September 6, 2012

"Police arrested eight protesters in the [Wisconsin] Capitol... for holding up signs without getting permits."

We've got a new Capitol Police Chief, and a new approach to keeping order in the building that was the site of tumultuous, chaotic, crowded, cluttered protesting last year.
On Wednesday, police throughout the day told 14 protesters they could not hold up signs on the Capitol's first floor because they did not have a permit.

The protests occurred near where the Red Cross, which did have a permit, was conducting a blood drive.

Six of the protesters agreed to go outside to continue their protests, but eight refused. Those eight were arrested and ticketed for unlawfully displaying signs, according to the Capitol Police.

Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said she saw one protester being arrested for holding a sign that said, "It's about freedom."

"If they're not being disruptive, if they're not causing trouble, they should be allowed here," Sinicki said. "These people aren't hurting anybody."
The permitting is, we're told, designed to help the police keep track of how many people are in the building and how it ought to be staffed. If it's a neutral rule, applied neutrally, the question is basically whether it is reasonable. But note that the Capitol is a distinctive location that has historically been the site of protests against the government, and there is particular case law here in Wisconsin, applying the state constitution to protests at the Capitol.

That said, why would protesters choose to stand their ground in the vicinity of a Red Cross blood drive? You have the right to be politically stupid, but it's still stupid.

91 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

The protestors should've just got protest T-shirts instead of signs and given blood.

Win-win for everyone.

Patrick said...

A permit to hold a sign. In the Capitol.

Really. I can agree that the protesters last year - the disruptive ones anyway, were given too much latitude.

This, however, is ridiculous. Absent disruption, requiring a permit to hold a sign in the Capitol is ridiculous.

Patrick said...

I do like Matthew's suggestion, however. Bad optics aside though...

The Crack Emcee said...

"These people aren't hurting anybody."

Why does EVERYBODY think that's a valid excuse for anything?

Oh yeah - we're a nation of poofs now.

Carry on,...

Scott said...

An "unlawfully displaying signs" law sounds like a very in-your-face violation of First Amendment rights.

Although it seems that the courts have applied reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for speech, the question is whether or not this is reasonable in this instance. Can someone explain why it might be?

AllenS said...

That's nothing, you can't even have an umbrella at the DNC love fest.

Matthew Sablan said...

On reading the article, it appears that six of the protestors were willing to take their protest outside. Eight remained.

I'm not sure if you should need a permit to protest in the capitol, but I can see that if you don't require it for a little protest how quickly it can turn into a big protest. Honestly, I think this is going to be one of those situations that, once we have all the information, where it turns out everyone acted with poor judgment.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder who the person misguidedly advising the new head of Capitol Police is.

Marshal said...

Patrick said...
This, however, is ridiculous. Absent disruption, requiring a permit to hold a sign in the Capitol is ridiculous.


I understand conservatives and libertarians arguing this. But why should leftists? They believe government can regulate anything it wants.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'd also like to see a picture. Because, at most blood drives, there's just not a lot of space (to give people privacy while answering the sex, drugs 'n' rock'n'roll questions), so maybe it was a space issue?

traditionalguy said...

IMO this is a free speech issue. Outlawing "rudeness" is the cover story of every opponent of free speech.

The tacit lie offered that this rule is to crowd control the building is a bad joke.

The Crack Emcee said...

Wisconsin, New York, Arizona:

It ain't where you're from, it's where you at,...

John Lynch said...

People who hold signs go on to hold... many things.

edutcher said...

The rule sounds reasonable, but, as Ann notes, some people just have to be stupid.

And screwing with other people seems one of these professional protesters' goals.

garage mahal said...

That said, why would protesters choose to stand their ground in the vicinity of a Red Cross blood drive?

Some were giving blood. And yes, you can now get arrested for displaying a "We love heart donors". Link

AllieOop said...

Madison Man, Mike Huebsch?

SPImmortal said...

IMO this is a free speech issue. Outlawing "rudeness" is the cover story of every opponent of free speech.

The tacit lie offered that this rule is to crowd control the building is a bad joke.

--------------

Pretty much this. As long as their not interfering with business in the Capitol they should be allowed to stay and hold up their signs.

Patrick said...

I understand conservatives and libertarians arguing this. But why should leftists? They believe government can regulate anything it wants.

They belong to Government.

AaronS said...

"These people aren't hurting anybody."

Why does EVERYBODY think that's a valid excuse for anything?


