The rule applies inside the Capitol, where lengthy, noisy, wild protests raged last winter. Outside the Capitol — where there have been many spontaneous gatherings of tens of thousands — the permit requirement kicks it at 100. Even worse:
Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond....Conservative politicians, forced to meet in Madison, Wisconsin, have the problem that the sudden, troublesome crowds consist overwhelmingly of their antagonists. The Governor's seemingly neutral rules obviously fall heavily on his opponents. The stricter the limitations — and these are absurdly strict — the more non-neutral they really are. But even if you can pretend these rules are as neutral as they look on the surface and need only be reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment, these rules are plainly unreasonable.
Any damage or cleanup after a demonstration could be charged to organizers. During the court fight earlier this year over access to the Capitol, Walker's administration said the demonstrators had done $7.5 million in damage to the building with the signs and other wear and tear. But almost immediately the administration sharply backpedaled from that claim, conceding the damage was significantly less.
This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights.
পোস্টগুলি
২৪৫টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 245 এর 201 – থেকে 245I didn't realize "endless fuckery" only referred to actual uses of the word "fuck." I assumed it also referred to, for example, disrupting state business. Now, I'm not a proponent of disrupting state business as a general rule, and I personally don't engage in demonstrations as a form of protest. However, in my hypothetical, I might very well make an exception.
I disagree, but then I'm not a lawyer so I don't know where the limits on reasonable accommodation are. I don't see why taxpayers should have to foot the bills for disorderly and damaging 'protests'. I think the groups need to be held accountable for letting their activists get all un-peaceable. We're having to deal with similar hoodlums here in Olympia, WA, and it's getting expensive.
I have to admit, I don't find that so unreasonable.
Sofa King, I have to admit I find it confusing why that would be unreasonable. Especially since MadMan hinges the ability of the Marble Man to set up an exhibit (but not Marijuana Man) on permission granted by the school. What right does a school have to tell someone he can't set up an exhibit in the Capitol building?
Thorley, I'm puzzled.
Field trips are not spontaneous events.
Puzzled, but also off for the day.
Standard MO again -
Click the Althouse-provided to Michelle Malkin, it covers more than Palin, as you know. If that doesn't satisfy you, search for "assassin chic" on Michelle Malkin's site. But then, I suppose your response would be "Oh, none of those people are true liberals." Or maybe, you will launch an ad hominem attack against Michelle Malkin, without addressing the evidence. It's anyone's guess.
You are simply tiresome, and I won't play your games anymore.
It is a violation of First Amendment rights, true, but it's not a shocking violation of First Amendment rights. The people whose rights are being violated freely expressed the will to violate other peoples' First Amendment rights. Our House!
t-man
I was asking about your statement that books and movies were written by liberals about assassinating Bush. Then for proof you want to click on an old Althouse thread about Sarah Palin, or to go Malkin's site and do a search.
As I suspected, you were talking out of your ass.
To reserve a picnic shelter in a nearby state park, I need to produce ID and pay for a permit.
Why is it such a big deal? Go outside. I'm all for civil disobedience, I just think interrupting official business is the line of demarcation - it then becomes uncivil.
I think there have been too many hysterical assumptions based on initial reading of the new rule.
This is your government, and they are here to help.
wv- ovomme
I suppose that if the field trip groups are doing more than walking around and taking the state-provided tours, they would have to apply for a permit a few days in advance.
@Sofa King
Who is going to receive and process all these permits? We should not tolerate this creeping expansion of government!
AllenS said...
Michael said...
AllenS, I commend you on your courage to live amongst the insane.
I'm a Viet Nam veteran. I'm used to people hating my fucking guts.
I saw a bumpersticker awhile ago Allen I think youd appreciate. It says this is the only woodstock I remember, with a picture of a m14.
Death of a President
I have no idea if the writers/director/producers/grips/janitors are liberal or not. Some claimed they were.
The Assassination of George W. Bush: A Love Story
I feel pretty confident this guy is a liberal.
And, just for fun, Randi Rhodes on Air American.
Garage - are you going to try and claim you're so ignorant and ill informed you never heard of any of this?
The goals of the New Walker Order have been fairly obvious from the beginning, I can understand why Althouse, as a law professor, is upset over this issue of the right to assembly, and why Mead not so much.
rcommal said...
If tomorrow Wisconsin decided to ban all handguns, would proponents of 2nd Amendment rights be content to merely politely voice a grievance?
The rule that Walker wants, applies only to inside the Capitol. Nowhere is there mention of this applying to the state of Wisconsin. If Walker said that he wanted the Capitol to not allow handguns inside, I'm fine with that also.
Heart, I had an M14 in basic training and infantry school. Once I got to the 82nd we had M16s.
The goals of the New Walker Order have been fairly obvious from the beginning, I can understand why Althouse, as a law professor, is upset over this issue of the right to assembly, and why Mead not so much.
Note no reference to the actual text of the policy, again. Just generalities, slurs, and emotionalisms.
