Doesn't the need for a permit fundamentally contradict the US's ideals of free speech?
Doesn't the need for a permit fundamentally contradict the US's ideals of free speech?
I went to some palestine protests a while back, and was talking to my brother about the organizing, when revealed something I found pretty shocking, we (the protesters) had acquired a permit to hold the protest. Apparently this is standard policy across the US.
More recently, my University is also having protests, and in their policy, they also require explicit approval for what they call "expressive activity". I'm pretty sure not having a permit has been used as an excuse to arrest students in some other campuses.
My question is as the title, doesn't this fundamentally contradict the US's ideals of free speech? What kind of right needs an extra permit to exercise it?
When I was talking to my brother, he also expressed a couple more points:
- The city will pretty much grant all permits, so it's more of a polite agreement in most cases
- If we can get a permit (which we did) why shouldn't we?
I'm assuming this is because of legal reasons, they pretty much have to grant all permits.
Except I think this makes it all worse. If the government grants almost all permits, then the few rare times it doesn't:
- The protest is instantly de-legitimized due to not having a permit
- There's little legal precedent for the protesters to challenge this
And then of course there's the usual slippery slope argument. You're giving the government a tool they could expand later to oppress you further. Maybe they start with the groups most people don't like and go up from there.
The city will pretty much grant all permits
Yes, and they have to, because of your free speech.
so it's more of a polite agreement in most cases
No, it is meant for serious. If there are cases where they don't give a permit, they need to have very serious reason.
(For example, if the place where you want to go is very inappropriate, the would tell you to choose a different place)
But there is more: you asking for the permit is important in itself, so the administration can take the needed action for public order, e.g traffic regulation etc. So you have to tell them where you want to do it and how many people you expect to participate.
And when you want to demonstrate about controversial topics, they have to send even more police there for your safety. At least in my country that is legally required. The police helps to protect your right of free speech.
You're giving the government a tool they could expand later to oppress you further
I don't know why you think so. That would be a state without free speech then.
This is pretty much it.
The city knows about your protest so they can plan accordingly.
They may also make requests of your protest, eg, could you self organise your own traffic wardens to ensure the safety of everyone involved.
Exactly! Peaceful protests are allowed and encouraged. Demonstrations, speeches, picket signs, marches, sit-ins, etc.
Riots on the other hand are a problem. Burning cars, breaking windows, stealing from unrelated businesses, hurting people, etc.
You can inform the city without requiring approval.
they have to send even more police there for your safety.
I don't know which country you live in but I can't recall a single protest in the US where the police have protected the protestors from others
They protect white supremacists all the time.
I haven't really followed most protests in a while, but I do recall more than a few occasions where there was a particularly hot-button issue being protested by two separate groups in close proximity and the police were there solely to keep the different protesting groups away from each other. I seem to remember that they (the protesting groups) had gotten a bit rowdy but that not much came of it.
The riot squads committing war crimes against civilians stick out in part because of the brutality but also because of the relative rarity of it.
I trust this all even less now.
My understanding is that the permits essentially allow you to disrupt things like traffic by having sections of the city cordoned off for gathering/marching. Take this with a grain of salt, as I've never had to actually deal with the permitting myself.
Yeah, that's accurate-- The permit has nothing to do with speech, it has to do with use of public space. Where I'm from, the police will come and block off streets and manage traffic to keep demonstrators safe. Without the permit, everyone would still be allowed to say more or less whatever they wanted, but the logistics of the gathering could create a hazard, and that's just a gray area that everyone is just better off avoiding.
We also had to get a permit to have a giant block party that closed off three streets and drew four thousand people. Same reasoning.
There's no such thing as free speech as an absolute in practice.
For example patents, IP, defamation laws, copyright, state secrets, sealed courts, false advertising laws, all these things create limits to speech in the US.
It's a matter of when and where.
A protest isn't inherently able to be made anywhere any time. Public property is shared property, so in order for one group to use that to the exclusion of others takes planning. On private property, nobody is obligated to allow you there at all, and not all universities are public.
