Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
I have watched the Occupy Wall Street marches and protests and the recent protests in Wisconsin and Ohio with great interest. In my opinion, these protestors are on the front line in the battle to protect our First Amendment rights. As we have seen, some of them have paid a heavy price when they have been beaten and gassed and eventually arrested. Some States and cities are now attempting to raise the cost of defending your First Amendment rights by charging protestors for the cost of police “protection” and the use of city services! In Wisconsin, the embattled Governor, Scott Walker, has issued new rules that may actually take this trend of restricting our First Amendment rights to a new low.
“Gov. Scott Walker’s administration could hold demonstrators at the Capitol liable for the cost of extra police or cleanup and repairs after protests, under a new policy unveiled Thursday. The rules, which several legal experts said raised serious free speech concerns, seemed likely to add to the controversy that has simmered all year over demonstrations in the state’s seat of government. The policy, which also requires permits for events at the statehouse and other state buildings, took effect Thursday and will be phased in by Dec. 16. Walker administration officials contend the policy simply clarifies existing rules. State law already says public officials may issue permits for the use of state facilities, and applicants “shall be liable to the state . . . for any expense arising out of any such use and for such sum as the managing authority may charge for such use.” But Edward Fallone, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School, said the possibility of charging demonstrators for police costs might be problematic because some groups might not be able to afford to pay. ‘”I’m a little skeptical about charging people to express their First Amendment opinion,” he said. “You can’t really put a price tag on the First Amendment.”‘ Journal Sentinel
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with normal and reasonably enforced permit laws and restrictions, but the purpose of these new rules in Madison seem intended to thwart and prevent Wisconsin residents from exercising their First Amendment rights. Just what do these new regulations from the Walker Administration say?
According to the linked Journal Sentinel article, “The policy says: Groups of four or more people must obtain permits for all activity and displays in state buildings and apply for those permits at least 72 hours in advance. The policy requires permits for 100 or more people outside the Capitol. The policy does provide some leeway for spontaneous gatherings triggered by unforeseen events. 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. Demonstrators may not tape or stick signs to Capitol walls not intended for signs. During the protests hundreds of signs were posted at the Capitol. 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.”
If I read these regulations correctly, holding citizens responsible for a $50.00 per hour charge, per officer, is a blatant attempt to restrict and throttle free speech in Wisconsin. This type of restrictions makes the so-called “Free Speech Zones” look positively progressive! In fairness to Governor Walker, he is not the only public official trying to force citizens to “pay” for their right of free speech. In Nashville, Tennessee, the State Department of General Services billed the Occupy Nashville organization $1,045 for the use of two state troopers for security! “The state Department of General Services billed Occupy Nashville $1,045 to provide two troopers for security the night before they began arresting the protesters and clearing their encampment. The invoice was part of a public records request to the department from The Associated Press. Protester Dorsey Malina said she was one of a group that met with General Services Commissioner Steve Cates on Oct. 26 over their concerns about security on the plaza. There is some disagreement about what happened at that meeting. Malina said a trooper who had been making the rounds of the plaza at night suddenly stopped showing up and protesters wanted to know why. They were told the state could not police their encampment and they would have to pay for security, she said.” Knoxnews
The amazing part about this incident is that the protestors in Nashville agreed to pay for the State Troopers, but the next day the State installed a curfew and went about evicting the protestors! I guess even when you pay for your right to express your First Amendment rights, it is not good enough for the State of Tennessee. Lest we forget what rights the First Amendment confers upon us all here it is: ” Amendment I 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.” Cornell I think we need to ask the Originalists just where in the Constitution and its First Amendment does it say that Cities and States can charge taxpayers for exercising this all important right?
Over the years, some of our finest have sacrificed their lives for the First Amendment and the rest of our freedoms. Now, certain Governors and State officials are asking citizens, including Veterans who have fought to protect those freedoms, to pull our their checkbooks before they express their right of Free Speech or before they exercise their right to peaceably assemble to address their grievances with the Government. Don’t our taxes already pay for these services? Won’t these restrictions actually dilute our First Amendment rights? Is there a balance between free speech and the costs to reasonably control and protect crowds that can be reached without harming our Free Speech rights? If this type of restriction to the First Amendment is allowed to stand, should we just consider that the Bill of Rights is only nine Amendments strong?
Just how valuable is your right of Free Speech to you?
I have wondered since i was a student what would happen to our “Democracy” when a serious challenge came along. What if, for example a Nazi actually won the Presidential election. What would we do? Can the people of a democratic state vote to give power to a candidate who represents a party dedicated to the destruction of that same democracy?
Secondly; our nation was founded on the priciple that the people have a God given right to overturn a tyranical government and replace it with one better suited to our needs and by just such an action. I always thought, “What the hell do you think our government is ever faced with this situation?”
I think we are finding out. As I suspected, our government has reacted poorly; with less than what might be called restraint to simple requests for huge, billion dollar criminals to be held accountable for their rape of the American people and economy; a request you would think they should be all too happy to grant. One which we should never have to have made.
