BobPatterson wrote:

Since parades, protest marches, demonstrations usually disrupt public streets and spaces, it is only right for public authorities to require notice as to size and duration of events, arrange for road closures and emergency services, and require such niceties as portable toilets to be available.

Notice, yes... but not permission.

They might also require reasonable fees or bonds to offset some or all of the costs.

Paying for using a right? How ridiculous is that....

Best regards
Thomas

yoni wrote:

Redd wrote:

But not accepting mass immigration into Poland is something the EU will just have to deal with, as not many people in Poland are ready to accept immigrant ghettos similar to France, Sweden, Germany, etc..... Major cities in Poland are very diverse, just spent the day on the town in Warsaw with my daughter and heard more foreign languages spoken than Polish, no one has issues with individual immigration/expats. It's the accepting of tens/hundreds of thousands that causes heated debate. Poland does not have any history of empire building and hold no historical responsibility or have any historical benefits from these countries, unlike France & the UK.

Accepting 9000 refugees as pledged with the EU is not mass immigration for a country of the size of Poland. If Poland cannot keep its word, they certainly don't need the EU funds allocated to the migrant crisis.

Concerning this German lady, hate speech (she even acknowledged it) is not freedom of speech, even in the USA. Threatening someone, regardless of her intention or her capacity to carry out these threats, is not freedom of speech in our democratic societies. She can make fun of these refugees or pretend that she is superior to them, but she cannot threaten them. The law delineates clearly the limits of freedom of speech.

Poland has accepted around 1 million refugees from Ukraine since Putin began hostilities there. That is more refugees than Germany has taken in since the Syrian conflict had begun. Are you trying to tell me that refusing to take 9000 more is in some way voiding an agreement with the EU? Seems like a double standard, and that's using soft wording. Do we have to take refugees of the non-white variety? Considering we've taken more people in than any other country in the west?

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Since parades, protest marches, demonstrations usually disrupt public streets and spaces, it is only right for public authorities to require notice as to size and duration of events, arrange for road closures and emergency services, and require such niceties as portable toilets to be available.

Notice, yes... but not permission.

They might also require reasonable fees or bonds to offset some or all of the costs.

Paying for using a right? How ridiculous is that....

Yes, Permission. That is what a Permit represents.

Here, you can apply for your permit the next time you want to demonstrate in Washington:

https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files ... rmit_2.pdf

Please note especially the question re: "Any Planned Civil Disobedience or Arrests:"

That's so they can have enough buses on hand to treat you humanely on the way to being booked on appropriate charges.

Yes, you can come, demonstrate, shout obscenities, throw stones and be arrested.

You can also avoid arrest by behaving decently.

Impromptu "protests" need no permits. Happens all the time in front of the Supreme Court. Just be sure to stay in the approved area. Minor stuff.

BobPatterson wrote:

Yes, Permission. That is what a Permit represents.

Do you also need to get permission before voting? Permissions for demonstrations... ridiculous.

Impromptu "protests" need no permits. Happens all the time in front of the Supreme Court. Just be sure to stay in the approved area. Minor stuff.

How awesome that you don´t need permission to protest if it happens without planning.... that

best regards
Thomas

Redd wrote:

Poland has accepted around 1 million refugees from Ukraine since Putin began hostilities there.

Not true. Poland never took 1 million refugees from Ukraine. These people were issued visas to work as domestic helpers, in construction or in agriculture. And half of them have Schengen visa, meaning that they can work anywhere within the Schengen area and many do. Less than 1500 Ukrainians were legally granted refugee status in Poland.

Redd wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that refusing to take 9000 more is in some way voiding an agreement with the EU? Seems like a double standard, and that's using soft wording.

By the way, it's not 9000, but 7000 refugees. Yes, Poland's government pledged to take them. If they don't keep their promise, it means that Poland cannot be trusted and they certainly don't need the EU funds allocated to the migrant crisis. It's as simple as that.

Redd wrote:

Do we have to take refugees of the non-white variety?

I am not a racist. I cannot comment on that.

tommy1808 wrote:

Do you also need to get permission before voting? Permissions for demonstrations... ridiculous.

