![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Protest and Police Action
Sep. 7th, 2007 09:34 pmCaught a blurb on the Mike Malloy Show about some anti-war protesters from ANSWER being arrested, allegedly for holding a press conference in a public park. The arrest was made by police barging into (the press release said "suppressed") the press conference on horseback to separate the suspects from the press.
There was, to be honest, a fairly legitimate reason for the arrest: the press conference was staged because ANSWER didn't like being ordered not to advertise by pasting posters on surfaces such as electrical boxes and utility poles. The organization was already being threatened with fines for defacing public property, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
The argument could be made that as long as other advertisers are permitted to use public property to get out their message, that clamping down on only anti-war protesters is discriminatory abuse of police discretion. That is an argument for a court and not for the police to decide.
But purely making a speech in a public park arguably IS so protected, and an attempt to squash peaceful public protest by requiring permits could be construed as unconstitutional interference with freedom of speech. That case is still before the courts, but the obvious take-away is "what part of 'Congress shall make no law' did you not #@$%^&* understand?".
So on balance, I think there was no excuse to suppress the press conference itself to make what looked like a righteous bust based on legitimate principles of civil disobedience.
Hint to DC police: Wait until they are done (or almost done) and *then* make the arrest. That allows for less use of force, and it makes you look more like reasonable law enforcement officers instead of fascist stormtroopers.
There was, to be honest, a fairly legitimate reason for the arrest: the press conference was staged because ANSWER didn't like being ordered not to advertise by pasting posters on surfaces such as electrical boxes and utility poles. The organization was already being threatened with fines for defacing public property, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
The argument could be made that as long as other advertisers are permitted to use public property to get out their message, that clamping down on only anti-war protesters is discriminatory abuse of police discretion. That is an argument for a court and not for the police to decide.
But purely making a speech in a public park arguably IS so protected, and an attempt to squash peaceful public protest by requiring permits could be construed as unconstitutional interference with freedom of speech. That case is still before the courts, but the obvious take-away is "what part of 'Congress shall make no law' did you not #@$%^&* understand?".
So on balance, I think there was no excuse to suppress the press conference itself to make what looked like a righteous bust based on legitimate principles of civil disobedience.
Hint to DC police: Wait until they are done (or almost done) and *then* make the arrest. That allows for less use of force, and it makes you look more like reasonable law enforcement officers instead of fascist stormtroopers.
