Protesters told to leave
In the city, my the city:
A handful of protesters were asked to leave the front entrance of the Maryville Municipal Center Monday after setting up shop to confront visiting U.S. Sen. Bob Corker about the Iraq war.
According to Maryville Police Chief Tony Crisp, city code requires a permit for such a protest and the group did not have one. It’s a matter of safety for the protesters and citizens around them, Crisp said — especially with one of the city’s busiest intersections around the corner and the fear of distracted drivers.
They certainly can protest, “but we want to do it in a manner where they’re safe and other people are safe,” he said.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:51 am
So much for “… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“They certainly can protest…” as long as the get permission. Doesn’t much sound like a “right” if you have to get “permission” in advance.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Any bets on whether there would have been a problem with the protest if the protesters had been 1000 illegals?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Or pro war?
June 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
From what I’ve read in the news very seldom does anyone who applies for a permit to stage a demonstration been denied, no matter what they were demonstrating about. But when one would interfere with the safty of others, “especially with one of the city’s busiest intersections around the corner and the fear of distracted drivers” then they can and should be denied.
What you 1st three posters have overlooked is that “a permit is still required by the city code, Crisp said, and “certainly they did not go through the permit process.” In a nutshell; they were breaking the law.
“They certainly can protest…” as long as the get permission. Doesn’t much sound like a “right” if you have to get “permission” in advance.”
Voting’s a right too but you still have to register to do so, in effect getting “permission in advance” but I dont hear anyone hollering about that.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
If you need permission you are either a child or a slave.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
‘Voting’s a right too but you still have to register to do so, in effect getting “permission in advance” but I dont hear anyone hollering about that.’
Seems to me that there has been quite a bit of hollering about that; pay a little attention to what goes on in the country. You might want to also read the u.S. Constitution — you’ll find that it explicitly provides that the qualifications for voting are to be determined by laws passed by the States. “Registering” to vote is not “getting permission”, it is asserting that you have met the specified qualifications and intend to excise the right. The government cannot deny you access to vote if you meet the requirements and if they cannot deny it then it is certainly not “permission”.
And I did NOT overlook that the “city code” required a “permit” — that was actually the point of my post: the government is explicitly prohibited from making such laws. Even requiring “registration” would be abridging the “…right of the people to peaceably assemble…” and is prohibited. In a nutshell: the “law” you refer to is no such thing and therefor the protesters were not “breaking the law”.
To anyone who thinks a “permit” is reasonable: Do you see yourself as “child” or as “slave”? Or is it “parent” or “master”?