Can Someone Explain Protest Law to Me?

[Utah]

I just saw an article on CNN that said a group was denied a permit to go to central park to stage a protest during the RNC.

Why do they need a permit? Couldn't I simply go to central park alone and protest? Is that within my free speech rights?

I dont get it. Am I missing something here?

[cardcounter0]

Yes, you are missing the part where you think you have rights.

[elwoodblues]

Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech have been held to not violate the first amendment. Not saying that's a good thing.

I question whether it is a reasonable restriction to limit protesters in such a way to make their voices unheard (free speech zones tend to do this, in my opinion).

[CORed]

I know I'm hopelessly idealistic, but I have this crazy idea that the whole country is supposed to be a "free speech zone".

[cardcounter0]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Lock up that terrorist! No trial needed.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[blackaces13]

The thing is that if they let a massive protest take place in Central Park during the RNC there could theoretically be a very high risk of it turning into a riot and endangering the public in NYC. At least that is the reason behind it. 1st ammendment rights do not supercede societies need for order, hence you can't yell "Fire" in a theater. This is how it is justifiable to prevent certain protests in certain public places.

I'm not saying whether its right or wrong in this case because I don't really know anything about it but that's how something like that could be denied anyway.

[The Armchair]

Like elwood said, the permits exist because restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech are allowable. However, these restrictions must be content-neutral.

This is a necessary caveat and makes for good if not obvious law. The city would not allow 100,000 fans to watch the Super Bowl in Central Park (let's say on a gigantic TV), as they would destroy the grass and make that part of the park otherwise unusable for days, if not weeks. You'd see nothing wrong with that, I'd hope. The city is making the same claim here: We simply don't want all these people destroying our park.

[The Armchair]

This isn't a "clear and present danger" issue ("Fire" in a crowded theater), as there is neither a clear nor present danger. The city is citing content-neutral reasons for denying the permit.