Yes, you need to get permission to vote. The process is called voter registration. In Maryland USA you register by party affiliation or as an independent. You are issued a voter registration card and may be required to produce it at the polls. The polling place has the list of registered voters and your name is checked off as you pass through the line to ensure that you can vote only once.

The precise methods for the registration and voting day process varies from state to state.

I don't know why you find getting permission for parades/demonstrations to be unsettling. Our Constitution does not permit disorderly disturbances, uncivil conduct or anything-goes hooliganism.

The First Amendment to the Constitution:

"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."

We have a RIGHT to assemble peacefully. The methods for doing so may be embodied in laws and regulations, which may not deny the basic right.

Our system works very nicely when assembled protestors remain peaceful. Let me tell you about a protest that I observed 54 years ago.

It was the day that Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It was a well-planned event with seating for numerous dignitaries, microphones, and sound systems arrayed so that the vast throng of hopeful protestors could hear all along the reflecting pool and down the Mall.

I first became aware of what was happening from about three miles away from the Mall where I happened to be making a sales call at a gas station. An army of protestors, well-dressed and well-behaved was marching down the sidewalks of Georgia Avenue, grim-faced and determined that they would not be denied their right to assemble and petition their government in the capital city of their racist nation.

The protestors has spent the night sleeping in the pews and on the floors of churches and synagogues all over Washington DC and its suburbs. They were about to have their say in one of the largest and most orderly demonstration ever to have been seen in America.

They had permits. Their petitions were heard. It was awesome.

It was America at its finest. All according to permit.

yoni wrote:

Redd wrote:

Poland has accepted around 1 million refugees from Ukraine since Putin began hostilities there.

Not true. Poland never took 1 million refugees from Ukraine. These people were issued visas to work as domestic helpers, in construction or in agriculture. And half of them have Schengen visa, meaning that they can work anywhere within the Schengen area and many do. Less than 1500 Ukrainians were legally granted refugee status in Poland.

Redd wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that refusing to take 9000 more is in some way voiding an agreement with the EU? Seems like a double standard, and that's using soft wording.

By the way, it's not 9000, but 7000 refugees. Yes, Poland's government pledged to take them. If they don't keep their promise, it means that Poland cannot be trusted and they certainly don't need the EU funds allocated to the migrant crisis. It's as simple as that.

Redd wrote:

Do we have to take refugees of the non-white variety?

I am not a racist. I cannot comment on that.

Before the war in Ukraine there had been around 50,000 Ukrainians in the country, since the war has started more than 1,250,000 have come to Poland, try to wrap your mind around that number of people flooding in to Poland in just 2 years. Just because Poland streamlined the Visa process to avoid the clusterfuck of having minions of 'refugees' that are sitting around and doing nothing doesn't mean they aren't 'refugees'. The previous government thought it would be prudent to put people to work and have them pay taxes, instead of sitting on an endless welfare carousel, so far Poland is the only example in the EU that has been able to properly handle such an influx of people. The hypocrisy of other EU nations and people such as yourself is beyond staggering.

Redd wrote:

The hypocrisy of other EU nations and people such as yourself is beyond staggering.

The only immigration that "counts" in EU's narrative is muslim one. I would love to hear one good reason why the V4 should repeat the mistakes "old Europe" made in this regard.

Redd wrote:

Before the war in Ukraine there had been around 50,000 Ukrainians in the country, since the war has started more than 1,250,000 have come to Poland, try to wrap your mind around that number of people flooding in to Poland in just 2 years. Just because Poland streamlined the Visa process to avoid the clusterfuck of having minions of 'refugees' that are sitting around and doing nothing doesn't mean they aren't 'refugees'. The previous government thought it would be prudent to put people to work and have them pay taxes, instead of sitting on an endless welfare carousel, so far Poland is the only example in the EU that has been able to properly handle such an influx of people. The hypocrisy of other EU nations and people such as yourself is beyond staggering.

You are proving my points. How can they be refugees when most of them don't flee war zones or are not persecuted in their own country ? Even the Ukrainian authorities said that these people are economic migrants. These Ukrainians work in Poland and do benefit the Polish economy. That's a good thing. Therefore Poland don't need EU funding for this. They can do the same with the 7000 refugees they pledged to take without extra EU funding as well.