Agreed. Can we aim just a bit higher as a society?

AllieOop said...

And they said it would be Democrats that would be the first to violate The First Amendment. I see lawsuits. How much will it cost Wisconsin tax payers to defend this administration's violation?

Moose said...

I smell the ACLU...

Curious George said...

"SPImmortal said...
IMO this is a free speech issue. Outlawing "rudeness" is the cover story of every opponent of free speech.

The tacit lie offered that this rule is to crowd control the building is a bad joke."

All they have to do is get a permit. Despite all the claims that they were arrested for this or that, they were arrested for NOT HAVING THE REQUIRED PERMIT.

If they are denied a permit, then back to me.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, I think it might be different if there -is- a group with a permit as opposed to if both groups do not have permits. If it is a free-for-all, whatever. But, if one group went through the trouble of getting a permit, I think they should get preferential treatment. At work so can't watch the video to see what's what.

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

Also note: Six of the protestors DID agree with the police (that they had not done their due diligence and should take it outside), and did.

Tom Spaulding said...

"The system is rigged. Look around. Treasury Secretaries pay no tax but their secretaries do. Madison liberals—the same ones who would wreck our economy by demanding taxpayers subsidize their jobs—still strut around the Capitol, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them."

- Not Liz Warren

Rusty said...

MadisonMan said...
I wonder who the person misguidedly advising the new head of Capitol Police is.


Check City Hall.


This, however, is ridiculous. Absent disruption, requiring a permit to hold a sign in the Capitol is ridiculous.


I agree.

Hagar said...

What does "holding a sign " mean?

There are small signs and big signs and mean signs and benevolent signs.

Bryan C said...

"The permitting is, we're told, designed to help the police keep track of how many people are in the building and how it ought to be staffed."

Why would their security staffing change based on the number of signs in the building?

"You have the right to be politically stupid, but it's still stupid."

They answer to a Higher Law, doncha know. What is this one blood drive, compared to the BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS OF OUR TEACHERS etc. etc.

Which is why we have these stupid clumsy actual laws telling adults how to behave when visiting a state capitol.

MadisonMan said...

All they have to do is get a permit. Despite all the claims that they were arrested for this or that, they were arrested for NOT HAVING THE REQUIRED PERMIT.

It's right there in the Constitution. You have freedom of speech as long as you have the required permit.

It is a ridiculous notion that you cannot protest the Government in the State Capitol unless you ask the Government to permit it.

Bryan C said...

"They believe government can regulate anything it wants."

You forgot "whenever it wants".

Bryan C said...

All they have to do is get a permit. Despite all the claims that they were arrested for this or that, they were arrested for NOT HAVING THE REQUIRED PERMIT.

So, being arrested for failure to obtain the mandatory speech permit. Is that a tax, or a penalty?

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
It's right there in the Constitution. You have freedom of speech as long as you have the required permit.

It is a ridiculous notion that you cannot protest the Government in the State Capitol unless you ask the Government to permit it."

The first statement is just idiotic. No permit is required to "freedom of speech", it's the "where" that requires the permit.

As to your second, MN, IA, OH, IN, and Nebraska all have permit requiremnts for their state capitols and grounds. I won't search any further because of time and it's really not necessary to show what a moron you are.

purplepenquin said...

People screaming "Just get a permit!!" should keep in mind that a condition of getting The Permit includes waiving your right to sue the police for anything-at-all that occurs during the protest, as well as agreeing to pay whatever fees/charges the police feel, afterwards, is warranted.

No surprise that they waited until Ben Masel was dead for over a year before trying this...they know he would've kicked their asses all over the place on this one.


(PS- "City Hall" has nothing to do with the Capitol Police. These orders are coming from the Office of the Governor)

garage mahal said...

You have freedom of speech as long as you have the required permit.

Which means you really don't have the right of freedom of speech.

I wonder if you held up a piece of paper that said "I stand with Walker", would that be called "protesting"? Shows what little regard Walker shows his own supporters.

lemondog said...

If I hold up my hand with fingers in the 'peace sign' position, will I be arrested?

How 'bout a single finger?

Lyle said...

You got to let them hold their signs up I think, especially since they were free to do this under the prior regime.

Micro-policing is a bit too much maybe.

garage mahal said...

Also, holding up a blank piece of paper is now illegal without a permit.

AllenS said...

It's right there in the Constitution. You have freedom of speech as long as you don't yell FIRE in a theater.

