Quote Originally Posted by pll View Post
Hmm. I normally would not chime in, but it seems to me that we are on a slippery slope regarding civil rights in this country (starting with what is now the excuse of terrorism). I would no advocate for a government to be in charge of approving of marches and demonstrations, which, incidentally, might be directed at that government. It sounds totalitarian to me, anathema to freedom of expression. [However, I think that the "drum circles" are plain nonsense and a nuisance.]
Oh, no, it's a perfectly legitimate question for me to pose. I'm not asking for new laws -- I'm just asking about the ones that already exist. I don't know the laws in detail, and it's appropriate for city officials to explain them to me. Most demonstrations or large group gatherings require permits -- so that streets can be closed, police can be deployed to facilitate and control traffic, etc.

In a crowded city where every square inch of space is fought over, some controls are necessary. For example, I am invited to a hawk-watchers picnic in Central Park. I must be sure to RSVP because if more than 20 people come, we need a permit from the Parks Dept. We can get the permit -- the government isn't trying to stop us watching Palemale. It's just a question of managing the limited space available.

Yes, people have the right to protest. But I also have the right to walk my dog, to go shopping, to ride my bicycle over the Brooklyn Bridge -- without the fear of being trapped in a mob. We are certainly accustomed to managing marches and demonstrations where I live. However, protests normally last for one day. The difference in this case is that people have moved in. Our tiny and much beloved local park has been effectively rezoned as residential, and there is no end in sight.

It is the government's job to balance competing interests. All I'm doing is reminding them of what my interests are.