I agree that the EU as a whole didn't handle well the migrant crisis, perhaps for political reasons. They should have set up visa processing centres in Greece and Italy and determined quickly asylum status before sending them to any other EU countries. In order to do this, they should harmonize the asylum status process which is quite different in each EU country.

Personally I think Poland's game at the end is to get more EU funds. It's not going to happen, especially with the upcoming Brexit. The EU is already laying the groundwork for further cuts to EU funds allocated to Eastern and Southern Europe.

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't know why you find getting permission for parades/demonstrations to be unsettling. Our Constitution does not permit disorderly disturbances, uncivil conduct or anything-goes hooliganism..

What does hooliganism to do with demonstrations? Right, nothing....

Demonstrations are a right. "Congress shall make no law .... abridging .....the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Needing permission, and eventually having to pay, is about pretty abridging.

It was America at its finest

We do very good without needing permission to exercise our constitutional rights, thank you very much..

All according to permit.

...and people say Germans are the ones buying plattform tickets before a revolution....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't know why you find getting permission for parades/demonstrations to be unsettling. Our Constitution does not permit disorderly disturbances, uncivil conduct or anything-goes hooliganism..

What does hooliganism to do with demonstrations? Right, nothing....

Demonstrations are a right. "Congress shall make no law .... abridging .....the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Needing permission, and eventually having to pay, is about pretty abridging.

It was America at its finest

We do very good without needing permission to exercise our constitutional rights, thank you very much..

All according to permit.

...and people say Germans are the ones buying plattform tickets before a revolution....

best regards
Thomas

I'm not sure he's quite grasping what you're picking at. I would suggest taking a look here regarding first amendment protections and the occasions when a permit can be required: http://www.aclu-il.org/aclu-report-when ... o-protest/

The thrust of it-

In some cases, government can require a permit as a condition of protest on public property. For example, government often can require a permit for parades in the streets, given the impact on vehicle traffic. Likewise, government often can require a permit for large protests in public parks and plazas, in order to ensure fairness among the various groups seeking to use the site.
On the other hand, the First Amendment generally bars government from requiring a permit when one person or a small group protest in a park, or when a group of any size protest on a public sidewalk in a manner that does not burden pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Such non-permitted protests might involve speeches, press conferences, signs, marches, chants, leaflets, expressive clothing, and efforts to speak with passersby. The absence of a permit for such protests simply does not burden any legitimate government interests. Thus, the Chicago Park District does not require a permit for gatherings in parks of fewer than 50 people. Likewise, the Chicago ordinance regulating public assembly does not require a permit for gatherings and marches on sidewalks that do not obstruct the normal flow of pedestrian traffic.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't know why you find getting permission for parades/demonstrations to be unsettling. Our Constitution does not permit disorderly disturbances, uncivil conduct or anything-goes hooliganism..

What does hooliganism to do with demonstrations? Right, nothing....

Demonstrations are a right. "Congress shall make no law .... abridging .....the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Needing permission, and eventually having to pay, is about pretty abridging.

Flyguy89 provided additional details for your education about American laws and constitutional rights.

Hooliganism has a sordid reputation in the history of demonstrations, include the German example of Kristallnacht. Not to pick on Germans or Germany, the USA has a rich history of such thuggery against religious sects, blacks, political conventions, Korean shopkeepers and, most recently, "demonstrations" during the inauguration ceremonies last January. We've had our Whiskey Rebellion and similar actions that exceeded the bounds of constitutionally protected assembly and petition.

Please note that the Constitution prohibits the Congress from enacting certain kinds of laws. It does not affect the rights of the "sovereign" states from passing laws to prevent public disorder or enhance public safety and the protection of property. We are not a nation of anarchists.

The payments or costs that I spoke about were not fees for permits (though there might be some that I don't know about) but instead refer to the expense, in the case of mass demonstrations, for providing the required sanitary facilities, trash removal, street closures and barricades, and so forth.

@tommy1808;

Article 8
[Freedom of assembly]
(1) All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission.
(2) In the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.

