• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can government use curfews & other restrictions to outlaw peaceful protests?

Can government use curfews & other restrictions to outlaw peaceful protests?


  • Total voters
    22
As to "motive," protests were specifically mentioned in the curfew law:

(b) Prohibited Conduct. Except as specifically provided by subparagraphs (i) - (vii) above:

(i) no person located within the City of Baltimore may be in a public place during the Curfew Period, whether in a vehicle or on foot;

(ii) no person within the City of Baltimore may engage in a march, parade, assembly or demonstration on a public place, whether during the Curfew Period or during Other Hours unless the event has a previously issued permit;


This was NOT just for hot spots. It was a citywide, summary house-arrest/confinement lock down of nearly 700,000 people by an edict of the mayor, ie the mayor conservatives are claiming was giving free run to looters and arsonists. In fact, she basically arrested everyone in the entire city.
 
Safety vs human dignity ? We are out of balance here , with far too much emphasis on safety and too little on dignity ..
 
They have the guns, they can do so. But I find it suspicious use of government power in general. Particularly "designated protest areas". Like the "Free Speech" zones they have for the Republocrat conventions, usually FAR removed from the convention itself. I don't understand how that's legal.

For the most part, government must allow peaceful protest and assembly to continue unmolested.

What they do is arrest the person, but if the person gets a lawyer they drop the charges to avoid the issue. This didn't prevent the arrest, being jailed or the cost of posting bond. This is likely also what will happen to those arrested from breaking the curfew. They will be arrested, charged, booked, mug shot taken (put online forever), and required to pay a non-refundable bond fee. IF the person gets a lawyer the case will ultimately be dropped, though the person also is out attorney fees unless free.
 
It's a fundamental violation of liberty for the government to tell its citizens they can not be out in the public past a certain time.
 
Who was it who said if people pick safety over freedom, they will have neither?

And I think it was Eisenhower who said the safest place is being in jail (though actually it isn't.)

In Baltimore, nearly 700,000 people were placed under house arrest on behalf of safety because of looters and arsonists in one area of one neighborhood - in the name of public safety.
 
It appears the government ALLOWS people to have Constitutional rights UNLESS the government thinks otherwise.

Another example was the door to door warrantless searches of homes after the Boston bombing. Because the police decided there was a reason to disregard the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights, they did so.

Basically, to be accurate, the Bill Of Rights should have "Unless anyone in government decides otherwise,..."

OH... and for all the people who curse the federal government being too powerful, wanting "states rights" instead for freedom's sake, MOST summary termination of civil rights is by local and state government (local government is an arm of state government), not the federal government. The summary house-confinement of nearly 700,000 people in Baltimore was by the local mayor, not Washington DC.
 
The curfew exempted people going back and forth to work, Joko. You look at the curfew as punishment. I, in the other hand, look at it as keeping people safe. Most especially young people.

I was mistaken on that. IF an employee had an ID and a letter from their employer, they could go to work. However, it also ordered most businesses essentially closed or literally closed.

I think it was Eisenhower who said if a person really wants safety, get yourself put in jail. Then you are safe from other people. There is inherent danger to freedom, just like there is to lack of freedom.

Yes, I suppose it would be safer if everyone in the USA was prohibited from being out of their home except with documentation they are traveling to and from work. Everything a person needs and wants an be ordered online.

What would be interesting would be to see if incidents of domestic violence increases when people are locked up together in their tiny apartments. But, probably, you would be safer if it was illegal for anyone to leave their home except to documentably go to and from work. Acceptable policy?

No one has asked why the curfew wasn't just for the affected areas and the prohibition against public gatherings after 10 pm, rather than absolute and citywide. To have the minimal lose of rights to the minimal number of people, rather than the maximum lose of rights 100% to everyone?
 
Last edited:
Well, clearly, your solution is for the police to let protests lead to riots and then for the police to attempt to pick off rioters from those simply observing all while the riot is going on. Perhaps you'd like to put your life on the line to stop masked and potentially armed anarchists as they torch and loot randomly and at will.

The curfew was instituted in an established area of the city to avoid the rioting that took place previous nights. People could visit their neighbours, hang out in their backyards, work if they had a nighttime job to go to, etc. - they just couldn't loiter around a hot spot in the city where rioting had occurred. You'd have to be brain dead and a fool - which the Baltimore Mayor clearly originally was - to think that under the darkness of night elements of those protesting were not going to be violent and destructive. Baltimore isn't the first city to ever experience such "peaceful" protesting at 1, 2, 3 in the morning.

Rioting isn't illegal. Only individuals committing illegal acts is illegal. Protesters don't have to be orderly, quiet and nice.
 
like you, I presume the direct reference was to Baltimore. But the question was phrased in a general way.

Because this is not something that has only happened in Baltimore.
 
Not that facts necessarily matter to you, it was the mayor you curse that is who implemented the curfew.

People in apartments don't have yards.

The curfew was citywide and NOT just "hot spots," another false fact you assert.

However, I was incorrect that employees could go to work if they had an ID and letter from their employee. As for businesses, some could remain open but nearly all ordered closed (or rather no customers allowed to get there).

