Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: State Fair events
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Walker; Hannig; Froehlich; Budget; News Roundup
Posted in:
* The setup comes to us from a story about a guy who can’t get a permit to protest in Cicero…
In late July, after almost four months, trustees at a Town Board meeting considered his request but denied the permit, citing safety concerns, though Montes had reduced the expected number of protesters to 80. Trustees, however, recommended an alternative location for the protest: a parking lot in an isolated part of town across from the recently demolished Sportsman’s Park near 3300 S. Laramie Ave., a mile from [state Sen. Martin Sandoval’s] office.
“They are stonewalling me,” said Montes, who declined the offer of the alternative site. “The town is violating my civil liberties.”
Cicero police and town trustees told Montes at a Town Board meeting that the sidewalk in front of Sandoval’s office, 5807 W. 35th St., is too small to accommodate 80 protesters. Town Collector and Trustee Fran Reitz also told Montes that it would be “terribly disruptive to our residents in the community.”
“There are always a lot of senior [citizens] walking up and down 35th Street,” she said, adding the parking lot “would be much more conducive for what is being requested.”
* The Question: Should municipal permits be required for protests? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: State Fair events
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Walker; Hannig; Froehlich; Budget; News Roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Should municipal permits be required for protests?
Within reason, yes. At one time most villages had a village square for public protesting. What Cicero is doing is abusing the situation. The Council is not permitting a realistic venue to allow it’s citizens to exercise their Free Speech rights.
But, what is the purpose of publically demonstrating? To gain public exposure? To get on television? If PR is the goal, in today’s Internet world, PR can be attained without walking around with posters.
But as we also see during the town hall debacles, sometimes detatched public officials need to smell the voters. They need to be physically confronted. They need to remember that democracy isn’t always virtual.
So, in this case, Cicero is deliberately defining their laws to restrict their resident’s free speech freedom to organize and protest. Is has to stop. By doing this, Cicero is also harming the laws too and making them irrelevant.
It looks like something Ms. Madigan needs to get involved in so that Illinoians can exercise their freedoms.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:13 am
Reasonable time, place, manner restrictions can survive constitutional scrutiny. The alternative may not be acceptable, but 80 people on a small or narrow sidewalk may be a reasonable restriction. Seems both sides need to work toward a compromise. Fewer protesters in front of the office would be hard to reject or a parade permit on the street in front of the office, perhaps.
Comment by Abe's Ghost Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:24 am
In the great majority of cases, no. It’s Freedom of Assembly and it’s everyone’s right.
With rights come responsibilities, however.
If you’re planning on disrupting others’ lives to a large degree, intimidating others from exercising their lawful rights, or are a threat to public safety, the people through their elected representatives have a right and duty to empower authorities to mitigate those possibilities.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:30 am
Q: Should municipal permits be required for protests?
A: Reasonable time, place, manner restrictions are necessary to protect the rights of non-protesters.
However, the burden demonstrating that a proposed request is unreasonable should lie with the municipality, i.e. there should be a presumption that a requested protest is reasonable.
If a request actually is unreasonable, that should be easy enough to prove. If in doubt, First Amendment rights should always trump matters of inconvenience.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:44 am
I agree with MrJM. REASONABLE regulations are acceptable, in the case of a COMPELLING state interest, that the state has the burden of proving, and only when there is no other less restrictive way to address the state interest.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:49 am
Permit? Yeah, I agree with getting a permit in that it notifies and informs. But deny of reasonable request of protest is wrong.
Having myself stuck in the middle of one of Hale’s WS stunts in Peoria in front of the library was a startling experience for me. Being esorted out the rear door by security to avoid the ‘protest’ at the front door was much appreciated.
A parking lot a mile away? Outta sight, outta mind? There must be some reasonable ‘middle’. Single file on the front sidewalk? A march down the street and then on down to the parking lot? I’d issue an invitation to the representative.
“Terribly disruptive”? Am I to assume then that all ‘events’ hold in the area of any nature are also to be considered ‘terribly disruptive’ and banned?