The above words are taken from the German Basic Law. Art 8 has subsequently been given legislative effect by the Federal Act on Assemblies and Processions (“Gesetz über Versammlungen und Aufzüge”). An amendment to the law devolved much of the powers to the states (Länder). While the Courts have ruled that certain provisions do not apply to spontaneous protest (Spontanversammlung) , this law distinguishes between "indoor" and "outdoor" assemblies and outdoor assemblies have to be notified to the competent authority at least 48 hours prior to the event. Even indoor assemblies have restrictions, including a person being responsible for maintaining order (Versammlungsleiter). Note, an assembly may be classed as outdoor even if it is held indoors, the decision being based on whether the indoor area is normally open to the general public or not.

So Thomas, despite your criticising any apparent restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in the US, such restrictions can be imposed on people exercising that right in Germany and pretty much for the same reasons.

RoySFlying wrote:

So Thomas, despite your criticising any apparent restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in the US, such restrictions can be imposed on people exercising that right in Germany and pretty much for the same reasons.

and yet we still don´t need permission to hold marches..... neither indoor nor outdoors

BobPatterson wrote:

Flyguy89 provided additional details for your education about American laws and constitutional rights.

rather seems to educate me about the lack of human rights in the US.

Hooliganism has a sordid reputation in the history of demonstrations, include the German example of Kristallnacht.

aside of those Hooligans certainly having the governments permission, what exactly would a formal permission requirement have changed?

The payments or costs that I spoke about were not fees for permits (though there might be some that I don't know about) but instead refer to the expense, in the case of mass demonstrations, for providing the required sanitary facilities, trash removal, street closures and barricades, and so forth.

Yup, i get that. Right to assembly and demonstrations only for people with money. Do you have to feed a US$ bill into the voting booth before voting too or will a quarter do?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, i get that. Right to assembly and demonstrations only for people with money.

I love your tenacity.

On the other hand, your inability to admit when you are wrong is pitiable.

There have been several German States that have passed laws putting flesh on the basic law, and requiring the filing of information in order to legally hold assemblies/demonstrations. One such law (the only one for which I found an English version) is:

BayVersG: Bavarian Assembly Act (BayVersG) of 22 July 2008 (GVBl p. 421) BayRS 2180-
4-I (Articles 1–28)

It provides further evidence that you don't know what you are talking about with respect to German laws. And you certainly do not understand (or feign ignorance about) American laws.

No uniforms or armbands allowed in Germany? You have to allow the police and press into meetings?

48 hours notice? In some cases 7 days notice?

Don't bother to respond if you remain in a state of denial.

Cheers

At least in Germany the Administration is neutral. You do not have to apply to stage a Demonstration, you have to notify the Administration that you will stage a Demonstration. The Administration will check whether other people's rights will be affected, wether the Demonstration is withing the General rules of the law. Most of the times, the Demonstration is approved since the right to express your opinion is regarded superior to other rights, such as the uncoditioned right to do your Shopping on a saturday morning.

If, for whatever reasons, the Administration disapproves or relocates your intended demo to remota Locations, the organiser can always Appeal at the Administration Courts, up to the high court.

BTW throwing Stones, Setting cars on fire and wearing black masks, just to mention a few, is not covered by the Basic rights. The emphasis is always on the word "peaceful".

tommy1808 wrote:

RoySFlying wrote:

So Thomas, despite your criticising any apparent restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in the US, such restrictions can be imposed on people exercising that right in Germany and pretty much for the same reasons.

and yet we still don´t need permission to hold marches..... neither indoor nor outdoors

Yes you do. Similar to the US, for large-scale open air gatherings in Germany you must register with the relevant local authorities at least 48-hours in advance (which they consequently have the right to deny/revoke). From the Versammlungsgesetz under German Basic Law:

Section 14.1. of the Assembly Law (Versammlungsgesetz, hereafter AL) rules that anyone who plans to organize an open-air assembly must register with the responsible authority at least 48 hours prior to the announcement of the event and declare the nature of the event. Section 14.2 of the AL requires that the registration must include the name of who is supposed to be responsible for the leadership of the event. Section 15.1. of the AL allows the responsible authorities to prohibit the event or render permission of the event conditional on compliance with certain requirements when, in the light of the circumstances at the time of the decision, the event immediately endangers public safety or order. Section 15.2. of the AL allows the responsible authorities to break up an event if no registration was filed, or if the nature of the event turns out to be different than declared, or if requirements are not being complied with, or if the prerequisites for a prohibition from Section 15.1. are met. Section 15.3. of the AL declares that a prohibited event must be broken up. Sections 26 and 29 of the AL provide for penal measurements for persons who organize or are responsible for prohibited and non-registered events and for people who participate in prohibited events.

