they can tell you the time, place, etc. in which you can assemble and protest...if this is true, why can't they just come up with some really restrictive circumstances if they don't like your political views....like only allowing you to protest from 8:15AM to 8:18AM in a small corner of the street.
2007-07-29 17:26:48 · 8 answers · asked by V for Vendetta 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you disrupt the general public, you are no longer peaceably protesting. That's why you can't stand in the middle of traffic.
2007-07-29 17:40:42 · answer #1 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The time and place of protest can be restricted. For instance, if you want to protest the existence of a traffic light on the corner of Main and Center, you cant stand in the middle of the intersection protesting because of the disruptive effect. You are worried about the Bush administration's interference with meaningful protest by perhaps taking this concept the the "nth" degree. And I agree, it's very problematic. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to raise the Constitutionality of the way Bush is implementing this.
2007-07-30 00:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing that restrictive. However they can limit where you can protest. If you are protesting in the middle of the street, you can be cited for blocking traffic, being a danger, etc. If your signs are blocking traffic signs or traffic signals then you will be ticketed. Private property owners can have you forcibly removed from their property. Rules about petition drives (if you are asking supporters for signatures) apply. You may be ejected from a courtroom if the judge feels you are being disruptive to proceedings.
2007-07-30 00:39:31 · answer #3 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time/place/manner restrictions is the legal term of art.
Time/place/manner restrictions still need to meet stricter scrutiny on a constitutional analysis than most laws, though not as strict as laws which ban speech or expression entirely.
The standard is that the regulations cannot impose an undue burden on the opportunity to express your message, and cannot limit your message to the point where it is effectively being silenced. The example you give means the message is effectively being silenced.
And, most importantly, the restrictions cannot distinguish between different messages. So, if the limits are to a particular place or time of day -- that applies to everyone, regardless of which side of the debate they are on. Any attempt to discriminate based on viewpoint (which side of the debate) is invalid.
2007-07-30 00:32:22 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can come up with restrictions on time and place if they are necessary to advance a legitimate public interest and are narrowly construed to meet that interest. In your example, there would be no public interest AND they would be interfering with your overall ability to get your message out. So it would be unconstitutional on 2 grounds.
2007-07-30 00:44:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've only met one person who protested and was arrested in washington dc during vietnam. in this day and age i'd be terrified to protest anything for fear of being arrested and not being able to be employed with all the computer records such that they are. of course, being in fear is exactly how the government / law officials want us to be in order to control difficult decision.
2007-07-30 00:33:55 · answer #6 · answered by Mildred S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course it can and should be restricted. personally, i don't want my daily life to be unreasonably disrupted by a continual parade of crusaders from the bonehead-cause-of-the-month club. and guess what, people like me have rights too.
2007-07-30 00:39:44 · answer #7 · answered by billnzan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they can really do that. If they can, I can smell an ACLU case already.
2007-07-30 00:31:03 · answer #8 · answered by LIGER20498 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