Michael said...

HAHAHA. Man you people are oppressed like nobody's business up there in repressive Madison, Wi. You should get up a march or something and protest. Too bad your puppets are in Charlotte.

Michael said...

HAHAHAHAHA!!! They waited for Ben to die to pull this repression!! Holy shit. What cowards. What sly bastards. I can see this as the beginning, the Mario Silvo moment you have been waiting for. Your rights squelched. The whole world is watching, Madison. The whole world.

lemondog said...

Also, holding up a blank piece of paper is now illegal without a permit.

If protestors each entered wearing a single piece of blank white paper hanging around the neck, would they be arrested?

heheheh

Robert Cook said...

The permit is contained in the First Amendment.

MadisonMan said...

The relevant lines in the Wisconsin Constitution (I don't care one bit what people in inferior states can or cannot do):

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the Government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.

I honestly do not see how this restriction in the State Capitol passes muster.

lemondog said...

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Kit said...

Atmosphere at the capital will surely quiet down now...

purplepenquin said...

That said, why would protesters choose to stand their ground in the vicinity of a Red Cross blood drive?

Reports indicate that one of the people (holding a sign that said "We ♥ Blood Donors") was near the blood drive. Two others were arrested (on a different floor) for handing out teeshirts that helped promote the blood drive upstairs, while the others were standing quietly by the copy of the State Constitution on display.

AllieOop said...

What a stupid thing to do, just like when Walker talked about using the National Guard even before he revealed his Budget Repair Bill. Does he WANT to create unrest, especially before the election?

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Which means you really don't have the right of freedom of speech."

When has "freedom of speech" ever constituted "anything, anytime, anywhere"? Never.

garage mahal said...
You have freedom of speech as long as you have the required permit.

Which means you really don't have the right of freedom of speech.

As for your second idiocy, what is being said is not a part of this controversy. You even pointed that out with your "heart" post.

purplepenquin said...

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the Government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.

Oh yeah, that reminds me...one of the people arrested was holding up a sign that said exactly that.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

A permit required to engage in free speech? Clearly unconstitutional.

Next thing you know, they'll be requiring a permit to keep and bear arms.

AllieOop said...

Can words kill you with the speed of a bullet?

Rusty said...

AllieOop said...
Can words kill you with the speed of a bullet?


with the speed of a train car ride to a gas chamber.

which is why the 2nd is as absolute as the 1st.


Never again. Means never again.

Matthew Sablan said...

Were the eight people being prevented "peaceably assembling, consulting for the common good, or petitioning the Government," or were they simply asked to take it outside? There's a huge difference; they may not have even needed to be asked to go outside. But to pretend to ask them to stay out of the areas that another group had asked for permission to use is akin to stripping them of their rights is silly.

garage mahal said...

This woman was told if she would be arrested if she didn't get a permit.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
The relevant lines in the Wisconsin Constitution (I don't care one bit what people in inferior states can or cannot do):

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the Government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.

I honestly do not see how this restriction in the State Capitol passes muster."

Well, this is a different issue. The Freedom of Speech that you referred to was a right protected by the US Constitution. Now you are speaking of the right to assemble and protest in the WI Capitol under our constitution. But my noting other state permitting rules was to your "It is a ridiculous notion that you cannot protest the Government in the State Capitol unless you ask the Government to permit it." As I have noted, WI has been the exception to the rule in the past. Permitting is not a "ridiculous notion", it is actually te generally accepted notion by free people in states across the nation.

As far as the WI Constitution, "he right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the Government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged."

Let me first say that past protests have not been "peacable", nor do the protesters really care. Most of them are so stupid that they think "peacable" means "no violene". Are you one of those? Now the sign people in my mind have been "peacable". The next word we need to look at is "abridged". Abridged means "to cut short, curtail".

Does permitting for the Capitol do this? It doesn't even say "The Capitol". Can you do this anywhere, anytime? Of course not.

BTW, the Nebraska Constitution has the exact same language (I-19)and they have do not allow any protests within the Capitol itself, only on the grounds.

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

I agree; it seems like a stupid rule.

Look what happened -last time- they didn't enforce the rules.

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
People screaming "Just get a permit!!" should keep in mind that a condition of getting The Permit includes waiving your right to sue the police for anything-at-all that occurs during the protest, as well as agreeing to pay whatever fees/charges the police feel, afterwards, is warranted."

