Article

2004-04-19 Home Front: Culture Wars

Georgia: Deposit Required for Public Demonstrations

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Unmutual 2004-04-19 9:46:43 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I disagree. An ordinance like that may well be unconstitutional on the ground that costs might be calculated based on the likely reaction to the message. The Supreme Court struck down such an ordinance in FORSYTH COUNTY v. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-19 10:32:16 AM|| 2004-04-19 10:32:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 That's a good point, but what is your opinion of a flat rate deposit?

While I agree that attempting to calculate "likely results" in such a way is an improper use of governmental censure, I also defend the gov's and the taxpayer's right to protect public property by requiring those who use it to accept the costs involved.

Charging the same rental fee that is already charged for weddings etc. on "public" property (parks, etc.) is not unusual or discriminatory at all in my view. In fact, it is the only proper way to distribute the usage of "public" property.

Posted by Unmutual 2004-04-19 11:48:02 AM|| 2004-04-19 11:48:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Does it ban giant puppets, too?

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-19 11:50:08 AM|| 2004-04-19 11:50:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What about pink tanks?
Seriously, I think some provision for holding organizers responsible for damage and other extra costs is only fair to the rest of the taxpayers.
The problem, as Anon and Unmutual point out, lies in the prior restraint implications of requiring a deposit.
OTOH, accountability after the fact is impractical in many cases because the most destructive demonstrators are the ones least likely to remain in the jurisdiction: they trash the place then split for the Village or Mom and Dad's place in the Hamptons.

What is it with idiotarians and Kit-Kat bars anyway? After a recent Greenpeace riot/demo in Dallas, the place was covered with litter: retro-psychedelic handbills, Evian bottles, and enough Kit-Kat wrappers to supply several years worth of eco-propaganda if they had been recycled. Are these the grass-munchy Oreos of the 21st century or something?

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-04-19 9:17:28 PM|| 2004-04-19 9:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I think that a flat fee might be constitutional. A flat fee would be less objectionable than a fee contingent on the communicative impact of expression. Under the court's caselaw a flat fee is probably a content neutral restriction upon speech which must only pass an intermediate level of scrutiny. My tentative guess is that such a requirement is constitutional. However, the city must be even handed in its enforcement. If the ordinance vests in city officials the discretion to waive the requirement the ordinance is still unconstitutional.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-20 10:48:59 PM|| 2004-04-20 10:48:59 PM|| Front Page Top

14:50 Gentle
14:50 Gentle
14:50 Gentle
14:50 Gentle
14:44 Gentle
14:44 Gentle
13:40 Gentle
13:40 Gentle
01:28 Not Mike Moore
22:48 Anonymous
20:18 Zenster
18:51 Aris Katsaris
15:38 B
14:25 Frank G
13:58 Aris Katsaris
11:51 Aris Katsaris
11:22 B
10:28 Liberalhawk
10:26 Aris Katsaris
10:23 Aris Katsaris
10:15 Liberalhawk
07:49 Phil B
07:42 anona
07:35 B