• 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?

  • Yes, government can prohibit protester gathers

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • Yes, public safety is more important that protest rights

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Maybe, it depends on the circumstance

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • No, people have a right to protest in public

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Total voters
    22
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Of course government can curfew and criminalize demonstrators. Assad did that in Damascus and just look how well it has worked.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I say yes they are unconstitutional.You have a right to peaceably assemble and protest.That said you don't have the right riot and to block the road, block access to a business, church, or some other place or to bogart a public space. I believe permits are for the exclusive use of those spaces. As far as I know in my state you can protest all you want on a public sidewalk as long as you are not blocking anyone else's access to that sidewalk. Protesting is one thing, it is a completely different thing if you are shutting down a business,city or blocking access to a place under the guise of a protest.
 
It is the most fundamental duty of government to maintain public order and safety. In certain exceptional circumstances this can warrant a curfew.
 
When it becomes impossible to readily identify the arsonists and looters among "peaceful" protesters then it's the obligation of the state to shut them down. Furthermore, if protest is used as a means to mask criminal behavior then it is no longer peaceful.
 
This poll is a false question because there's no example or reference to the government ever instituting a curfew to thwart "peaceful" protesting. Curfews are only instituted when lawlessness occurs. Peaceful protests may be a victim of the lawless, and the governmental means to control the lawless, but they're not a direct victim of curfews.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This poll is a false question because there's no example or reference to the government ever instituting a curfew to thwart "peaceful" protesting. Curfews are only instituted when lawlessness occurs. Peaceful protests may be a victim of the lawless, and the governmental means to control the lawless, but they're not a direct victim of curfews.
Click to expand...

It's not because a curfew can be a legitimate action by government that it is never abused to simply stifle dissent or peaceful protest. This does happen in certain countries.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Government has the right to curtail or otherwise limit peaceful demonstration where demonstrators are interfering with the rest of us in a too large way or behaving in an unsafe manner. Reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble are a-ok with me.
 
LeoVlaming said:
It's not because a curfew can be a legitimate action by government that it is never abused to simply stifle dissent or peaceful protest. This does happen in certain countries.
Click to expand...

I was presuming we were talking about western civilization, particularly the United States, and not dictatorships or communist regimes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I was presuming we were talking about western civilization, particularly the United States, and not dictatorships or communist regimes.
Click to expand...

like you, I presume the direct reference was to Baltimore. But the question was phrased in a general way.
 
jamesrage said:
I say yes they are unconstitutional.You have a right to peaceably assemble and protest.That said you don't have the right riot and to block the road, block access to a business, church, or some other place or to bogart a public space. I believe permits are for the exclusive use of those spaces. As far as I know in my state you can protest all you want on a public sidewalk as long as you are not blocking anyone else's access to that sidewalk. Protesting is one thing, it is a completely different thing if you are shutting down a business,city or blocking access to a place under the guise of a protest.
Click to expand...

That doesn't resolve the issue of curfews, thus both preventing any protesting (even peaceful) and essentially is putting everyone under house arrest at night.

I thought the black woman protesting being arrested saying she was exercising her right to go outside and look at the stars was a fairly decent claim. There are old case rules about a person having a fundamental human right to "view the ancient lights."
 
Lutherf said:
When it becomes impossible to readily identify the arsonists and looters among "peaceful" protesters then it's the obligation of the state to shut them down. Furthermore, if protest is used as a means to mask criminal behavior then it is no longer peaceful.
Click to expand...

Nearly 700,000 people in Baltimore were ordered into basically house arrest.

Could the federal government do that too if there is a crime spree? Ordering every person in the country must stay in their apartment or house at night?

Also, can the government summarily shut down every business and lay off every night shift employee like this did?

The Constitution doesn't allow protests only if the government believes the protest is safe, does it?
 
MaggieD said:
Government has the right to curtail or otherwise limit peaceful demonstration where demonstrators are interfering with the rest of us in a too large way or behaving in an unsafe manner. Reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble are a-ok with me.
Click to expand...

Except that's all they prohibited. They did not declare no night-time protests. They established a universal curfew. For adults, that is effectively a house arrest of everyone for which everyone is treated as guilty. Nearly 700,000 people punished summarily (if it a citywide curfew), every business that operated 24/7 summarily ordered out of business, any every person with a nightshift job laid off by the government.

It went beyond ordering a crowd to disperse or prohibiting protesting.

What if this, instead, was a daytime curfew? No one in the city can go outside during the day? Does that make a difference? To shutdown the entire city and everyone under house arrest during the day, because there are crimes being committed mostly during the daytime?
 
