December 1, 2006
POLICE PERMITS FOR FREE SPEECH
 |
On Monday morning, when most New Yorkers had not yet emerged from their post-Thanksgiving fug, the New York Police Department held hearings on contentious new parade permitting regulations. Should it pass- this proposal would erode constitutionally protected free speech rights.
Some rolled up to the front of police headquarters on bikes in sheep costumes and some walked up in suits to rally against the NYPD proposal. The crowd demanded new legislation that facilitates the right to assemble and upholds the American tradition of public dissent. Many see the NYPD changes as an attack on city bicyclists and responded with calls for a more bike friendly, greener city. Inside the hearing, representatives of community groups, concerned members of the City Council, and champions of free speech spoke out unanimously against the proposal.
Brand New Regs; Same Old Harassment
The proposed regulations would require parade permits for processions of 10 or more people (or herded animals) traveling together 2 or more blocks. Without a permit, any infringement by any group member of any traffic law could result in the arrest of the entire group. Groups of 30 or more without a permit could be arrested without violating any other law.
Community leaders explained how this new, over broad definition of "parade" means funeral processions, school field trips, and even police cadets loitering out front of the academy risk tickets and arrest without going through police bureaucracy for a permit first.
Update readers know that police will not be issuing tickets to hearses or school children walking in buddy-pairs to the Met, and the reality is much more insidious than absurd.
"Enforcement of the new changes would be extremely difficult for the NYPD. What is most likely to occur is the rules will be selectively enforced. Favored groups that engage in favored activities would be subject to minimal enforcement. But for the disfavored, the 'troublemakers' and the critics of government, e.g. Critical Mass bike riders, the new rules will stifle, or seriously impair, their activities," said civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel.
Critical Mass has been at the center of the hubbub since police began dogging the monthly Manhattan ride after a crack-down at the Republican National Convention. On-going conflict has generated a series of arrests and injuries, and the city getting rebuffed in court.
 |
Who's Streets? Our Streets!>
Though a likely target of the switch, Critical Mass is far from the only group threatened by the erosion of free speech rights. Many speakers condemned the expansion of police power generally, rattling off lists of the most recent incidents of police harassment, abuse and violence.
"This is a pretext [for the police] to stop our young people, young people of color, to question them just because they are in a group," NYC Councilmember Rosie Menendez said. "We have to stand up for our civil rights."
The crowd applauded and stomped in agreement, chanting "Whose Streets? Our Streets!"
"These proposed regulations reflect what the police think their job is. It should be about protecting and defending all of our constitutional rights, including to gather, to march, to protest. It appears, through their actions, that the police have a different idea," said Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice. "They act as if they should control the streets of New York. This leads them to make decisions that undermine people's rights whether on bicycle or on foot or protesting for any reason. I support a thorough review but not from the same angle, not for a tightening up. We need to facilitate the right to assemble and to make voices heard whatever the issue."
Derrick Chandler, a long-time AIDS activist who attended the hearing, commented, "This hearing feels like fake process. It's just a show so they can check the 'community input' box and legitimize the way they are trying to shut down dissent and resistance. Everyone who filed comments and spoke today is against this proposal and wants a better law. The City Council can write one based on human rights."
Whose job anyway?
Arguments about the need and right to protest, the safety of bike riding in groups and eco-friendly transportation alternatives abounded. The immediate problem, however, seems to be one of job description: why is the police department making law?
"We want the elected legislature to be writing laws, not Commissioner Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department, who are not elected and are not accountable," said Mark Taylor, spokesperson for Assemble for Rights. "These rules concern free speech, which requires difficult balancing of public safety and free expression."
"The last thing we need is for small protest groups lawfully using public streets to have to get a police permit or face arrest," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "This proposal illustrates why the City Council and others must now consider fundamental reforms of the parade-permit process."
Peter Barber of the New York Bar Association, NYC Councilmember Alan Gerson, and Susan Stiezer, President of Community Board 3 in Manhattan, were among the local leaders telling the NYPD loud and clear, "Let the City Council handle this."
In an article, Councilmember Letitia James argued that the rules are "inherently unconstitutional," adding, "It's my understanding that the City Council writes laws," while police enforce them.
In a statement, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn did not take a position on who should decide permit procedure, stating instead that while the revised regulations strike a better balance of public safety and civil liberties, the police department should continue to hear suggestions and amend the law as appropriate.