police crowd control

hello all.

august 22nd 2002, in portland, many people came to protest Bush's war, and his plans for old growth logging in oregon.

The protestors, while peaceful, where shot with rubber bullets and sprayed with pepper spray. A few children were hurt because of the spray.

here is my question: what level of force are police morally able to take in controlling protests, either peaceful or violent?

If it's a peaceful protest, the police have absolutely no right to interfere. That's a violation of your First Amendment rights if I'm not mistaken.

Originally posted by Amethyst
If it's a peaceful protest, the police have absolutely no right to interfere. That's a violation of your First Amendment rights if I'm not mistaken.

correct, but blocking a roadway or entry to a building or something of that nature is no longer a peaceful demonstration, you are then interfering with the space and movement of other individuals and it becomes aggression.

Originally posted by General Zapata
here is my question: what level of force are police morally able to take in controlling protests, either peaceful or violent?

i'd say tht if a crowd is illegally assembled and asked to dispurse and doesn't then rubber bullets and fire hoses and tear gas are acceptable.

amethyst
That's a violation of your First Amendment rights if I'm not mistaken.

Yes you are mistaken. The 1st ammendment doesn't prevent cities and municipalities and other agencies from controlling where and when protests and public assemblies take place. IOW, peaceful assemblies are not de facto lawful. The governement gets to decide whats lawful by giving protestor groups permits and the likes.

fledgling666
blocking a roadway or entry to a building or something of that nature is no longer a peaceful demonstration

Correct. Ones right to assembly and opinion doesn't equate to a right ot interfere with everyone elses life, thats why while no message in particular is not allowed (other than 'lets kill some people and what not') the venue of assembly is regulated.

however Nygdan, how can a crowd be 'illegally assembled' if the right to assemble and protest is indelibly enshrined in the US Constitution?

Didn't notive the response. Apologies.


The Constitution makes lawful assembly permissibe, not any assembly. Its up to the authorities to make clear in their laws what is permissible. This can mean that the locations, dates, etc, can be regulated, and that permits have to be applied for.