CanadaJohn said:
This poll is a false question because there's no example or reference to the government ever instituting a curfew to thwart "peaceful" protesting. Curfews are only instituted when lawlessness occurs. Peaceful protests may be a victim of the lawless, and the governmental means to control the lawless, but they're not a direct victim of curfews.
Click to expand...


ding ding ding

we have a winner
 
CanadaJohn said:
This poll is a false question because there's no example or reference to the government ever instituting a curfew to thwart "peaceful" protesting. Curfews are only instituted when lawlessness occurs. Peaceful protests may be a victim of the lawless, and the governmental means to control the lawless, but they're not a direct victim of curfews.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the motive is virtually irrelevant as who knows what the true motive of another person or organization is. It is the actual effect that matters.

The curfew "victimized" essentially everyone. Everyone was placed under house arrest and put in jail if they refused to submit to the house arrest. Isn't that the reality? We could argue "motive," but not "effect."

It is NOT a false poll, because it is a poll about what power the government does and doesn't legitimately have. I don't think it works that the law is whatever the government thinks is best for everyone at the time - regardless of Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws.

It does seem in crisis the government believes it becomes the all-powerful dictator, such as in Katrina, forcing people to leave their homes, warrantless searches and seizing all firearms - claiming THE GOVERNMENT decided they just have to do this for everyone's sake, throwing out all recognized citizen's rights to do so. Does crisis turn our country instantly into an absolute authoritarian dictatorship and police state with no citizen's rights? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
In my opinion, the motive is virtually irrelevant as who knows what the true motive of another person or organization is. It is the actual effect that matters.

The curfew "victimized" essentially everyone. Everyone was placed under house arrest and put in jail if they refused to submit to the house arrest. Isn't that the reality? We could argue "motive," but not "effect."
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This poll is a false question because there's no example or reference to the government ever instituting a curfew to thwart "peaceful" protesting. Curfews are only instituted when lawlessness occurs. Peaceful protests may be a victim of the lawless, and the governmental means to control the lawless, but they're not a direct victim of curfews.
Click to expand...

Weren't they doing so for the OWS protests? Or maybe just saying "park is closed" or some other method to disperse the protest.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
Weren't they doing so for the OWS protests? Or maybe just saying "park is closed" or some other method to disperse the protest.
Click to expand...

OWS protests, including those that went on here in Toronto, were allowed to continue for weeks and over a month before finally dispersed. Camping out and taking control of a significant part of a city is not going to be tolerated forever. And there was a lot of lawlessness within the OWS movement and "camps", including some theft, rapes and assaults.

OWS is a perfect example to counter the argument made in the OP - the government basically were hands off while the protests were peaceful and coordinated/contained.

And just as a side note, here in Toronto there was almost a $1million worth of damage done to a park that was occupied during the OWS protests - it was, however, tolerated as part of democracy.
 
jamesrage said:
I say yes they are unconstitutional.You have a right to peaceably assemble and protest.That said you don't have the right riot and to block the road, block access to a business, church, or some other place or to bogart a public space. I believe permits are for the exclusive use of those spaces. As far as I know in my state you can protest all you want on a public sidewalk as long as you are not blocking anyone else's access to that sidewalk. Protesting is one thing, it is a completely different thing if you are shutting down a business,city or blocking access to a place under the guise of a protest.
Click to expand...
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.

MaggieD said:
Government has the right to curtail or otherwise limit peaceful demonstration where demonstrators are interfering with the rest of us in a too large way or behaving in an unsafe manner. Reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble are a-ok with me.
Click to expand...
Problem is, what's "reasonable"?
 
joko104 said:
Except that's all they prohibited. They did not declare no night-time protests. They established a universal curfew. For adults, that is effectively a house arrest of everyone for which everyone is treated as guilty. Nearly 700,000 people punished summarily (if it a citywide curfew), every business that operated 24/7 summarily ordered out of business, any every person with a nightshift job laid off by the government.

It went beyond ordering a crowd to disperse or prohibiting protesting.

What if this, instead, was a daytime curfew? No one in the city can go outside during the day? Does that make a difference? To shutdown the entire city and everyone under house arrest during the day, because there are crimes being committed mostly during the daytime?
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
OWS protests, including those that went on here in Toronto, were allowed to continue for weeks and over a month before finally dispersed. Camping out and taking control of a significant part of a city is not going to be tolerated forever. And there was a lot of lawlessness within the OWS movement and "camps", including some theft, rapes and assaults.

OWS is a perfect example to counter the argument made in the OP - the government basically were hands off while the protests were peaceful and coordinated/contained.

And just as a side note, here in Toronto there was almost a $1million worth of damage done to a park that was occupied during the OWS protests - it was, however, tolerated as part of democracy.
Click to expand...



Here, they used a much different tactic. Fenced it off, and let anyone leave, and no one but medics, cops, and fire inspectors in. No food gets them gone in short order.

And I suspect since 2010, the VPD have a new, more "traditional" way of handling riots. we gave them room five years ago. Won't happen again despite the ultra left council
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom