Permits for Protesting

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So lately I've been caught up in a debate with a friend of mine over the justification (or from my POV: absurdity) of requiring permits from the state to be able to protest against that very same state.

For some reason I'm not having much success getting through to him about why permits shouldn't be necessary for demonstrations and asking your enemy nicely for permission to criticize them in a public manner is ridiculous especially considering the protest-breaking tactics of riot police that occur with or without permits.

Thoughts? Help? Criticism of my position?

[ArrowLance]

Tell him requiring permits is essentially censor. If he still doesn't understand, punch him in the face every time he objects, because you haven't gave him permission to object publicly. He is being much too disruptive!

[Demogorgon]

If you can only protest with the permission of the state, then your right to free speech and free assembly is entirely down to what the State decides is and is not acceptable. Rather a lot of people will have a problem with that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Needing permits to protest really wouldn't encourage any change in government policy. It would be way too easy for governments to only issue permits to people's whose protests they want to hear. Everybody else would just be silenced. In other words, it would be censorship. Censorship is something that shouldn't exist in a "free" society. Anybody should be able to express their opinions even if it goes against the state's interests.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Actually he is defending current government policy which already requires permits. I think it might just be a District of Columbia law though.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Actually he is defending current government policy which already requires permits. I think it might just be a District of Columbia law though.

It already requires permits? That's absolutely ridiculous. So much for holding Communist rallies in the US. :(

[Искра]

In Croatia you get busted if you don't report protest and you have over 20 people in that protest.

[*Red*Alert]

Yeah I completely disagree with permits for protesting, and such laws only exist to either censor unwanted protests or to justify State repression of protests which don't have the required permit.

True democracy does not require permission!

[BabylonHoruv]

To act as devil's advocate. Permits are required for events which would require rerouting traffic, and they exist so as to keep events from causing an undue disruption to the community. By requiring permits the city can make proper provisions to re route traffic, provide needed security, etc.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

To act as devil's advocate. Permits are required for events which would require rerouting traffic, and they exist so as to keep events from causing an undue disruption to the community. By requiring permits the city can make proper provisions to re route traffic, provide needed security, etc.

This is true, but to think that revolutionary leftists/anarchists actually care about disruption and security (we can protect ourselves generally, especially if we're all congregated together..) is pretty funny. :D

[BabylonHoruv]

I know, also disrupting the community is generally part of the goal of a protest. I did say i was playing devil's advocate. I just wanted to make it clear the reasons for permits aren't to stifle any and all forms of dissent.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Babylon, It's understandable for reasons such as traffic control and such, but a permit rule could easily be abused as I've said before. Any protest that the bourgeoisie don't want won't happen. Why? It's simple. They just won't issue the permit. (hehe, I love Devil's Advocate.:D)

[BabylonHoruv]

Leaving the devil to do his own advocating again. any revolutionary group who is going to refrain from protesting because they do not have a permit, and would thus be breaking the law is a pretty poor excuse for a revolutionary group in my opinion.