Extra, Extra

The NYPD rules are without a doubt unconstitutional. They are the very definition of prior restraint! Unfortunately it will take years to have them repealed, and New York loses another slice of the freedom that our men and women in uniform have sworn to protect.

Gotham is a no freedom zone.

While it's very easy to scorn the NYPD and the municipal government for their anti-demonstration stance, its roots are founded deep in NYC history, when popular demonstrations often devolved into violence that became deadly for those on both sides of a picket line.

A perfect example is the Astor Opera House Riot in the spring of 1849. Over the course of a year or two, a British actor and an American actor got into a run-of-the-mill tabloid feud, fueled by nativism and the not-so-long-ago war when the Brits burned DC. Penny papers stoked the argument and NYC's more "respectable" citizens threw gas on the fire, arguing for freedom of expression. This added an element of class warfare to the affair and a large mob assembled at Astor Place on the evening of William Macready's performance.

The substance of any disagreement was completely meaningless when a large enough mob gathered. It could have been considered a legitimate political demonstration, but a mob is a mob whenever it reaches a certain size in an urban environment. The Opera House was stoned, police retreated under a barrage of paving stones, the militia was called in, and the ensuing riot ended with scores of civilians dead at the hands of the militia.

NYC's current crowd control could be considered fascist, but for the most part I think they're trying to avoid a '60s-Chicago type of situation. If a city allows a crowd to gain enough momentum, it is unable to control it without resorting to extreme violence.

The Draft Riots in the 1860s were political demonstrations that devolved into anarchy and base butchery of minorities. The Opera Riot was a fatal joke sponsored by the equivalent of "People Magazine". Overly restrictive policing may seem like a trampling of Constitutional rights, but NYC is the municipal equivalent of the crowded theater. It's not all oppression; sometimes the powers that be just want to save lives.

Angry, well said.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Read it and read it again. Safety is not a virtue.

From the "Account of the Terriffic and Fatal Riot at the New-York Astor Place Opera House":

The fact of the chief of police declaring that his force was not sufficient to preserve the peace--the fact that general Sandford was ordered to call out a military force sufficient for the emergency, proves that the nature and extent of the approaching riot was well understood by the authorities, and still no means were used to prevent it. It seems to have been their policy to let it gather, and come to a head, when, one would suppose, it might easily have been scattered. Had the police arrested a few of the leaders, and kept a close watch on the rioters--had they taken possession of the vicinity of the Opera House in force, and prevented the gathering of a crowd around it, it seems probable that the peace of the city, and the rights of Mr. Macready might have been maintained at a trifling sacrifice.

The author was generally sympathetic with the rioters and placed a good portion of blame on the city government for allowing a group of people bent on disruption to gather in the first place. By the time it was deemed necessary to disperse the crowd, a massacre of civilians had been precipitated. While I personally feel that a lot of the NYPDs tactics can be draconian when preventing protests, I can't help but feel thankful that NYC is one of the few major metropolitan cities that has not had to resort to rubber bullets, tear gas, or worse to counter mass demonstrators.