MadisonMan: Yes schools plan their field trips to the Capitol and arrange them through staff at the Capitol so they are sure to have a tour guide available for their tour. Do you think that schools just show up HOPING that some one will be able to give them a tour? Of course not. Timing is planned so all involved are aware of tour guide staffing, tour length, age of students (4th graders will get very different information than say 9th graders), etc.
My guess is some teachers may even contact their local legislator and see if they will be able to see their office and have them chat with the students about what they do.
All of this is better educationally if the tour doesn't have to worry about being drowned out by drums or singing or whatever nonsense some will exhibit inside the Capitol.
I feel pretty confident this guy is a liberal.
Yea, I'm sure. You gave me one link to a movie made in Britain by a British filmaker. [which was better than t-man could do].
In right wing world that equals "all these liberals writing all these books and movies about assassinating Bush!!!".
Whatever.
Garage Mahal: Here is a link you will be interested in because it deals with a fantasy of yours. It is, coincidentally, a book written by a liberal about the assassination of President George W. Bush.
http://www.amazon.com/Assassination-George-W-Bush-Story/dp/1430321350/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322863558&sr=8-2
Garage Mahal: The rapper "Common" has a lovely bit about the burning of George W. Bush. I am sure you already own a copy but I can give you one of your desired links if you wish.
Garage Mahal: Here is a link you will be interested in because it deals with a fantasy of yours
Get fucked, asshole.
Garage Mahal: You probably have this on your wall but it is a link to a Nobel Prize winner's speech to school children explaining her desire to kill George W. Bush. Your copy is laminated but here is a fresh one just in case.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobel-peace-prize-winner-wants-to-kill-president-bush
In right wing world that equals "all these liberals writing all these books and movies about assassinating Bush!!!".
We mustn't blame the unit.
It has so little storage capacity.
Thorley, I'm puzzled.
Field trips are not spontaneous events.
Let me see if I can clarify. You outlined two different items in your fact pattern – the field trip and the presentation by the worker on minerals.
The field trip you described does not fall under the definition of “event” in terms of needing a permit because it is neither a “performance, ceremony, presentation, meeting or rally.” Hence no impact on the ability to have a field trip at the capitol.
The impromptu presentation by the worker to explain minerals to the students on the field trip would likely also not require a permit as either an “event” or “exhibit” either insofar as it was in response to the student field trip which would be the “triggering event” that is “currently occurring” hence putting it within the definition of a “spontaneous event.”
So in summary: the field trip doesn't need a permit (because it's not an “event”) and impromptu presentation you threw into your fact pattern also doesn't require a permit as an "event" or "exhibit" because it would be a "spontaneous event."
Ifn noo consequals 4 protests, lrg continual prots r a DoS atack ginst We d Pepull n d securz of r Rights. Shpec whn d Govmt is n finacial trublll. Den dey r nottt legit prots. Dey r not den petions d govmt for redress of grievesss.
We gots wayz for redresss: Legis, and votes. Tea duudss had it right: make yr point, get off d stage, n vote normal times. Izz Walker so evil u cant wait? Rlyyy? Relyyyy?? U wan b like Detroit?
U wan coz a ruckus cuz u lost, you gotta payyy 4 it. Wait 4 next lectn, its closr n u tink.
I no Prof AA is big on free speech, so ? shlddd WeDPeeps pay 4 a DoS atack?? Make yr points, exit stage, attrac yr peeps, n get em rdy 2 vote. Takes tym to get yrr peepss all firredd up. Lrg 4ever prots r a fave of d wanbe dictors.
Plus it's what the protestors want--an opportunity to break a law and get sympathy. Quite stupid, Gov, and really bad timing too, with the recall petitions and all.
This happens all over the country to conservative groups. Whether college Republicans inviting a conservative guest speaker and being charged for the extra security or requiring permits on public grounds. Sounds like the playing field is being leveled.
Meade, perhaps you can refresh my memory but wasn't the WI Supreme Court in session on Sept 16 while the Solidarity Singers were performing in the lower rotunda? Or did the SC adjourn to allow the singers to perform?
"We mustn't blame the unit.
It has so little storage capacity."
I wondered about that: what could explain the deficiency - the always not knowing what everyone else does.
Your explanation seems logical and I accept it.
"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."
To. Grip. Get. Need. A.
Assemble as necessary.
In other news the Tea Party in Virginia is being audited because they complained about the preferential treatment given to the Occupiers.
And Ann Althouse responded to that news .... how?
@ Andinista
"Ifn noo consequals 4 protests, lrg continual prots r a DoS atack ginst We d Pepull n d securz of r "
Seriously. You bore me.
Ann Althouse said...
"Prediction: Walker will back off within a week. Probably by Monday."
He needs to back off today.
Unfortunately you are right. However, the anti-Walker demonstrators think they can continually escalate the conflict without any reprisals. This is not true.
Frequently in conflicts one side does something which provokes the other side to escalate the conflict in quantum leaps. The protesters of last winter cost a great deal. Dragging protesters to Walkers Waukesha home, and teachers of his children making comments, the crazy, socialist, progressive left has shown their willingness to escalate the conflict. (Look at how much the idiotic occupy protests have cost. For what?)
