Permit still needed for rallies, protests
The City Council tonight voted in favor
of revising an ordinance passed this summer regarding the permit process for
rallies and protests on public streets. The revision, passed 4-1 with
Councilman Bill Alexander dissenting, is a slight variation of the original
ordinance but it still requires organizers to obtain a permit to assemble if
the rally will impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Ordinance 849, passed unanimously in August, requires organizers of rallies with 75 participants or more to get a permit six days in advance. The revised Ordinance 851 requires a permit four days in advance for rallies with 100 people or more.
Despite passing a slightly less restrictive ordinance, the move drew ire from opponents of the permit process. Mike Rositter, who spoke out against the permit process, said he did not see much difference between the original and revised ordinances.
"More laws do not mean you're better
protected," Rositter said. "The Constitution was written for the protection of
the people of the United States, not written for the betterment of the police
department."
Does this mean permits are required for major youth sports events, schools, rush hour, and other events? What about the spontaneous vigils 9/11/2001 and the like? What about freeway traffic accidents, don't they tie up traffic and far more than 75 or 100 people? Has there ever been a single assembly of people in RC which has endangered public safety more than the usual amount caused by our transportation system based on motor vehicles?
Read the First Amendment (I hope not for the first time) and look up the definition of abridge. This ordinance does abridge the right to assembly (of 100+ people) by forbidding it prior to permit application, and four days thereafter.