| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Georgia: Deposit Required for Public Demonstrations |
| 2004-04-19 |
| EFL - check the link, as I left out some of the fine details. The coastal city of Brunswick [GA]⊠passed a law last month that places conditions on public demonstrations. Organizers of protests⊠must put up refundable deposits equal to the cityâs estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet. Sweet. One public demonstration organizer sez: "It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money." No, it forces you to be responsible enough to pay a deposit to cover potential âpublicâ expenses. Brunswick, Savannah and surrounding counties have passed ordinances governing protest permits. The American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue, saying the laws "place impermissible limits on free speech." You can say whatever you want, but it is NOT the duty of the taxpayer to pay for police protection and damage to âpublicâ property. The new laws are a response to the violent protests during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. I donât know about THIS angle, but I am 100% for the concept of the protestors paying deposits (i.e. renting) public property for their demonstrations. There is nothing here that says they canât be backed by private individuals instead (that is, if they can find any willing to pony up the dough for |
| Posted by:Unmutual |
| #5 I think that a flat fee might be constitutional. A flat fee would be less objectionable than a fee contingent on the communicative impact of expression. Under the court's caselaw a flat fee is probably a content neutral restriction upon speech which must only pass an intermediate level of scrutiny. My tentative guess is that such a requirement is constitutional. However, the city must be even handed in its enforcement. If the ordinance vests in city officials the discretion to waive the requirement the ordinance is still unconstitutional. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-04-20 10:48:59 PM |
| #4 What about pink tanks? Seriously, I think some provision for holding organizers responsible for damage and other extra costs is only fair to the rest of the taxpayers. The problem, as Anon and Unmutual point out, lies in the prior restraint implications of requiring a deposit. OTOH, accountability after the fact is impractical in many cases because the most destructive demonstrators are the ones least likely to remain in the jurisdiction: they trash the place then split for the Village or Mom and Dad's place in the Hamptons. What is it with idiotarians and Kit-Kat bars anyway? After a recent Greenpeace riot/demo in Dallas, the place was covered with litter: retro-psychedelic handbills, Evian bottles, and enough Kit-Kat wrappers to supply several years worth of eco-propaganda if they had been recycled. Are these the grass-munchy Oreos of the 21st century or something? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-04-19 9:17:28 PM |
| #3 Does it ban giant puppets, too? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-19 11:50:08 AM |
| #2 That's a good point, but what is your opinion of a flat rate deposit? While I agree that attempting to calculate "likely results" in such a way is an improper use of governmental censure, I also defend the gov's and the taxpayer's right to protect public property by requiring those who use it to accept the costs involved. Charging the same rental fee that is already charged for weddings etc. on "public" property (parks, etc.) is not unusual or discriminatory at all in my view. In fact, it is the only proper way to distribute the usage of "public" property. |
| Posted by: Unmutual 2004-04-19 11:48:02 AM |
| #1 I disagree. An ordinance like that may well be unconstitutional on the ground that costs might be calculated based on the likely reaction to the message. The Supreme Court struck down such an ordinance in FORSYTH COUNTY v. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-04-19 10:32:16 AM |