in which you must conduct the protest. So perhaps you need the government's approval as to time and place, but the message is not infringed upon.

Montecresto · May 7, 2015

joko104 said:
The government has used declaring curfews, establishing "protest areas" as the only place protesters may be, requiring a permit to have a protest gathering or march, and other rules that effectively criminal peaceful protests by which the police may arrest and criminally prosecute all protesters - and anyone who does not agree they can be basically placed under house arrest at night.

Curfews for adults is a very different set of issues for adults than it is for children.

There are other questions such as having an inherent right to be in public, as opposed to basically under house arrest every night in your own home.

I would imagine bars are none too happy with a 10 pm curfew nor are companies and employees of night shifts.

Is a curfew, "designated protest area," and a requirement to obtain permits for a protest rally or march legitimate? Unconstitutional? Good ideas?

A total bad idea that has existed and been used throughout both republican and democratic administrations as just another indicator of the differences in the two parties.

Paleocon · May 7, 2015

joko104 said:
The government has used declaring curfews, establishing "protest areas" as the only place protesters may be, requiring a permit to have a protest gathering or march, and other rules that effectively criminal peaceful protests by which the police may arrest and criminally prosecute all protesters - and anyone who does not agree they can be basically placed under house arrest at night.

Curfews for adults is a very different set of issues for adults than it is for children.

There are other questions such as having an inherent right to be in public, as opposed to basically under house arrest every night in your own home.

I would imagine bars are none too happy with a 10 pm curfew nor are companies and employees of night shifts.

Is a curfew, "designated protest area," and a requirement to obtain permits for a protest rally or march legitimate? Unconstitutional? Good ideas?

If the protests in question are destabilizing, then all of the attempts to effectively outlaw them you mention are good.

Lakryte · May 10, 2015

Government can prohibit speech in accordance with time, place, and manner restrictions. What cannot be prohibited is content. Can people protest in the middle of the street during rush hour? No. There is no right to that time and place. Can people protest by vandalizing property? No, the manner of such "speech" violates the rights of others to their property. Can people protest in a public square holding signs? Absolutely. Such spaces are especially protected.

I am not at all a fan of curfews, but as far as the Constitution goes they can be acceptable.

plutonium · May 11, 2015

if it is a peaceful protest and you do not block traffic without a permit ..the gov will not put a curfew on it.. but if it is violent or destructive of course they can for everyones protection including you and your property.

Can government use curfews & other restrictions to outlaw peaceful protests?