Oh bullshit. Please cite where this information comes from.

Ann Althouse said...

"Why would their security staffing change based on the number of signs in the building?"

The permits are for group events, I think. The signs are held by individuals, because you can't post signs, I believe.

purplepenquin said...

Oh bullshit.

If you're saying "these new rules are total bullshit!", then yes I totally agree.


Please cite where this information comes from.

You haven't even read the rules yet, eh? You really should check it out before you comment further.


And actually, it looks like the cops can't "intentionally" cause a injury or death without the fear of being sued, but otherwise you have to waive your right to sue for anything else when you get a permit.

And the Chief may require, at his whim, to have you pay in advance for all the "protection" he thinks, again at his whim, you need in order to receive The Permit.

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
You haven't even read the rules yet, eh? You really should check it out before you comment further."

I read 'em. Did you? No where does it indicate either of your claims.


"And actually, it looks like the cops can't "intentionally" cause a injury or death without the fear of being sued, but otherwise you have to waive your right to sue for anything else when you get a permit."

This is also bullshit.

"And the Chief may require, at his whim, to have you pay in advance for all the "protection" he thinks, again at his whim, you need in order to receive The Permit."

Also bullshit.

You are either an idiot or a liar. Or maybe both.

Lindsey Meadows said...

"...The permitting is, we're told, designed to help the police keep track of how many people are in the building and how it ought to be staffed..."

Unless someone has a better suggestion, they could try "counting" which they will have to do any way, permit or not. I can see the police's point. I can also see this is swatting a gnat with a tree.

A wrongful arrest is sure to happen. Then civil litigation and revisiting. So why wait? Revisit this nonsense now.

purplepenquin said...

No where does it indicate either of your claims

Section II, parts E & F clearly spells it out.

You are either an idiot or a liar. Or maybe both.

You are lazy and an asshole. No "maybe" about it.

Curious George said...

"Lindsey Meadows said...
A wrongful arrest is sure to happen. Then civil litigation and revisiting. So why wait? Revisit this nonsense now."

A would say that a wrongful arrest is much less likely to happen now that specific rules are in place. The cops can simply follow rules rather than "interpret" situations. Now, some may fight the constitutionality of these rules...

Bryan C said...

"The Permit includes waiving your right to sue the police for anything-at-all that occurs during the protest, as well as agreeing to pay whatever fees/charges the police feel, afterwards, is warranted."

I can't imagine that would be enforceable.

Sensible laws are not enforced impartially, due to intimidation or collusion. Everyone knows the laws will not be enforced, so people attempt to substitute ridiculous piecemeal restrictions.

This is what happens when people are not allowed to be responsible for their own behavior.

AllenS said...

What does the Wisconsin Constitution say about yelling FIRE in a theater?

Smilin' Jack said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Why would their security staffing change based on the number of signs in the building?"

The permits are for group events, I think. The signs are held by individuals, because you can't post signs, I believe.

Isn't that answer what a lawyer would call "nonresponsive?"

Smilin' Jack said...

Lindsey Meadows said...
"...The permitting is, we're told, designed to help the police keep track of how many people are in the building and how it ought to be staffed..."

Unless someone has a better suggestion, they could try "counting" which they will have to do any way, permit or not.


You forget that they were probably educated by members of the American Federation of Teachers.

Curious George said...

" purplepenquin said...
Section II, parts E & F clearly spells it out."

No it does not. Let's look at your idiot claims and then the rules:

First the bullshit:
PP: "...waiving your right to sue the police for anything-at-all that occurs during the protest" already backtracked to this: "...actually, it looks like the cops can't "intentionally" cause a injury or death without the fear of being sued, but otherwise you have to waive your right to sue for anything else when you get a permit."

Now the reality:

STATE FACILITIES POLICY
Paragraph 11, Section F:

Individuals or organizations using the State facilities shall indemnify and hold harmless
the State of Wisconsin, its departments, agents and employees, from and against any and all
suits, damages, claims, or other liabilities due to personal injury or death; damage to or loss
of property to the State or to others; or for any other injury or damage arising out of or
resulting from their use of any State facility."

This has nothing to do with police actions (or other state employees) but the actions of people or use of the facility. The state doesn't want to be responsible for what permit holders do to people or property.

More:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted or applied as requiring any person to indemnify or hold harmless any employee or officer of the State in the event that the negligent or intentional actions of such employee or officer cause
any injury, death, damage or loss. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted or applied as
requiring any person to indemnify and hold harmless the State against actions of persons not under their control."