Remember also that whole row with Turkey?

https://apnews.com/8a1500716cbc4bc598d9 ... cel-turkey

Turkey’s justice minister canceled plans to meet with his German counterpart Thursday after local authorities in southwest Germany withdrew permission for him to use a venue to hold a political rally.

tommy1808 wrote:

rather seems to educate me about the lack of human rights in the US.

Which evidently also means Germany as well since US/German protest laws are basically the same.

BobPatterson wrote:

Don't bother to respond if you remain in a state of denial.

Cheers

"State of denial"... you and your ad hominem attacks.

There is a difference between asking for permission (=can i please hold a march in Main street?") and announcing it to the authorities ("We are going to hold a demonstation on Mainstreet next saturday fyi").

There is a difference between just holding a march for 2 Million people because you want to and you can get those people to come, and having to cough up half a million or so to pay for portapotties and cleaning up.

Did you deliberately not quote the laws text, since you would be debunking yourself by quoting "must notify the competent authority at least 48 hours prior to its announcement by phone, in writing or by email, or transcription"? If you plan your two million people march in an area that can only hold half a million people, doesn´t have access for rescue vehicles and such, then they can tell you to hold it somewhere else.

But of course you do know that, since you again try to change the topic once you are wrong, because you don´t write "requiring to obtain permission", which is what we are discussing, but "requiring the filing of information", when i never claimed you don´t have to do.

No permission required.....

best regards
Thomas

flyguy89 wrote:

Remember also that whole row with Turkey?

https://apnews.com/8a1500716cbc4bc598d9 ... cel-turkey

last time i checked the turkish government wasn´t living in Germany, hence right to assembly doesn´t apply to them and is only courtesy if permitted.

Which evidently also means Germany as well since US/German protest laws are basically the same.

aside of marches are being free of charge and the bit about not having to ask for permission .....

best regards
Thomas

That camouflaged Turkish political Rally in a small town near Karlsruhe is a good example of how faked News develop.

A Turkish Club rented the local town hall for a Turkish cultural Show. The hall has a limited number of seats which is in line with the building codes, fire protection. etc. The surrounding of the hall is residential. Early afternoon that day the Mayor of the town heard that a Turkish Minister would be the key Speaker and that an election Rally would be Held, not a cultural Event. More to that, the number of attendees would e 2000, far too many to be accommodated safely.

With that Information on Hand, it was the DUTY of the Mayor to cancel the rental Agreement, simply for safety reasons. The Turks made a big deal out f this and instrumented this poltically. Lying all over with Erdogan leading the word, Sayin that Mrs. Merkel is a Nazi and all the usual BS. They could still have appealed the Mayors decision but they would not have had a Chance, starting from lying about the reason, grossly unerstating the numbers of attendees an so on.

tommy1808 wrote:

There is a difference between asking for permission (=can i please hold a march in Main street?") and announcing it to the authorities ("We are going to hold a demonstation on Mainstreet next saturday fyi").

There is no legal difference. Acquiring a permit for a large scale open air demonstration in the US is the process of announcing it to the authorities. Americans call it a permit...Germany calls it a registration, and in both countries the legal doctrine generally requires accommodation because of the enshrined protections of freedom of expression.

tommy1808 wrote:

There is a difference between just holding a march for 2 Million people because you want to and you can get those people to come, and having to cough up half a million or so to pay for portapotties and cleaning up.

If you decide you spontaneously want to hold a march and 2 million people join you, you're not required to pay anything.

tommy1808 wrote:

But of course you do know that, since you again try to change the topic once you are wrong, because you don´t write "requiring to obtain permission", which is what we are discussing, but "requiring the filing of information", when i never claimed you don´t have to do.

