Protesters threaten to sue city

[wdlove]

ust six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, civil rights groups are threatening to sue the city of Boston because a "free-speech zone" near the FleetCenter remains piled high with twisted steel and hunks of Big Dig concrete, no protest groups have received demonstration permits, and the city is enforcing its rule against afternoon marches.

The threats of legal action followed a meeting yesterday between the city and the American Civil Liberties Union and National Lawyers Guild, where activists were told of a Boston ordinance that bans marches from 3:30-6:30 p.m. Those are hours when evening commuter traffic is heaviest.

But the civil rights groups complain that the rule effectively bars them from parading in streets when delegates will be arriving at the FleetCenter for convention activities.

The civil rights groups were also told demonstrators may not be allowed to carry signs on sticks for security reasons, and that the use of battery-powered bullhorns will require special permits.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/06/17/protesters_threaten_to_sue_city_permits_trash_time_rile_groups/

[zimv20]

are you implying that this is worse than how bush protesters have been treated over the past 4 years?

i don't care who or what's being protested, the protests should be allowed.

[Stelliform]

.....

[mactastic]

Funny that the oft-maligned-by-the-right ACLU is involved. Which side are they on again? ;)

[3rdpath]

i agree that any group that desires to protest be allowed to do so...dnc, rnc, bbc, bfd....

i also agree that the city has the right to designate a reasonable time and place for such activities. should a little civil disobedience occur outside of those times and places...hey, that's america at it's finest-just be prepared to pay the piper.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i agree that any group that desires to protest be allowed to do so...dnc, rnc, bbc, bfd....

i also agree that the city has the right to designate a reasonable time and place for such activities. should a little civil disobedience occur outside of those times and places...hey, that's america at it's finest-just be prepared to pay the piper.

So if the City of Boston decided that it was best for the protesters to gather at the Fenway at 1AM, then is that reasonable?

Living in the DC area, I have little sympathy when other cities complain about the inconvenience of protesters. These cities lobbied hard to get the conventions, but they don't want all that should go along with it.

I understand the desire and need to keep all parties safe, but these "zones" are laughable.

[3rdpath]

So if the City of Boston decided that it was best for the protesters to gather at the Fenway at 1AM, then is that reasonable?


i don't know, is it?

"reasonable" is an often used subjective legal definition...

bottom line: the courts will decide.

[zimv20]

These cities lobbied hard to get the conventions, but they don't want all that should go along with it.

good point. it's also possible boston and nyc offered incentives, so at this point i'm not even sure how valid it is to cite cost "overruns."