So we see clearly what bullshit you have posted. Negligent or intentional, not just intentional. And people outside of the permit holders control.

and finally:

"As it pertains to constitutionally-protected activities, nothing in this policy shall be interpreted or applied as waiving any legal claim, right or defense, or from estopping a person engaged in constitutionally-protected activities from asserting the same in the event of a dispute before any court of competent jurisdiction."

Strike 1.

Curious George said...

Continuing with the bullshit:

PP: "agreeing to pay whatever fees/charges the police feel, afterwards, is warranted"

There are many areas in the rules that describe how charges will be come about such as:

"Where repair of historic buildings is necessary, the cost of the repair will include the costs for the services of specialists in relevant historical restoration skills as determined by the Department, subject to the approval of the State Capitol and Executive
Residence Board where applicable."

and:

"shall reimburse the State Capitol Police for the deployment of any additional officers to the
event site due to the event, and for the overtime costs of any officer arising out of the event if
it is necessary to terminate unlawful conduct. If the officer is employed by the State Capitol
Police the rate shall be the then current average hourly rate for wage and benefits."

There are many many qualifiers. Read 'em all. The above examples are sufficient to show want a pathetic liar or moron or both you are. Strike 2.

Curious George said...

And ending with this bullshit:

PP: "And the Chief may require, at his whim, to have you pay in advance for all the "protection" he thinks, again at his whim, you need in order to receive The Permit."

More reality, from the rules:

"Normal law enforcement and staffing levels at the
Capitol allow for adequate monitoring and accommodation of most events. These normal law
enforcement staffing and maintenance staffing levels do not “arise out of the event” and are
not incurred by the state “due to the event.” Therefore Section II.D. And II.E. shall not be
interpreted to require permittees to pay for such regular and normal staffing costs. Also, most
additional or excess law enforcement staffing arises from counter-rallies, or security for
reactions against a speaker or group, for which the permittee cannot be charged as explicitly
set forth in this policy. Therefore the vast majority of events will not be subject to any excess
law enforcement or maintenance costs"

and: "Permittees are entitled to a written explanation of costs upon request, and may appeal cost decisions under the procedure set forth in Section VI"

So there is no "whim" about it. Strike 3. Grab some bench Penguin, you pathetic fuck.

Michael said...

I could be wrong about this but isnt it generally forbidden in public buildings to swan around with protest signs? Can you go into the U.S. Capitol and carry protest signs? I somehow think it is a unique to Wisconsin to believe that your free speech rights have zero geographic limitations. Maybe your Capitol building is different.

Michael said...

Allie Opp: The left has consistently launched speech codes all of which are specifically designed to squelch free expression. I would not jump to the wrong conclusion that progressives are on the right side of this important issue in recent decades. On the contrary.

traditionalguy said...

Hiding behind pre-permitting protest speech signs is a double cop out.

The value in speech is that it announces the position of impetuous people so that we can effectively rebut them and make sure not vote for them

Ergo: Suppressing free speech is a Madison Dem trick so traditional Americans won't learn their true positions until after the election.

Sofa King said...

What happened to "this is craven repression and a shocking violation of human rights???"

garage mahal said...

Can you go into the U.S. Capitol and carry protest signs?

The U.S. Capitol is not a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is.

Michael said...

Garage: Is that by statute or by custom?

garage mahal said...

Michael
I thought I included the link from Marquette Law School, but I guess it didn't take.

see here

Michael said...

Garage: Thanks. If you have dedicated the rotunda, or the entire building, to be available for free speech then I would think that the permitting process is bullshit and easily reversible. On the other hand, as a citizen, I would think you would want that space to be accessed by people who don't have an ax to grind and just want to visit without wading through a sea of signs.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Michael
I thought I included the link from Marquette Law School, but I guess it didn't take.

see here"

and from your link:

"In traditional public forums a government may, however, impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions as long as those restrictions are “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Why would their security staffing change based on the number of signs in the building?"

The permits are for group events, I think. The signs are held by individuals, because you can't post signs, I believe.


I would assume(my bad) that any permit is to ensure that everyone has access to the capitol building. The chief can limit the nuber of participants so that other people in the building aren't prevented from exercising their rights.
I guess.

garage mahal said...