Facts are very important and relevant to any discussion of the implementation of such a policy.

Yes, it was the Mayor who foolishly told police to stand down who then saw the error of her ways, listened to more intelligent and reasoned voices, and implemented the curfew.

It was my understanding that the curfew was for those areas considered downtown Baltimore, not for all the suburbs as well - you could be correct.

People in apartments would have more opportunity to meet with neighbours, having more immediate neighbours in the same building.

I suspect a lot of fast food delivery places did great business during the curfew, but you're right that many businesses that open 24/7 and depend on walk in customers, would be adversely affected. Better that than having their business burned to the ground and/or their employees assaulted.
 
Who was it who said if people pick safety over freedom, they will have neither?

And I think it was Eisenhower who said the safest place is being in jail (though actually it isn't.)

In Baltimore, nearly 700,000 people were placed under house arrest on behalf of safety because of looters and arsonists in one area of one neighborhood - in the name of public safety.

Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
I was mistaken on that. IF an employee had an ID and a letter from their employer, they could go to work. However, it also ordered most businesses essentially closed or literally closed.

I think it was Eisenhower who said if a person really wants safety, get yourself put in jail. Then you are safe from other people. There is inherent danger to freedom, just like there is to lack of freedom.

Yes, I suppose it would be safer if everyone in the USA was prohibited from being out of their home except with documentation they are traveling to and from work. Everything a person needs and wants an be ordered online.

What would be interesting would be to see if incidents of domestic violence increases when people are locked up together in their tiny apartments. But, probably, you would be safer if it was illegal for anyone to leave their home except to documentably go to and from work. Acceptable policy?

No one has asked why the curfew wasn't just for the affected areas and the prohibition against public gatherings after 10 pm, rather than absolute and citywide. To have the minimal lose of rights to the minimal number of people, rather than the maximum lose of rights 100% to everyone?

Those few thugs (used on purpose) caused MILLIONS of dollars in damage on (just) Monday night. Had a curfew been put into effect on Monday, millions could have been saved -- and still allow for all the peaceful demonstration Baltimore wanted during the day.

Personally, I don't have such a tenuous grasp on my civil rights that I am appalled by curfews when thugs are trying to burn down the city and steal every chance they get. You?
 
The government has used declaring curfews, establishing "protest areas" as the only place protesters may be, requiring a permit to have a protest gathering or march, and other rules that effectively criminal peaceful protests by which the police may arrest and criminally prosecute all protesters - and anyone who does not agree they can be basically placed under house arrest at night.

Curfews for adults is a very different set of issues for adults than it is for children.

There are other questions such as having an inherent right to be in public, as opposed to basically under house arrest every night in your own home.

I would imagine bars are none too happy with a 10 pm curfew nor are companies and employees of night shifts.

Is a curfew, "designated protest area," and a requirement to obtain permits for a protest rally or march legitimate? Unconstitutional? Good ideas?

SCOTUS has ruled that time and place restrictions by the government are constitutional. The government just can't discriminate based on content or viewpoint. I support the need for a permit since the government does not have the right to restrict based on viewpoint/content.

I think it is a good idea to limit the time and place of protests. Look at the people during the Ferguson incident who sat in the middle of a highway blocking traffic in protest. I don't want to give people the right to do something that asinine and unproductive.

Curfews I think are okay in the event of riots. However, there has to be a imminent need for the curfew in my opinion.
 
I don't want to give people the right to do something that asinine and unproductive.

Nobody really does, but when it comes to recognition of rights placing emphasis on liberty, you open up many avenues for people to be asinine and unproductive. Hell, the whole of the internet alone allows for that.
 
Those few thugs (used on purpose) caused MILLIONS of dollars in damage on (just) Monday night. Had a curfew been put into effect on Monday, millions could have been saved -- and still allow for all the peaceful demonstration Baltimore wanted during the day.

Personally, I don't have such a tenuous grasp on my civil rights that I am appalled by curfews when thugs are trying to burn down the city and steal every chance they get. You?


You assert that a citywide curfew was the only solution. I do not think it was.

This was not citywide and the problem was dealing with looting and arson at night, while at the same time there were thousands of lawful protesters at night.

Therefore, if there was an emergency situation then it should have been to prohibit gatherings of more than half a dozen people from 10 pm to 5 am in the affected area, and to do the "designated protest area" picking a park, and not a total citywide lock down.

There are other issues such as holding all the police back and not bringing in the Guardsmen earlier. Why wouldn't that have worked? To declare an emergency basis to prohibit large gatherings outside an area such as a park during those hours?

Other issues I have, seemingly a contradict, of why didn't the police charge those small groups - usually 100 or less - throwing rocks and bottles at them arresting them - as they should be arrested and convicted of assault against police - a felony?

What affected my opinion was a Maryland State Senator for that jurisdiction pointing out to FOX news that while they were singularly videotaping about 100 people - a few of those throwing things at the police - there were thousands of peaceful protesters totally ignored by the media and that Baltimore has nearly 700,000 people - for which the ONLY interest was in those 100 or so. And, then, on top of that, little to no effort was made to arrest the 100 or so actually committing crimes.

