What a Lulu right streight from streight jacket ville he is.
http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/08/citys-law-on-street-gatherings-questione/ (http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/08/citys-law-on-street-gatherings-questione/)
"But is it legal - or a violation of the First Amendment, which grants 'the right of the people to peaceable assemble'"
They city is not telling people they can't assemble, or have a parade, or a block party, etc etc etc.
The city is merely telling people they must supply a liability insurance policy if they intend to have said event on a public street (city property), in order to protect the city from any lawsuits that might be brought on by injuries caused by idiots.
That's hardly a violation of the First Amendment.
1. In cold hard cash the insurance costs $300.00
2. The man in question will go before a Muny Judge on animal cruelity charges the day of the protest rally.
3. 5 dogs full of sours were removed from his house.
4. The man doesn't have a pot to you know what in.
How does this demonstration help the dogs with sours? sours sound very painful btw. All that aside what if a innocent bystander is struck by a car because they had to walk into traffic because the sidewalk is blocked and they decide to sue the City because they gave them a permit? How does the City protect their interests without insurance? Do what every other person does get an organization or a church to sponsor it and put up the insurance.
It's not the city, but the dude that is bellyaching about the fee. If he had taken care of his dogs he wouldn't be in the position that he's in. He's like a lot of other people around here who get in trouble,and have to face the consequences then cry out that their civil rights are being violated.
Every other "protest group" has managed to dig up the $300, and didn't whine that their Constitutional Right of "freedom of speech" etc.was being violated.
Personally I agree that anyone having an event should have liability insurance. There are a lot of agatators out there that are always looking for trouble.
Quote from: Peggy Gurney on May 08, 2015, 07:34:37 AM
"But is it legal - or a violation of the First Amendment, which grants 'the right of the people to peaceable assemble'"
They city is not telling people they can't assemble, or have a parade, or a block party, etc etc etc.
The city is merely telling people they must supply a liability insurance policy if they intend to have said event on a public street (city property), in order to protect the city from any lawsuits that might be brought on by injuries caused by idiots.
That's hardly a violation of the First Amendment.
Ditto, Peggy.....if the demonstration, protest, whatever (fill in your favorite synonym here...)
was to have a hundred or so people, the insurance would come to about 3 bucks per person.
Hardly out of reach, financially .....and NOT a violation of first amendment rights.