On the other hand, as a citizen, I would think you would want that space to be accessed by people who don't have an ax to grind and just want to visit without wading through a sea of signs.

The Capitol is mostly dead these days, so I'm trying to figure what the upside is for Walker here. There doesn't seem to be one, other than just pure spite. Walker is a little man, after all.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
The Capitol is mostly dead these days, so I'm trying to figure what the upside is for Walker here. There doesn't seem to be one, other than just pure spite. Walker is a little man, after all."

The DOA has adopted rules for the Capitol, grounds, and other state buildings. There are simply applying them. What they aren't doing is applying them selectively. Which is the "upside to Walker".

Some people say you're smart. They're wrong.

James Pawlak said...

I oppose the message of those critters; But, defend their right to peacefully "assemble and petition". I intensely dislike the ACLU (American Christian Loathing Association); But, hope they bring an action in this matter.

Joe said...

Just out of curiosity; does your notion of free speech extend to walking around public libraries, carrying signs?

Is there no place where the people's representatives can gather without disruption? And be observed by the electorate, also free of disruption?

I believe in a very broad interpretation of the freedom of speech, but also believe that your rights end where mine begin.

(The notion that this restriction is unconstitutional is laughable given the court's approval of other time & place restrictions on speech.)

purplepenquin said...

This has nothing to do with police actions (or other state employees)

Did you even read what you quoted? It flat-out says "employees" of the state, so how can you insist otherwise?

In fact, everything you quoted backs up exactly what I've been saying. Why are you pretending otherwise?

There are many many qualifiers. Read 'em all.

Qualifers to what? The fees that you earlier said are "bullshit"?

*rolls eyes*

Seriously, I'm tired of your assholish ways. It don't matter how much you thump your chest and cuss me out, the basic facts of the matter are still true: The conditions for getting a permit to gather at the Capitol include waiving your right to sue the Capitol Police (and other state employees or agents of the state) for almost anything that occurs during the protest. The permit holder also has to agree to pay any fees, which are determined by the State Capitol Police. These fees may be demanded in advance, as a condition of getting the permit, or charged afterwards.



I ain't automatically against getting a permit in order to hold a rally. I helped organize a series of rallies (every week, all summer long) at the Sauk County Courthouse a while back ago, and we got the paperwork needed for those.

Difference was, of course, their requirements were reasonable and the Capitol Police requirements simply are not.

MadisonMan said...


I believe in a very broad interpretation of the freedom of speech, but also believe that your rights end where mine begin.

There is a big difference between the State Capitol and the Library, especially in expectations of whether or not protests will occur there.

I think the broadest possible reading of the law -- in favor of protests and against those in power -- should occur in a public law-making place like the state Capitol.

I have smaller expectations about the right to protest in a public library, or in a theater.

Eric said...

"Arrested and ticketed"? What does that mean exactly? Did they actually get to the police station and get booked, or were they just forcibly removed from the building and given a ticket?

Rusty said...

PP said'"The conditions for getting a permit to gather at the Capitol include waiving your right to sue the Capitol Police (and other state employees or agents of the state) for almost anything that occurs during the protest."


Pretty much boilerplate for any large city. The police don't like issuing a permit and then have to send officers to the hopital because things got out of hand. See 1968 Chicago. BTW the police are in no way obligated to risk their lives to save your ass.


PP said,
"The permit holder also has to agree to pay any fees, which are determined by the State Capitol Police. These fees may be demanded in advance, as a condition of getting the permit, or charged afterwards."


The reason being that, depending on the protestors, the venue might not be in good shape after the protest.
tea party protest- All litter removed. bushes trimmed, lawn resodded- small fee
Occupy...whatever-trash everywhere. Grafitti everywhere. Human effluvia everywhere. Crime victims everywhere.- large fee.

You're free to peotest all you want. Youu're just not free to be a dick to everyone else.

purplepenquin said...

Pretty much boilerplate for any large city.

Other experts state that these permit conditions go far beyond other rules/regulations in most cities.


Meanwhile, a judge recently ruled that the CapPolice can't arrest people for simply holding signs. After learning of this ruling the Chief had a quick meeting with his officers and no more arrests/tickets for sign-holders were issued.

Pretty strong odds that these other cases will also be dismissed and the Chief wasted a lot of time&taxpayer dollars.


Unless, of course, the goal was to electrify the base before the upcoming elections. Looking at some of the comments on this thread, it appears that it is working...as planned or not.