The street you block in protest isn't your street, it's our street, so you have no more or less rights to it than I do. A permit, in theory, is just a fancy way to make sure that anyone else that would be using that place can have alternatives. Traffic being rerouted, etc.
There are also health and safety issues like overloading bleachers being a risk, or a space not being able to be evacuated in an emergency because of too many people.
You're right, if permits are not granted equally, it's a huge problem, and abuses can occur. They do occur. But as long as the entity (be it a government or a university or business) isn't placing undue obstacles, grants permits equally, and everything is done without corruption (bribes or such), that's how the most basic peaceful protest has to work.
This isn't saying that there can't be other forms of protest. There are many forms available. But a simple awareness protest? It needs to be peaceful, cooperative, and only marginally inconvenient. Remember, that kind of protest is about awareness, of making sure people know and possibly gaining support. It's a flies with honey vs vinegar.
Now, illegal protests, disruptive protests, and even violent protests have their place too. As do rallies, which can be seen as a type of protest, but isn't really the same imo. But you have to choose when and where to apply those tools effectively. Some protests, the entire point is to cause disruption, get arrested, and use that as a tool to achieve a goal. But a cooperative legal protest can do things that type can't.
Remember, the right to free speech does not guarantee you can exercise it everywhere. Your right to free speech ends at your neighbor's door, so to speak. You can say what you like, but she doesn't have to let you say it on her porch. You can be asked to leave, and should you refuse, be removed after some hoop jumping along the way (which varies by state and municipality).
A public space like a street is the same basic thing. You have a right to use it, and so does everyone else. Your freedom and their freedom may come into conflict. Having some kind of system for resolving that issue is necessary. Permits work for parades, parties, and protests.
Even with the kind of anarchy that most people identifying as anarchists espouse, there's a social contract involved in that kind of thing. It's only a matter of the mechanism involved.
Besides, there's always been limits on speech. Collectively, there's an understanding that there are limits where, when, and how they can be expressed. The whole "fire in a theater" trope is an example. There's "fighting words" laws on the books. The only question is what any given social structure has decided those limits are.
Generally, whether it works correctly or not, representative democracy promises that the limits are agreed on via those we elect to do so. That has flaws of course, but that's the US on a simplistic level. We've all agreed to the limits in one way or another, or can choose to try and change those limits (or the social structure itself).
But if that slippery slope slides too far, well, that's when protests become revolution, in theory. Assuming enough people agree and work together. It doesn't seem to happen very often, but that's the ultimate safeguard against a democracy failing.
Yeh, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
A permit from the city (and good planning) helps mitigate those consequences (safety for protesters and public) so there should be no reason to prosecute you for organising a protest. If something does go wrong, you have protection because you have done everything correctly.
You can absolutely shout "fire" in a theatre.
But if its without cause and it creates a panic/injuries/whatever, then you are responsible for what happens.
You won't be prosecuted for shouting "fire", that's free speech. You will be prosecuted for causing a panic, that's the consequences of your free speech.Exactly :)
Free speech is merely an ill-defined right to speak without consequence from the government, not the right to a podium wherever you choose.
I'm not gonna say things are in a good place in the USA re protesting and speech.
But the permit is to assemble, and essentially temporarily hold a public space. Not to speak. You as an individual can go to a city park right now and start discussing any topic you like.
I'm not advocating anything here, just describing the permit.
Damn, you might just have given me the best argument of anyone here
I get hung up on technicalities sometimes
- A protest isn't just a speech - it's an act. It's an act of blocking a street, occupying a square, crowding or obstructing a neighborhood etc.
- In democratic countries, a permit isn't an ask for permission, but more like a notification. Like you say youself: all permits are approved. But you are warning the city that a protest is going to happen here and there.
The fact that the permit requires approval, whether it is always approved or not, it is still a permission to practice your free speech. Instead, it should be a notice by the people. This will allow the government to prepare for it. On the other hand, this notice should merely be a formality and not necessary.