VM–”But, what is the purpose of publically demonstrating? To gain public exposure? To get on television? If PR is the goal, in today’s Internet world, PR can be attained without walking around with posters”–
General assumption that the internet can get out anything and everything to all is a bit blinder-wearing. It gets out to those with a computer in front of them and then even they would see it if they knew where and/or if to look for it.
Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Yes. They should. A bunch of rude,loud mouths in front of that office would impede innocent citizens from entering to do legitimate business. The non-protester has rights too and should not be prevented from accessing the office. Let them protest somewhere else or during non-business hours.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:12 pm
When the permitting process works, permits protect protesters from police in exchange for keeping the protest within agreed upon parameters so it doesn’t interfere with everyone else’s rights. But I disagree with permits that ghettoize protesters to remote areas, like what happens here, and perhaps most notoriously has happened at recent national political conventions. The risk is that the protest will spring up somewhere else unexpectedly and potentially get out of hand. It’s not surprising that the Town of Cicero would do something so irresponsible, however.
Comment by PFK Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:14 pm
Yes, except for protests against the requirement that there be permits
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:16 pm
Seems easy. Everyone has the right to peaceably assemble.
I would think that a denial would have to have a very clearly explained reason. ‘Blocking’ a sidewalk for a while does not constitute sufficient reason to deny ones right to protest.
Cicero has had the most spectacularly sized legal bills for years. Perhaps their counsel is low on billable hours.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:41 pm
LOL Steve.
Should municipal permits be required for protests?
Yes. At minimum the police should be alerted to the possibility of needing to direct traffic, allow for safety precautions (safe egress in event of catastrophe), allow for safe passage of pedestrians not involved in the protest, etc.
Trying to squeeze 80 people onto a sidewalk in front of a single storefront is, in general, not safe. It blocks the sidewalk for others and has the potential for someone to accidentally get knocked out into traffic.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:46 pm
Bill,
Rude loud mouths is a title only given to those you disagree with. Otherwise, they are passionate citizens exercising their free speech. When they come to take you away try to explain that to them. Just don’t be rude.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 12:51 pm
What VM said.
Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 1:27 pm
So if I’m a smart public official who wants to make sure that no one can protest in front of my office, all I need to do is to find a office location where it would pose a difficulty if a protest was held in front of that location. What a crock!
Comment by Fed-up Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 1:55 pm
Fed-up,
Talk about customer service! I’m sure that isn’t what’s happening in Cicero - the town history being what it is.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 2:01 pm
===Reasonable time, place, manner restrictions are necessary to protect the rights of non-protesters.===
Some one paid attention in Con Law ; )
Permits should not necessarily be required, but are certainly appropriate. My issue would be whether or not the municipality gave ANY consideration to the content of the protest during the course of their review/acceptance/rejection of the permit.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 2:21 pm
Define reasonable.
What may be reasonable to be may be unreasonable to you.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 2:59 pm
Yes, permits should be required, but they should usually be permitted with only egregious cases of public menace/hazard being denied and a clear explanation of why the permit was denied being offered on denial.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 3:23 pm
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
–Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.–
I’m quite shocked at the “yes” responses. Read the amendment and look up that word “peaceably.”
In most cases, the authorities can count themselves out. A permit should only be required in extreme circumstances.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 5:36 pm
When the permitting process is geared toward notice that alloes proper preparation for traffic and security issues, and review of lans to avoid dangers, it is valid. Otherwise it is an unwarranted intrusion,
Comment by krome Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 9:03 pm
===Yes. At minimum the police should be alerted to the possibility of needing to direct traffic, allow for safety precautions (safe egress in event of catastrophe), allow for safe passage of pedestrians not involved in the protest, etc.===
Rob_N, I totally agree.
Word, I agree with you too for the most part, except in the meaning of the word “peaceably.” I interpret “peaceably” the way it’s used in the 1st Amendment to mean the same as “well regulated” in the 2nd.
Spontaneous, peaceful demonstrations need not require a permit, but planned civil disobedience (like critical mass) shouldn’t be automatically guaranteed when others’ rights are affected.
And why isn’t Urqhart explaining why Cicero is on the side of motherhood and apple pie in this debate? Aren’t they still on the payroll?
That’s another reason why I’ll never be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 19, 09 @ 11:17 pm