10 replies to this topic

[SakuraSong]

http://www.a4rnyc.org/

So apparently the NYPD wants a grouping of 50 or more people in a gathering anywhere within NYC to have a permit, or else it's illegal.

Quote

The rules effect pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists alike.

"dragonrider" said:

"themonkmeiser" said:

and just note that if your meeting only has forty people, eleven cops in plain clothes will "show up" and then they can shut you down.

That's sweet -- they should have groups of 49 cops that run around in plainclothes everywhere looking for pairs of people to shut down.

Cop: Alright people, there are 51 individuals here, you're all under arrest. Except for the other cops. So.... you two come with me.

Two people: WTF MATE

What do you, fellow Technites, think? All of us lives in New York, this means that we can't even have a gathering of 40 friends for a birthday party before we're all locked up somewhere for violation of NY permit rules. This is, according to the website above, pushed on by the NYPD with the "blessings of the mayor".

I don't think it's in effect yet, but I really hope that it'll be overthrown. It's simply amazingly stupid to make meetings and gatherings for whatever reason illegal. Even if it's all for "anti-terrorism", which, if I may so speak freely here, is a bunch of crock.

Topic and quotes comes from www.spacefem.com/forum

[Josh]

Things like this depend on the type of forum of speech you're using: public, limited-public, or private. There are other factors to consider that limit free speech, including, but not limited to public safety and commerce issues (I'm sure the only reason the Democratic Speaker of the City Council is supporting these is because she feels those reasons are sufficient). Proper yet fair limit placment on the different forums of speech, as well as the distinctions themselves, and the placement of restrictions for reasons like those I said before, are all well-founded and upheld in Supreme Court history.

This site that is saying that our freedom of speech and assembly rights are being taken away seems to be exaggerating a bit. You still have your individual freedom of speech, even in spoken word and in a public forum. After 50 people you have what they are going to consider a demonstration, for which you'll need a permit.

You have to realize that just because you have to get a permit doesn't mean that they are restricting you. Permits, if anything, have been a crucial aspect of free speech, all the way back through the Civil Rights Movement and even well before that. This is because a permit is often considered a protection of your First Amendment rights. Take for example small, neo-Nazi gatherings that still exist down South today. They would not be possible without permit applications that grant them the protection of the police force and the city.

Now, we can assume that abuses of this regulation will occur, but then again, the same abuses occur nowadays even without it. And the same thing will happen when they do: if there are problems, they will be exposed fast. New York newspapers (in addition to other hysteria-driven forms of media in general) still have a strong muckraking tradition when it comes to things like this.

[DBest]

plus they're talking about gatherings or assemblies in the streets, which without a permit sounds ridiculous to me too.

[SakuraSong]

There are all types of gatherings. Should they all be illegal without that permit?
I realised that ZoSo made a very good point about how permits are for the protection of the First Amendment Rights, but this just reminds me a bit of that "No teams, groups, meetings allowed, yadda yadda" thing in OtP. Fiction about Hogwarts, sure, but it's still creepily parallel to this permit rule thing.

I'm still waiting for more information about this new rule though. I admit, the website I provided is rife with bias, so I'll reserve judgement now until a more...neutral tone to this story comes out.

(Still, why NYC only? Geeze.)

[DBest]

Quote

On Friday January 28th the NYPD promulgated new rules that require groups of 50 or more to obtain a permit if they want to gather on a sidewalk, in the road, or in the parks.

if they're in a park, sidewalk, or road, yeah.
In fact it would just be ludacris if they didn't have a permit and they were gathering so much people, unless they were protesting against something in which case they would have a very hard time with getting a permit.

[Josh]

SakuraSong, on Sep 12 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

There are all types of gatherings. Should they all be illegal without that permit?

I'm sure that, just like there will be abuses of the rule, there will also be exceptions (if not in word, in practice). Say, for example, a funeral.

Quote

...but this just reminds me a bit of that "No teams, groups, meetings allowed, yadda yadda" thing in OtP. Fiction about Hogwarts, sure, but it's still creepily parallel to this permit rule thing.

I definitely know where you're coming from, though. While I can defend this regulation, it still leaves a peculiar feeling in me, and I don't feel good about it. It might just be the times that we're in that are making this seem worse than it probably is.

[xxMrJoliexx]

when is it gonna be decided. Because i need to know so i can tell my mom to get one for my birthday party!

[Charles]

This rule is already in affect. But it only pertains to groups that are gathered in public.

[katinka]

The law has been in effect for a while now, and Chris Quinn (city council speaker) has been under lots of fire for supporting it. Its really quite stupid, and just makes people jump through bureaucratic hoops. You have to apply for a permit almost a month in advance-- WTF?

However, special permit rules apply for demonstrations where you can get one like, a week in advance, not a month, and if you don't get it, there's all kinds of appeals and press conferences and lawsuits. Long story short, unless the protest is expected to be completely violent the permits are usually granted. I.E.- this organization, ALP, tried to organize a march this past June and its permit was denied about a week ahead of the date. After a bunch of press conferences the permit was granted, in part because they figured it would happen anyway.

Also, this organization called the National Lawyers Guild usually attends important demonstrations and makes sure that the protesters rights aren't violated. If you look up protest videos on youtube, they're the guys/gals in the lime green caps. Not that they can stop people from getting arrested, they're just legal observers, but their notes can help in the trial.

This law is especially inappropriate because at many times in history there have been spontaneous gatherings of dozens of people after particularly tragic or happy events. Its not something thats planned, it just happens: like if someone was killed, or something really outrageous happened.

BTW, here are some pics of a protest of this law, aimed at Chris Quinn. http://jameswagner.c...ves/006364.html

[Josh]

katinka, on Sep 12 2007, 09:08 PM, said:

This law is especially inappropriate because at many times in history there have been spontaneous gatherings of dozens of people after particularly tragic or happy events. Its not something thats planned, it just happens: like if someone was killed, or something really outrageous happened.

We can assume that there would be exceptions, and the ones you just listed are likely among them (except those that could considered riots). They just can't be included in the language of the regulation for obvious reasons. The exceptions are de facto exceptions. Because in the end, the enforcement of this is up to the discretion of the police officers. They are trusted with common sense and proper judgment. When the regulation passed, everyone knew that. Do you really think such an absolute regulation would have passed?

There's reason why there wasn't a bigger fight over the adoption of this.

[SakuraSong]

ZoSo, on Sep 12 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

We can assume that there would be exceptions, and the ones you just listed are likely among them (except those that could considered riots). They just can't be included in the language of the regulation for obvious reasons. The exceptions are de facto exceptions. Because in the end, the enforcement of this is up to the discretion of the police officers. They are trusted with common sense and proper judgment. When the regulation passed, everyone knew that. Do you really think such an absolute regulation would have passed?

There's reason why there wasn't a bigger fight over the adoption of this.

Not always, but if I get into it, then I'd be spreading out little seeds of paranoia best left unsowed.