In a real democracy, people should always have the right to practice their free speech that serves to protect the masses from exploitation or being oppressed. Furthermore, all public spaces are open to protest, whether they are in the middle of the street, in public squares, parks, inside and outside of government buildings, etc. The obstruction to traffic or anything else is merely a tool for the ruling class to act out violence against the peaceful protestors.
All universities, schools, and other places of knowledge whether public or private should be exempt from trespassing laws for the protestors.
People like to get technical about acting on your free speech versus right to free speech. This is a BS arguments that supports no one but the ruling classes.
In a real democracy, people have the power and government serves to obey the people, sadly, this is not the case in the US, and anyone that thinks otherwise are simply opportunist in the capitalist system or given in to the capitalist democracy propaganda.
I don't entirely agree: in a real democracy, government is an extension of people. They are hired brutes and managers that do the job that people tell them to do. So what if the majority of people collectively don't want mass protests at the universities? Or that they want to be protected from masses of people randomly obstructing traffic?
Yes, it is possible for a government to use those restrictions as means of oppression: when people don't even agree with those laws, but the government tries to shut the protesters down regardless. In such a case, a permit doesn't even matter: just go out without a permit, because the government does not represent the people. If there were no permits, they would find some other loopholes to try and shut the protesters down: COVID restrictions, endangerment, (staged) complaints from neighbours, provocation etc. In Belarus, Russia, or Iran, they have millions of excuses ready to why all the protesters must go home or be arrested, the lack of permit isn't even that common these days.
P.S. Also wanna point out: I'm not from the US.
Most permits are approved. That makes all the difference. If it was all, that wouldn't really be a permit
Well, what if someone decides to throw a mass protest by a daycare facility, or at a national park? Or in a way that makes the lives of locals unbearable? So I imagine yes, there are circumstances where a permit isn't approved. I imagine when it's not, the government should propose a way to change the protest (e.g., it's location) to make it approvable. But what if protesters don't want to budge?
Look, I am aware that oppressive governments use it as an excuse to shut down unwanted critique. I'm just saying that inherently, there's nothing wrong with this kind of approval, and I'm sure that if we went through it, you would agree that there are circumstances where a permit shouldn't be approved. Oh, and if a government is oppressive, they'll find a way to forbid the protest even without those permits. COVID-restrictions, for example, have been a common excuse lately in some countries. Would you say that genuine COVID-restrictions are unacceptable overall and are a tool of oppressive governments?
“Free speech” is very much misunderstood as a form of carte blanche as your example demonstrates. It’s written as “Congress shall make no law…” etc., implying you’re protected only from the federal government, but as time and court cases and legal discourse have shown, there are limits and implications for lower legislatures to model from. The classic hypothetical example is “yelling fire in a crowded theater.” Can you? Yes. Should you? Unless there’s a fire, no, then it could cause panic and injury, and you’d be responsible. That sort of thing. (The US loves a lawsuit).
Tl;dr to answer your question: no.
yelling fire
Free speech is the right to say your opinion, however unpopular or silly it may be.
But who would misunderstand yelling fire as "free speech"?
Yelling "fire" is just an easily visualized situation to start the discussion about how freedom of speech is not a universal freedom. It cracks open the door to the idea that there are many situations where you're not free and that it's not even about your ability to scream or be heard, it's about government persecution limitations.
If it’s part of a performance, for example. I guess the point of the debate here is that context matters and that you can do it under very, very specific circumstances.
Two important concepts:
- The First Amendment allows government to impose "time, place, and manner" restrictions on protected speech. So if you give a speech protected by the First Amendment, the government can still regulate your use of sound amplification, including things like regulating noise levels at night or in residential areas. If you assemble in an assembly protected by the First Amendment, the government may still enforce fire code restrictions like occupancy limits in a building or weight limits on a platform, or even permitting requirements for all of the above.
