<DIV>Interesting. Of course is it mostly interesting, as you want the ACLU to come in an defend guys arrested for riding in a parade, but are citing a case regarding people who had their bikes confiscated as being a member of CM, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And you're also siding the brief of the defense of those people, which isn't the law, it is just an attempt to persuade a judge. It is however, a clearer violation of rights than whether or not the permit is issued to parade, which of course CM has never applied for.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And of course, the ACLU isn't defending these people, private lawyers are. I presume they're getting paid by someone, but they don't say.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your message never made it clear you were aware of restrictions on freedom of speech, you just said "Remember the Bill of RIghts? It is important."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Content neutrality has two edges. First, the law as written has to be content neutral. The NY parade law as written is content neutral. Then, as enforced it has to be content neutral. If there is suddenly a big crackdown, it needs to be across the board, and not just on CM. The RNC came to town and EVERYONE, not just CM got whacked hard with the "you need your permit" stick. The town was in virtual lockdown. CM wasn't singled out, except to the extent that they chose to defy the law.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for groups breaking the law, if the law says you need a permit to parade, and you parade without a permit, you're breaking the law. This may be done unknowingly (as in, you didn't know about the need for a permit) but if you're breaking the law, the police are there to enforce the law, which could include dispersing the parade before it becomes a public safety issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Being a good looney glad to be what's left of the left, I'm hardly defending the NYPD at all costs. But I do know what it takes to get a law repealed. You say "the police are trying to entrap CM and make them ride onto freeways!" I say "well, if CM is law abiding, then they shouldn't go" to which you reply "um, well we don't." So your argument is because the police look stupid, the law is unfair????? I don't understand. Let the police go and make utter fools of themselves in this manner. Serves them right, I say. They can't arrest CM because CM refused to follow them onto a freeway.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Where is YOUR evidence that the law is being applied to other groups differently during or since the RNC? I haven't seen any or heard any. Apart from your assertion that an unmarked group of motorcycle cops drove into a crowd of people. What people? CM people? ANd how do you know they were cops? What incident is this, and why wasn't their outcry about that?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The police have jobs to do. Often, they screw it up royally. But often, they don't. Why are you hell bent on taking police officers during the RNC, which was a massive security nightmare, and saying that NOW what they're doing is completely bad? I don't understand.<BR><BR><B><I>Jym Dyer <jym@econet.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> You're missing my point.<BR><BR>=v= Just because I disagree with it doesn't mean I'm missing it.<BR><BR>> What I'm talking about is whether or not you're going to get<BR>> the ACLU to donate their services, and I'm saying they won't.<BR><BR>=v= In fact the current and previous heads of the NYC chapter<BR>(Chris Dunn and Norman Siegel) have both donated their services<BR>to this case. It is from Siegel's briefs in the Bray case that<BR>I derive my arguments.<BR><BR>> I presume by the Bill of Rights, you mean the first amendments<BR>> freedoms of assembly and freedom of speech. These sorts of<BR>> speech get regulated all the time, and so long as it is<BR>> content neutral and satisfies a certain level of legitmate<BR>> state interest, then that is permitted.<BR><BR>=v= Of course, and my message made it clear that I am aware of<BR>such
regulation:<BR><BR>>> =v= What's relevant here is New York City law. This law<BR>>> defines a parade as something requiring a permit. Another<BR>>> subsection of the same section of law defines a demonstration<BR>>> and makes no mention of permits.<BR><BR>I could even cite chapter and verse, though I don't think<BR>sections of the Rules of the City of New York are particularly<BR>on-topic for a Boston Critical Mass email list.<BR><BR>=v= You bring up content neutrality. Consider:<BR><BR>o Critical Mass took place in NYC for 11 years without a<BR>permit. The RNC comes to town and suddenly it is argued<BR>that a permit is needed. How is that content-neutral?<BR><BR>o Group bicycle rides take place several times a week in<BR>NYC without a permit, and have been since the 1890s. How<BR>is it content-neutral that only the two named "Critical<BR>Mass" need permits? And only since the RNC?<BR><BR>> Here, the state has justified these regulations for
