Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Irrelevant. The protesters who's rights we feel were violated were on a public sidewalk (and later an already blocked off public street).
|
My question was related to the trade off regarding Constitutional rights of free speech or protest against the rights of private property.
If a private property owner has a public sidewalk on their property at what point does that property owner have the right to do something about people make a disturbance on that side walk?
Quote:
|
Within certain boundaries. They have the right to forbid you from urinating on the sidewalk, but they do not have the right to restrict your travel along it (with the obvious exception of temporary closures for emergency situations such as a traffic accident or a shooting - -neither of which apply here so again, irrelevant.)
|
Are ordinaces restricting for example skateboard unconstitutional?
why are the laws controlling travel on public roads more restrictive in your view compared to "your travel along" a sidewalk?
Quote:
|
Yes, but again irrelevant. A bunch of people holding signs on a sidewalk is not unsafe, and it isn't disruptive.
|
Who gets to determine that standard of safety, or disruption?
What exactly do you mean when you say "irrelevant"? Do you mean irrelevant to you, to the law, to a specific event, what?