(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

 Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond.

- http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-administration-alters-protest-permit-requirements-6839brh-134845183.html

You don't need to be a constitutional law scholar to know that the above is seriously problematic for people who want to express their first amendment rights even though they are flat broke, right?

Does anybody in this comm actually think this is a good idea?
The extra $$ spent on police during protests is a burden for the whole society. Not for those who protest. The first amendment doesn't ask for your bank card before it lets you speak and assemble.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The tactics of the Occupy movement have consequences.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

does that mean you support this sort of law?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Free speech, now with more fees!

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Did not read the article.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Does anybody in this comm actually think this is a good idea?

You'd be surprised. ;)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

So, you have to pay the police to pepper-spray you and for the pepper-spray, nice!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

That's some pretty expensive spices for my tripe soup (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1202375.html)!

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the movie Brazil.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Good, it's about time the Tea Party started paying their own way.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's been a sticking point - the Tea Party actually went out, got permits, paid for the mandatory police presence, etc. There's actually a lawsuit (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/850c772fd9004fc5ac0585aef836fefb/VA--Tea-Party-Occupy-Protests/) to recoup the money since the occupiers weren't charged.

This, of course, resulted not in a refund or charging the occupiers, but an audit (http://www.scribd.com/doc/73935038/City-Audit-Letter-Notification).

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

To be more serious, this has huge potential for abuse. Who decides how many police are needed? Is this agreed on before hand? Can groups call for an audit of the bill presented? Can they choose their own clean-up crews or are they stuck with whatever the city decides regardless of the price. Municipalities can use this law as a money-grabbing scheme.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

If they want to pass First Amendment scrutiny, they'll set a police-per-expected-attendee ratio and then apply it neutrally.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Or are one type of protesters seen as more of a threat, and therefore charged extra for mandatory riot gear, where as another type are perfectly fine based only on their message?

Yeah, there are problems with this.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Occupy Melbourne has a regular police presence of 50 for 14 protesters...

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You don't need to be a constitutional law scholar to know that the above is seriously problematic for people who want to express their first amendment rights even though they are flat broke, right?

Totally legal, though I won't comment on the policy implications here. The government can, under current precedent, require fees to be paid for the use of public spaces for protected speech, so long as those fees are reasonable and related directly to the provision of the space. This seems to be the case here.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's legal?
I don't respect the law anymore.
That's atrocious.
"you can protest the govt....but only if you can pay for the police to watch you do it"

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

People who protest legally have to apply for permits for those protests. This is just an extension of what's already there, not a menace to any kind of civil liberty.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So even though this wasn't about OWS, it does seem to send some sorta signal about that, no?

I mean, could you imagine Bloomberg trying to slap the NYC OWS with the police overtime bill?
Last I heard it was over $5M

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with it as long as every group that wants to protest does this.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

define protest
if me and 5 friends assemble in a public park?
if 50 friends?

do i really need a permit to hang out with 100 friends in a park?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Who cares? All they have to do is not pay the bill. It's part of the whole civil disobedience approach of protesting. I can't imagine this guy actually thinking that this will stop the occupation or that they would actually pay the costs since they already aren't paying for a permit or insurance.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I assumed they would want the money upfront, and that if you don't pay, then they have cause to arrest you/take you away because your protest is against the law.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

 Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event.

I'll have to keep this in mind when the pope or another diplomat comes into the country and needs security for their visit. Should American citizens have to pay for American services the foreign dignitaries get for free?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

+1

Don't want to pay for extra police?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

GOVERN LIKE AN ADULT.