Ravi
Diamond Member
If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.
Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.
Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.
Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.