This response is unreasonable because groups can organize rallies in such a way that there is no clear person involved. Sounds like a riot. The unions, and their liberal idiot friends, are part of a program interested in destroying the country. Clever parasites don't kill the host. Obviously the public sector unions are stupid parasites.
Having read the regulations, I fail to see what is so unreasonable or repressive about the policy.
They're actually not as stringent as New York City's, which for public parkland take effect at groups over 20 people, and require a 21-30 day advance notice.
Albany requires 20 days notice, plus liability insurance and payment for police and any other services required or incurred for outdoor activities, 30 days for use of a public building. It should also be noted New York prohibits "seriously annoying" another person while using state facilities, which would seem to be a major feature of the Wisconsin gatherings.
Funny how no one ever accuses New York of being repressive, that apparently only happens when a conservative tries to copy New York policy.
Bottom line, I think this is a perfectly reasonable response to crowds that haven't appeared all that reasonable.
References:
Title 9, Subtitle G, Chapter IV, Sections 300-301 of NYS Rules & Regulations
https://nyceventpermits.nyc.gov/Parks/
James said...
"Meade, perhaps you can refresh my memory but wasn't the WI Supreme Court in session on Sept 16 while the Solidarity Singers were performing in the lower rotunda? Or did the SC adjourn to allow the singers to perform?"
It was in session that day, James. I remember - you and I peered in from the entrance of the courtroom.
Almost all seats were taken, and the body language of both Prosser and Walsh-Bradley's fairly shouted, "keep your distance."
Late to the thread, but thought this is interesting. I dug up (Wayback Machine) an old WI state facility use policy, pre-Walker. Highlights:
"The following are general procedures for events or use of All State Office Buildings and All State owned properties. The Department of Administration (DOA) must approve all permits."
"Permit Application must be in at least 4 weeks prior to event."
"Demonstrations and rallies are permitted on the outside grounds. If a hardship exists for the event to be held in the interior of a facility prior approval must be made. This MUST be arranged with the Capitol Police at time of application." (emphasis in original)
"The permit holder will pay any extra personnel for the event. This does include clean up after the event if the permit holder did not do so and any extra police officers needed for the event."
The older policy also requires the permittee to have liability insurance. Between the permit policies and the DOA Chapter Adm 2 (not updated since 98), you can find just about everything in the new Walker policy, only less specific. (e.g., Noise will get a rally bounced, but no mention of Walker's 90 dB noise limit; paying for cops, but no $50/hr rate.)
Also, no mention of rally numbers before permits are required. The old policies make it seem pretty clear you need one no matter what. (Clear to me -- but I'm no lawyer or politician, rather a scientist, which is why I went back and "checked the references.") Definitely no "spontaneous event" 1st Amend. release valve in the older document; and look how the older one (my previous comment) highly discourages protests inside the Capitol.
Walker: Craven clarification and shocking expansion of free speech rights? Or am I misreading horribly?
I suppose the salient difference between old and new policy is that, clearly, the old policy was not enforced. (Was it?) And the threat is that Walker will enforce the policies more strictly now, because those feeling the brunt of the enforcement are his political enemies. We can blame him at least for the appearance of taking advantage of the situation and the law; but what about the fact that these rules were mostly already on the books, albeit with arbitrary (if any) enforcement?
We have this:
Ann Althouse said...
"Prediction: Walker will back off within a week. Probably by Monday."
He needs to back off today.
and we have
RAH said...
I suppose the salient difference between old and new policy is that, clearly, the old policy was not enforced. (Was it?) And the threat is that Walker will enforce the policies more strictly now, because those feeling the brunt of the enforcement are his political enemies. We can blame him at least for the appearance of taking advantage of the situation and the law; but what about the fact that these rules were mostly already on the books, albeit with arbitrary (if any) enforcement?
If what RAH says is true, then Ann, does Walker still need to back off? If RAH is wrong, that should be very easy to prove.
What do you say now, Professor Althouse?
Sorry about the multiple postings above. When you evaluate my claims, feel free to consider the fact that I'm an idiot.
Here's the Wayback link I used. I hope it shows in this post: http://web.archive.org/web/20090502093508/ http://www.doa.state.wi.us/section.asp?linkid=149&locid=163 [eliminate the space before the second "http"] I looked at the "Facility Use Rules" and the "DOA Admin Code 2/Rules of Conduct", link down the lower left bar. Perhaps the old use rules are vague enough that they wouldn't apply to protest, or not all the items apply to protests. (But in the DOA Code -- Adm 2.14 (2)(v) -- it seems that NO demonstrations are allowed without authorization, and then even authorized protest can be deemed 'illegal' for a laundry list of reasons...)
I'm probably talking to no one at this point, but oh well. Law questions: How have the Courts treated clarifications/specifications in speech-restriction laws that were previously either vague or only sporadically enforced, but by that fact often resulted wider speech rights than the letter of the law on the books? And would the Courts treat as content-neutral or non-burdensome Walker's signaled intention (or, why the change?) to enforce the protest rules more strictly, even if the rules pass legal muster?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন