[*BCM*] NYC [Fwd: A(n important) triviality?]

[Jym Dyer]

> You're missing my point.

=v= Just because I disagree with it doesn't mean I'm missing it.

> What I'm talking about is whether or not you're going to get
> the ACLU to donate their services, and I'm saying they won't.

=v= In fact the current and previous heads of the NYC chapter
(Chris Dunn and Norman Siegel) have both donated their services
to this case.  It is from Siegel's briefs in the Bray case that
I derive my arguments.

> I presume by the Bill of Rights, you mean the first amendments
> freedoms of assembly and freedom of speech.  These sorts of
> speech get regulated all the time, and so long as it is
> content neutral and satisfies a certain level of legitmate
> state interest, then that is permitted.

=v= Of course, and my message made it clear that I am aware of
such regulation:

>> =v= What's relevant here is New York City law.  This law
>> defines a parade as something requiring a permit.  Another
>> subsection of the same section of law defines a demonstration
>> and makes no mention of permits.

I could even cite chapter and verse, though I don't think
sections of the Rules of the City of New York are particularly
on-topic for a Boston Critical Mass email list.

=v= You bring up content neutrality.  Consider:

  o Critical Mass took place in NYC for 11 years without a
    permit.  The RNC comes to town and suddenly it is argued
    that a permit is needed.  How is that content-neutral?

  o Group bicycle rides take place several times a week in
    NYC without a permit, and have been since the 1890s.  How
    is it content-neutral that only the two named "Critical
    Mass" need permits?  And only since the RNC?

> Here, the state has justified these regulations for permitting
> etc on the grounds of public safety.

=v= In the context of NYC law, use of the word "permitting" can
be confusing.  There is a difference between "permitted" and
"permissible:"  parades, processions, and bicycle races require
permits; demonstrations (and bicycle traffic) do not.  The NYPD
has made a soundbite of the phrase "unpermitted demonstration"
and has implied that "unpermitted" means the same thing as
"unpermissible," but that's not what the law says.

=v= Public safety came up in the Bray case, of course.  It is
noteworthy that the NYPD could not substantiate their public
safety claims.  Indeed the NYPD *lied* about this, making lurid
accusations in court and the tabloid press, and claiming to have
proof (which never materialized).  Our side, on the other hand,
brought in a traffic expert who showed that a hypothetical
(worse-case scenario) Critical Mass would increase traffic by
about seven hundredths of one percent of the daily impact.

=v= Indeed it should be obvious upon reflection that 2000 people
riding bikes are less of a safety concern than 2000 or even 200
people driving cars.  The police's safety concern should be as
it is with any other sort of traffic:  ticket people only if
they actually do anything wrong.  (Instead the NYPD *arrests*
bicyclists on pretexts which are then dismissed in court.)

> ... riding into groups to break up demonstrations that are
> breaking the law ...  Riding into the group to break up a
> non-permitted parade is accepted practice.

=v= "That are breaking the law?"  I wrote no such thing; you put
that in there.  Pretty presumptuous.  Do you know of a specific
incident matching your scenario?  I know of a few that don't.

=v= Last August there was a squad of unmarked motorcycle cops.
"Unmarked" is an understatement:  they were trying to look like
some sort of goonish biker gang (WWI German helmets, a sticker
that read, "Loud Wives Lose Lives," etc.).  They drove into
peaceful, law-abiding crowds with no warning, identification,
sirens, etc.  I stand by my assertion that such behavior is
not consistent with an alleged concern for public safety.

> How do you know there's no emergency happening when a fire
> truck and ambulence [sic] go through?

=v= Well, let it be said at the outset that Critical Mass in NYC
does and always has yielded for these, even phony ones.  Better
than cars do, in fact.

=v= How do we know?  We follow them to see where they're going.
We check the records.

> As for undercover turning them onto freeways and one way
> streets, if CM is going to be law abiding, then they don't
> have to follow these guys.

=v= The good news is that CM has avoided this.  The bad news
is that you seem hellbent on providing excuses for all NYPD
behavior, including entrapment and provocateurism.  Why is that?

> The state interest to justify the law has zero, zip, nada
> to do with how long CM has been conducting rides.  It is a
> question of whether or not the underlying law is legitmate.

=v= The fact that CM conducted rides for 11 years before the
RNC is very relevant to the question of content-neutrality, as
discussed above.  You presume, with no evidence, that the NYPD's
behavior is content-netural.  Why is that?

> They apply it against CM, they apply it against other people.

=v= They in fact apply it differently, in violation of the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  You presume otherwise,
again, with no evidence.  Why is that?
    <_Jym_>