- The First Amendment also distinguishes between public forum, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. The government must allow people to use things like theaters and stages for First Amendment speech and expression, but doesn't have to do things like let protestors onto restricted military bases to protest.
Permitting is one way to regulate time, place, and manner. Also, it's a way to prevent double booking. A city-run community theater might allow for one church to hold services on Sunday, and a first come first serve policy might cause the city to deny access to another church that wants to use the exact same place at the exact same time.
So a specific lawn on a public university campus might require permitting in a way that complies with the First Amendment, if the permitting is used to:
- Prevent overcrowding beyond safe limits
- Prevent excessive wear and tear on the grass/landscaping
- Prevent multiple groups holding incompatible activities in the same space
- Prevent interference with actual governmental functions (e.g., not disrupting classes being held)
- Keep the First Amendment protected activity within the actual zones where that is permitted
People can and do engage in First Amendment protected activity outside of those lines, of course. Sometimes the point of a protest is to break the law: civil rights sit ins, marches on specific streets, etc. But the organizers and the governmental authority generally need to work at defining those lines clearly, so that any decision to break the law is conscious and planned.
I imagine the surveillance and data collection about protestors is a bigger infringement on free speech
I don't think you could call it an infringement, but it certainly is a bigger threat. Doesn't really address my question though
Yeah, I'm with most everyone else here. I manage the scheduling on a small college campus, and the students are welcome to protest or bring awareness to whatever they like, but they can't be interrupting classes or other planned activities.
As more of conceptual response of why this is generally practiced and legal under our system of governance: an individual’s freedom of speech is not the express demand that everyone else must or need listen to said speech.
Yes.
Sure. As long as they grant you the permit, they've granted you the right to free speech. And I suppose that's also why they're almost never declined.
If you haven't figured it out by now, everything US stands for is a bait and switch, which is selectively applied based on race and class.
- Peace? Nope, will destroy nations and fund genocide when convenient. It's only bad when white people are being oppressed.
- Freedom? Nope, The surveillance state monitors you all (anyone remember snowden? )
- Equality? They'll try to pass laws to kill ya if you speak up about women rights
- Guns? Basically a murder fantasy for the rich, that got out of hand and now everyone can enjoy that fantasy
- Slavery? It's okay. private prisons here to help
- Democracy? with 2 parties??????
It got rich by exploiting resources on a stolen land and using propaganda to push their clickbait ideals to entice smart people as the "American Dream". They don't even care if they're Nazis, So yea.
They don't even care if they're Nazis, So yea.
Do you really think the U.S government are just self declaring Nazis?
Everything you said was covered with 4 layers of hyperbole.
Internally, it's still hell of a lot better than most countries
If it requires permission it isn't a right
The right to free speech is a limited right, not an absolute right to say anything anywhere. There are many limits on speech in every country.
EVERYTHING you do in the USA is illegal. This is not hyperbole.
Any right you think you have is stripped by another law also on the books. You are always and forever in breach of the law. This allows you those with no education and power like police and DAs to pick and choose who and what to prosecute. If everyone is in breach, it doesn't make it legal. It just makes it a game of "don't piss off your oppressor". This is the same game used in North Korea. Same in the USSR. Same in many fascist nations with an illusion of democracy.
Same thing in Canada, "freedom of speech and protest" as long as it is in line with whatever narrative and beliefs the government is putting forth. Because government knows what's best, right?? 😒 who would have thought in 1984.....oh wait 2024, feels like 1984 sometimes 😒
Don't be hyperbolic, it's not 1984 and you still live on a democracy. You won't face any serious criminal repercussions for saying anything in Canada or any other democracy.
Bill c63 isn't looking very promising in that aspect.
Lmao... Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, and our equivalent is not absolute. And that's a good thing.
The terrorists that occupied the capital are Canada's biggest embarrassment, going around talking about their "freedom of speech" and "first amendment rights". A bunch of scam artists riled up our biggest idiots to grift them of their money.