What do you think these store window politicians are going to do when we tell them what we really want. Because let’s face it. OWS and their associated groups are way beyond political dispute with our nation. They are involved and rightfully so, in a philosophical dispute with our nation. But what they; we; are asking for is a discussion; not a dispute. Not with politicians but with America, (Details to be announced)
I don’t think they will react well to this suggestion. Do you? What do you think? Discredit us and then set the dogs loose? Big Green Dogs with 80mm cannon?
So…………….yeh………….I agree……….they are attacking our first amendment rights, and our second and fourth and…………………………………………..
FYI, the number of unjustified shootings by persons with legal carry permits is so miniscule as to be statistically insignificant. As in single digits for the whole USA, per year. That applies only to those states which require training and background checks. All bets are off for states that might allow anyone to carry with few or no questions asked.
Illegal weapons are a different story. For some reason, crooks do not bother with niceties such as obtaining permits.
Rafflaw, I tried to google sate law for carry, couldnt find one with just a luist but one guy wrote he can carry his licensed in his state concealed in 35 states. I had no idea.
Carol,
Luckily, here in Illinois, concealed weapons are still illegal…for now.
Rafflaw, funny you should say that – one of them loves to put out fb messages about waiting excitedly for her concealed weapons permit (in Fla.) (altho she is not one of the smarter ones)
Digital,
The First Amendment does not require any advance notice.
Providing advance notice of peacful protest (via permitting) is a PRIVILEGE enjoyed by local authorities. Like so many aspects of law, privileges must serve a clear benefit to society, lest that privilege be discarded.
The purpose of requiring permits for protests is to provide authorities the necessary lead time to schedule manpower and physical resources to handle the temporary extra workload. The idea is that, since protest organizers already have considerable lead time, they can easily share that lead time with authorities. This allows municipalities to manage their costs, improve safety for protestors and spectators, and protect private property that may come into harms way.
However, if denial of permits, or excessive “fees” (aka fines) are used to obstruct or prevent protests, then protest organizers are well within there rights to protest this outrage as well, and refuse to honor the permitting process.
Like all legal privileges, when it gets abused it ceases to provide society with a real benefit, so it ceases to be offered. Isn’t this a common principle of legal theory? Help me here.
Carol,
I have friends also who are very right wing, notwithstanding the facts when presented to them. They prefer to bury their heads in the sand and keep buying more guns.
Id like to put this click on my FB page. Is that ok?
(I am amazed at some of the ‘kids” with whom I went went to school who found me on FB and are arch, very arch conservatives who think the repubs and the loss of some of our rights is ok (one guy went to Annapolis, although that would make him more right leaning (probably) he is a fox news believer. How can someone so smart be so dumb? but that is a question for some other post.)
Several years ago I realized that I was probbly the only person I know who has REAL first amendment rights, because I have NOTHING anybody can take from me! I own nothing, have a laughably tiny income, have nothing that can be taken from me (yeah they took my first-born son long ago but he came back when he was emancipated) so I can say what I want to say. Could somebody pepper-spray me? Sure, but they can anyway. Could somebody taser me? Sure, but they could anyway. People who lie can do anything they want to you because they will just lie about what happened.
So freedom’s just another way to say “nothing left to lose.”
From here, it looks to me like finally our country is SAYING OUT LOUD that it is dfoing what I have known for a long time it was doing. Glad somebody notices now that the victims are more vocal and more visible.
Blouise,
I wish it had been Belushi and his friends!
“Blouise,
I ran like hell too, but I ran into a high fence with three people climbing over in front of me!” (raff)
It was probably the band from Animal House 🙂
Thanks for the link OS.
Blouise,
I ran like hell too, but I ran into a high fence with three people climbing over in front of me!
Blouise,
It is never easy to buck the establishment, even when it is the right thing to do If we do not start taking back or government, we will not have the right to write blogs like this
I was never arrested but only because I ran like hell … I do have scars on my scalp from cigarette burns trying to protect the children marching with me during a civil rights protest … in that case I didn’t run of course.
It’s never easy.
Curious, there seems to be fire where there is smoke. David Harris Gershon, writing as “The Troubadour” digs into the story. He writes for Tikkun magazine and the Jerusalem Post, among other outlets. He is a real reporter and uses reliable sourcing. This is beyond scary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/04/1042233/-Prior-to-Violent-OccupyOakland-Raid,-OPD-Trained-Alongside-Bahrain-Military-Israeli-Border-Forces?via=user
Curious,
I have seen articles detailing mid east forces training US police forces. You are correct, it is scary.
I’m not big on conspriacy theories but this one is damn scary…..I’ve read that many police are being trained by Israeli counter-terrorists units.
http://exiledonline.com/max-blumenthal-how-israeli-occupation-forces-bahraini-monarchy-guards-trained-u-s-police-for-coordinated-crackdown-on-occupy-protests/
I know nothing about the website or Max Blumenthal. Anybody else out there hearing about this? Democracy Now also ran a piece on this.
wonder how much oakland pd is going to charge scott olsen for the tear gas canister.