MrJonno wrote:Doesnt the US have free speech zones for the specific purpose of ensuring public safety?
Very controversial, and I oppose them. Traditionally, these zones were opposed by liberals, and supported by law and order conservatives.
The free speech zones tend to move demonstrators away from the thing that they're actually demonstrating. It's like "you can stand in this pen here, blocks away from the Republican Convention" and holler all you like."
MrJonno wrote:
According to the ACLU Marches /Demonstrations can be restricted on safety grounds same as they are in the UK.
Not the "same" as in the UK, because here they can't be prohibited. The State or municipal government can't just prohibit demonstrations. They can, however, have a permitting requirements for large demonstrations so that enough police can be allocated to preserve reasonable order. And, they have to be able to organize multiple demonstrations so that there aren't two "million man marches" scheduled for the same place at the same time. These are called "time, place and manner" restrictions -- and such restrictions have to be the least intrusive restrictions and cannot -- under any circumstances - be based on the content of the message being presented.
MrJonno wrote:
They can't restrict what you say but can restrict where,when and how you say it.
Not really. These are very limited powers. On public lands, the most they can do is essentially administrative and public health stuff. You can't, say, prohibit protesters from filling Zucotti Park and being all "Occupy Wall Street." But, you can make sure they make way for the city to clean up the park, and such. And, it's not legal to shit in the park, etc.
But, you can bet your bottom dollar, if the city could have prevented the Occupy Wall Street Demonstrations by saying "time, place and manner" and such, then they would have.
MrJonno wrote:
Opposing demonstrations can be seperated but are allowed in the same general vicinity (which sounds somewhat vague to me).
Some of the UK laws could do with a bit of minor alterations here and there but they are on the whole reasonable and not signficantly different to other Western countries (we allow holocaust denial which most don't)
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-yo ... d-protests
Police and government officials are allowed to place certain nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view.
Narrowly drawn -- very important, and that is well-defined. Also, the "regardless of point of view" aspect is very important here. That means that the reaction of the audience or people upset by the racist protester or the abortion advocate gets to speak. It doesn't MATTER that other people are upset.
And, permits are only required:
certain types of events require permits. Generally, these events are:
A march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk, and other events that require blocking traffic or street closure
A large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or
A rally at certain designated parks or plazas
if marchers stay on the sidewalks and obey traffic and pedestrian signals, their activity is constitutionally protected even without a permit. Marchers may be required to allow enough space on the sidewalk for normal pedestrian traffic and may not maliciously obstruct or detain passers-by.
Frankly the ACLU page sounds nothing like the situation you describe. Nowhere in there does it say that the police may judge whether someone's speech is likely to inspire some breach of the peace or that cops can determine if "offensive" speech is likely to provoke a violent or hostile response. Quite the opposite. The offensiveness of the speech cannot be taken into account, as that would be basing the police decision on the "content" of the speech.