The criminals? Nothing happened to them. Rather, the action was for the most part against everyone else.

Looting and arson? Happens all over the country. Flash-mobs (looting) has become fairly common. They don't lock down the entire city. Arson isn't rare either.

The MEDIA sold the pitch of OMG BALTIMORE IS BEING BURNED TO THE GROUND - and that wasn't happening. They portrayed that looting and arson were out of control all over the city. That wasn't happening. And they seemed to sell the idea that thousands of people were engaging in looting, which wasn't happening either. This was happening in one poor income neighborhood for which there were probably 20 police for every looter,which rose to about a 50 to 1 ratio.

So then isolate that neighborhood, declare gatherings outside designated areas are illegal at certain hours, and aggressively/instantly go after those few committing crimes in that neighborhood and against the police. In my opinion, the mayor and police were more acting to demands of the media upon the portrayals of the media, than the actual reality.

Maybe it SEEMS trivial, but it would be something taken from my life if told we couldn't do our night-time shark fishing due to it being illegal to tow our boat back home - because there was a higher than usual crime rate going on in a small city miles away. "Well, then why are you bothering us? Go arrest those criminals" would be my attitude.

Also, if you are familiar with Baltimore, there is a very popular tourist beach front - and those are weekend businesses - restaurants and bars - and those also all ordered closed - though NO problems there at all. It is almost like a completely different city. So wreck everyone's once-a-year vacation too?

I really do think that woman had a valid excuse in saying that she lives in that neighborhood and she wanted to go outside and look at the stars. The idea that a mayor can just declare that's a criminal offense seems wrong somehow.

I do understand your opinion and yes there is a balancing act sometimes. I think they went too far.
 
When that "peaceful" protest turns violent it's no longer protected as a peaceable assembly. And yes, curfews are one of the legitimate and legal answers to riots. You just can't spin what is happening in Baltimore as a peaceable assembly.
 
SCOTUS has ruled that time and place restrictions by the government are constitutional. The government just can't discriminate based on content or viewpoint. I support the need for a permit since the government does not have the right to restrict based on viewpoint/content.

I think it is a good idea to limit the time and place of protests. Look at the people during the Ferguson incident who sat in the middle of a highway blocking traffic in protest. I don't want to give people the right to do something that asinine and unproductive.

Curfews I think are okay in the event of riots. However, there has to be a imminent need for the curfew in my opinion.

Except blocking traffic is illegal.

Therein is another problem with how things were handled. The police should ticket or arrest (depending on the offense) those breaking the law. That'd go a long way to stop it growing and escalating.

Instead, the police typically create a defensive battle line and do nothing about those actually committing crimes - even if outright within their view. To just stand back and watch it happen. In doing so, it escalates. THEN, after the escalation allowed to happen, to declare some crisis that could have been avoided in the first place.

Go to ANY poor crowded community and declare police aren't going to do anything and there will be looting and arson. And it will escalate. So nothing is done for a couple of days/nights allowing it to escalate nearly out of control, and then suspending legal rights in an extreme reaction beyond what is necessary.

The first media pictures should have been of looters being arrested by scores of police - not the police standing back and just watching.
 
When that "peaceful" protest turns violent it's no longer protected as a peaceable assembly. And yes, curfews are one of the legitimate and legal answers to riots. You just can't spin what is happening in Baltimore as a peaceable assembly.

Nor can you spin the thousands of peaceful protesters into looters, arsonists and rioters, nor can you do so for the other 700,000 people of Baltimore.

The media declaring all of Baltimore has exploded in rioting by showing video of the same two blocks and the same burning building over and over and over - and only showing that - does NOT make that the reality.
 
I'm with ya, except I have concerns about "bogart a public space". If someone is using a public park, and not impeding traffic, part of me says they're entitled to... with reasonable time limits so other people can use the space as well.
As far as I know this was not done during the occupy protests.They took over a public space,camped out and refused to leave.
 
Nor can you spin the thousands of peaceful protesters into looters, arsonists and rioters, nor can you do so for the other 700,000 people of Baltimore.

The media declaring all of Baltimore has exploded in rioting by showing video of the same two blocks and the same burning building over and over and over - and only showing that - does NOT make that the reality.

No, you're right, the reality of the riot makes it reality. And yes those "thousands of peaceful protestors" become a mob the moment rioting breaks out anywhere in the mob. You do NOT have a right to protest, you have a right to peaceable assembly and to air your grievances before government.
 
No, you're right, the reality of the riot makes it reality. And yes those "thousands of peaceful protestors" become a mob the moment rioting breaks out anywhere in the mob. You do NOT have a right to protest, you have a right to peaceable assembly and to air your grievances before government.

Your second sentence is a false assumption since that did not happen. Your last sentence is an oxymoron.
 
Nobody really does, but when it comes to recognition of rights placing emphasis on liberty, you open up many avenues for people to be asinine and unproductive. Hell, the whole of the internet alone allows for that.

Free speech means the government cannot discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of your speech. Free speech has never meant you have the right to have a demonstration wherever you want or at whatever time you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom