Your second sentence is a false assumption since that did not happen. Your last sentence is an oxymoron.
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.
Blocking traffic is not illegal if you have a permit. And that is EXACTLY why there should be permits issued for protests. Parades and protests block traffic all the time in cities, but the city has time to prepare for the protest and redirect traffic, setup security, etc. when a permit has been given.
That's what I've always thought. Doesn't getting permission kind of defeat the purpose?And therein lies the problem. I understand that, from one point of view, government-issued permits may be necessary in some circumstances for safety and/or logistical reasons, but it defeats the purpose of having a right to assemble.
And therein lies the problem. I understand that, from one point of view, government-issued permits may be necessary in some circumstances for safety and/or logistical reasons, but it defeats the purpose of having a right to assemble.
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?
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?