permitting<BR>> etc on the grounds of public safety.<BR><BR>=v= In the context of NYC law, use of the word "permitting" can<BR>be confusing. There is a difference between "permitted" and<BR>"permissible:" parades, processions, and bicycle races require<BR>permits; demonstrations (and bicycle traffic) do not. The NYPD<BR>has made a soundbite of the phrase "unpermitted demonstration"<BR>and has implied that "unpermitted" means the same thing as<BR>"unpermissible," but that's not what the law says.<BR><BR>=v= Public safety came up in the Bray case, of course. It is<BR>noteworthy that the NYPD could not substantiate their public<BR>safety claims. Indeed the NYPD *lied* about this, making lurid<BR>accusations in court and the tabloid press, and claiming to have<BR>proof (which never materialized). Our side, on the other hand,<BR>brought in a traffic expert who showed that a hypothetical<BR>(worse-case scenario) Critical Mass would increase traffic by<BR>about seven hundredths of one
percent of the daily impact.<BR><BR>=v= Indeed it should be obvious upon reflection that 2000 people<BR>riding bikes are less of a safety concern than 2000 or even 200<BR>people driving cars. The police's safety concern should be as<BR>it is with any other sort of traffic: ticket people only if<BR>they actually do anything wrong. (Instead the NYPD *arrests*<BR>bicyclists on pretexts which are then dismissed in court.)<BR><BR>> ... riding into groups to break up demonstrations that are<BR>> breaking the law ... Riding into the group to break up a<BR>> non-permitted parade is accepted practice.<BR><BR>=v= "That are breaking the law?" I wrote no such thing; you put<BR>that in there. Pretty presumptuous. Do you know of a specific<BR>incident matching your scenario? I know of a few that don't.<BR><BR>=v= Last August there was a squad of unmarked motorcycle cops.<BR>"Unmarked" is an understatement: they were trying to look like<BR>some sort of goonish biker gang (WWI German
helmets, a sticker<BR>that read, "Loud Wives Lose Lives," etc.). They drove into<BR>peaceful, law-abiding crowds with no warning, identification,<BR>sirens, etc. I stand by my assertion that such behavior is<BR>not consistent with an alleged concern for public safety.<BR><BR>> How do you know there's no emergency happening when a fire<BR>> truck and ambulence [sic] go through?<BR><BR>=v= Well, let it be said at the outset that Critical Mass in NYC<BR>does and always has yielded for these, even phony ones. Better<BR>than cars do, in fact.<BR><BR>=v= How do we know? We follow them to see where they're going.<BR>We check the records.<BR><BR>> As for undercover turning them onto freeways and one way<BR>> streets, if CM is going to be law abiding, then they don't<BR>> have to follow these guys.<BR><BR>=v= The good news is that CM has avoided this. The bad news<BR>is that you seem hellbent on providing excuses for all NYPD<BR>behavior, including entrapment and
provocateurism. Why is that?<BR><BR>> The state interest to justify the law has zero, zip, nada<BR>> to do with how long CM has been conducting rides. It is a<BR>> question of whether or not the underlying law is legitmate.<BR><BR>=v= The fact that CM conducted rides for 11 years before the<BR>RNC is very relevant to the question of content-neutrality, as<BR>discussed above. You presume, with no evidence, that the NYPD's<BR>behavior is content-netural. Why is that?<BR><BR>> They apply it against CM, they apply it against other people.<BR><BR>=v= They in fact apply it differently, in violation of the equal<BR>protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You presume otherwise,<BR>again, with no evidence. Why is that?<BR><_Jym_><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Boston Critical Mass mailing list<BR>list@bostoncriticalmass.org<BR>http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><TT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT face=Verdana color=#0000bf size=1 <TD><PRE><TT><SMALL><EM><FONT color=#0000bf>-------------------------------------------------<BR>"When the going gets tough, the tough get weird." - R.I.P. Hunter S. Thompson </font></em></small></tt></pre><PRE><TT><SMALL><EM><FONT color=#c00000>goannego.com</font> - for the latest in where she's gone this time</em></small></tt></font></span></tt></pre><PRE> </pre><PRE> </pre></div></div></div></div></div>
<DIV></div>
<DIV></div>
<DIV></div>
<DIV></div><p>
<hr size=1>Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! <br>
<a href="http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/">Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web</a>