Inalienable rights or grass?
I suppose the right of the people peaceably to assemble is of no concern when, you know, it could damage the grass:
A judge on Wednesday denied anti-Bush protesters permission to rally in Central Park on the eve of the Republican National Convention, leaving open the question of where possibly hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will go after a march through midtown Manhattan.
The decision by New York Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline Silbermann is the latest in a running legal battle between the protest group and the city. She sided with city officials, who say they fear the grass on the park’s Great Lawn would be damaged and security could not be ensured for the huge crowd.
The lawn was restored seven years ago at a cost of $18 million.
I think that’s a little lame. I tend to think the grass in the park was made for people to walk on. But what do I know?
One other thing wouldn’t anti-Bush protesters be protesting anti-Bush? Aren’t they really Bush protesters?
August 25th, 2004 at 10:33 pm
Actually, it is pretty realistic. No group damages nature more than environmentalists. Compare your average private campground to, say, Woodstock. (Either one.)
August 25th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
I posted how they have had several other groups that were even larger there with no problems. The city seems to make it up as they go along, and the judge bought the whole thing.
August 26th, 2004 at 11:24 am
Just curious, but has anybody found pictures of RNC free speech zones equivalent to DNC’s Stalag Boston?
I’ve been looking but haven’t seen or read anything.
Somehow, denying the use opf the central park lawn doesn’t seem to equal caging the protestors under armed guards…