Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
It's a win for the Mayor, Commissioner Kelly, and the Central Park Conservancy: A judge agrees with the city and bars two protest groups from gathering in Central Park for a pre-Republican Convention protest. Two reasons stated: Groups had waited too long to file suit and security concerns. Manhattan Federal Court Judge William H. Pauley suggested other parks to protest in, like Van Cortlandt in the Bronx and Flushing-Corona in Queens, with Judge Pauley calling the Great Lawna "unique pastoral oasis amid a towering urban setting." Note to outer borough parks: You're fair game! The NY Times noted that the city said the lawn could be destroyed by 75,000 if it rained the day before or morning of the protest. Another note: Determine whether the weather is controlled by politicians. Still, it seems that Judge Pauley hopes some protest can be had in the park, though a quality-of-lawn friendly one...the question Gothamist has is how, given the kind of coordination needed by protest groups and NYPD.
Here's the text of the ruling (PDF) and a schedule of some protests happening. The two protest groups, National Council of Arab Americans and Act Now Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER), would have had 75,000 total protesters; the big kahuna, United for Peace and Justice, with an estimated 250,000 protesters, will hear the judge's decision about their suit to protest on the Great Lawn today. Also, more about Kentucky bluegrass, the kind of grass in the Great Lawn, and Gothamist's previous Great Lawn posts.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Doesn't this development go some distance toward increasing the likelihood of a 'Battle in Seattle' scenario on the street?
...
"the city said the lawn could be destroyed by 75,000 if it rained the day before or morning of the protest."?
Isn't that also true of a Dave Matthews Concert?!?! Following this "Logic" they should cancel Dave Matthews Next Concert. Oh, Wait. A Dave Matthews Concert isn't embarassing to local and national Politicians. Silly me. IMO: The 1st ammendment doesn't mean you can only Protest peacfully where The CCCP, Sorry, the State tells you too.
A 'Battle in Seattle' scenario? God, I hope not. It would only serve the RNC's goals...
as for politicians controlling the weather, when the Republican convention was in Houston in the 1990s (in August) the weather was, somehow, tame. Highs in the low 80s and lows in the 60s (which for Houston in August is unheard of).
If recent developments are any guide (e.g., the swift boats garbage) the Republicans' goals are going to get served no matter what. The protesters could sit in a big circle around MSG and sing "Kum Ba Yah" and Bush's poll numbers would go up.
In regards to the comparison between a Central Park protest and a Dave Mathews concert, a Dave Mathews concert is not likely to degenerate into a riot.
Time, place and manner restrictions on free speech are neither unconstitutional nor indicative of a repressive regime.
And I didn't say it was an Indication of one. *However*, a group dedicated to a Peacefull protest is not likely to degenerate into a riot.
Our founding fathers didn't trust a large centralized Gov't. That's why they tried a weak Confederacy first and then a stronger Central Gov't that has a Constitution enumerating the right of the people peaceably to assemble as part of the very 1st Amendment. They felt this was so important that it had to come first.
If you want to assume it will degenerate into a riot, that's fine. IMO: Give them a chance to voice ligitmate complaints.
Not sure why the protestors would want to be in central park, it's kind of out of the way. Having hundreds of thousands clogging the streets and blocking traffic would look much cooler on TV. And isn't that the whole point of all this?
if i remember correctly, the difference that the city cited btwn dave and the protests is that there was a set amount of people for dave and the crowd wouldn't be walking around much on the grass.
Well, it's about Images. A Protest on the great lawn has a powerfull message behind it versus a photo of a crowd on a Highway.
In any case, I'm always uncomfortable when any Gov't says "Only protest where I tell you to".
clearly you don't remember the Everybody Hurts video
clearly you don't remember the Everybody Hurts video
"the crowd wouldn't be walking around much on the grass."
right, concert goers are able to levitate and therefore will not walk on the grass.
When Paul Simon had his concert in the park, there were over half a million people there, more than twice the amount expected for the UP&J protest. The grass excuse is clearly just that: a BS excuse used to try and squash the rally.
Nah, I don't think they want to Squash it per se, just out of sight (Out of Mind?) a little...
The thing about Security: you prepare for the absolute worst. In this case, it possibly runs afoul of the right to Assemble peacfully.
The Paul Simon concert was a good 5 years before the renovation of the Great Lawn. Back then, it was more like the Great Dustbowl. The protestors are gettng more mileage out of this Great Lawn issue than they will likey get from the protest itself. They should be estactic about this controversy and the CIty's position. And, who are the protestors trying to reach in the Great Lawn anyway? All those rabid republicans on the Upper West Side? Don't they want to be closer to MSG?
The Paul Simon concert was held before the $18 million restoration, when the Dust Bowl was already in crappy shape. I think another problem with the UPJ and the National Council of Arab Americans and Act Now to Stop War & End Racism proposals was that they couldn't guarantee the attendance limit; I believe UPJ originally requested permitting for 250,000 people. This is in contrast to the Dave Matthews Band concert, which was ticketed.
The protestors should have used police math to get their permit. Using police math, they could show that they, the protest groups, really grossly overestimate the the number of attendees at these events and based on a formula using the group's estimation of attendees at their last event compared to the NYPD's estimation of the number of attendees (which is often 1/2 as much as the organizers claim) then, voila, this protest will really only have about 40 thousand people on the grass and the lawn should be able to handle that.
The Parks Dep't is willing to let the protest proceed in the park provided that the protest group fronts a bond to cover any potential damage, just like the promoters behind the Dave Matthews Band does. The only exceptions to this rule are for the NY Phil for concerts in the park, which are cancelled if the weather is poor.
The protest group did not agree to these terms, which are applied universally and therefore within the the bounds of the 1st Amendment.