No permission required.....

Sorry, but once again, there's no actionable or legal difference between the US and Germany here. The linguistic difference of "permission" you keep trying to pick at is meaningless since in both the US and Germany there is no philosophical basis of needing permission to exercise your rights; both countries do have a set of requirements needing to be filed to host a large-scale demonstration. Just like in Germany, in the US you must file information with the relevant authorities to legally hold your demonstration. Just like in Germany, if you fail to file your information, the authorities can prohibit your demonstration/march/protest from taking place. And again, just like in Germany, these regulations only apply for large-scale open air demonstrations.

tommy1808 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Remember also that whole row with Turkey?

https://apnews.com/8a1500716cbc4bc598d9 ... cel-turkey

last time i checked the turkish government wasn´t living in Germany, hence right to assembly doesn´t apply to them and is only courtesy if permitted.

But the rights of his supporters who are legal residents of Germany do. In the US, the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on US soil, including non-citizens.

flyguy89 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

There is a difference between asking for permission (=can i please hold a march in Main street?") and announcing it to the authorities ("We are going to hold a demonstation on Mainstreet next saturday fyi").

There is no legal difference. Acquiring a permit for a large scale open air demonstration in the US is the process of announcing it to the authorities. Americans call it a permit...Germany calls it a registration, and in both countries the legal doctrine generally requires accommodation because of the enshrined protections of freedom of expression.

per·mis·sion
pərˈmiSHən/Senden
noun
consent; authorization.
"they had entered the country without permission"
synonyms: authorization, consent, leave, authority, sanction, license, dispensation, assent, acquiescence, agreement, approval, seal/stamp of approval, approbation, endorsement, blessing, imprimatur, clearance, allowance, tolerance, sufferance, empowerment; More
an official document giving authorization.
plural noun: permissions
"permissions to reproduce copyright material"

The word does not describe what is going on here, because there isn´t consent or authorization involved and either you are using the work permission contrary to its dictionary definition or the legal situation is different.

tommy1808 wrote:

There is a difference between just holding a march for 2 Million people because you want to and you can get those people to come, and having to cough up half a million or so to pay for portapotties and cleaning up.

If you decide you spontaneously want to hold a march and 2 million people join you, you're not required to pay anything.

1. i didn´t say "spontanous"
2. you are discussing with the wrong person, i didn´t claim you can be charged in the US, Bob did.

Sorry, but once again, there's no actionable or legal difference between the US and Germany here. The linguistic difference of "permission" you keep trying to pick at is meaningless since in both the US and Germany there is no philosophical basis of needing permission to exercise your rights;

again, you are barking up the wrong tree, Bob claims you need permission in the US. Permission has a distinctive meaning, wich goes beyond picking up the phone and telling a bureaucrat "we will have a march here next saturday at 10 am, i expect 10k people and you can reach me under this number".

But the rights of his supporters who are legal residents of Germany do. In the US, the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on US soil, including non-citizens.

Well, they should have organized the march then and not a Turkish party.

You may have noticed that, when this discussion started, i was very surprised, "what the heck", when Bob mentioned permissions.

best regards
Thomas

flyguy89 wrote:

But the rights of his supporters who are legal residents of Germany do. In the US, the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on US soil, including non-citizens.

This a major difference between the two countries. Whereas the rights of assembly extend to all on US soil as part of the US Constitution, in Germany the Basic Law guarantee extends to Germans only. Nevertheless, Germany has adopted into Federal law the provisions of Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this manner the freedoms of non-citizens have a limited protection, rather than a constitutionally guaranteed protection that citizens enjoy.

RoySFlying wrote:

Nevertheless, Germany has adopted into Federal law the provisions of Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

A generally used approach in Germany as treaties like that are directly applicable law in German and Art. 11 is practically identical to the German GG.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

There is a difference between asking for permission (=can i please hold a march in Main street?") and announcing it to the authorities ("We are going to hold a demonstation on Mainstreet next saturday fyi").

There is no legal difference. Acquiring a permit for a large scale open air demonstration in the US is the process of announcing it to the authorities. Americans call it a permit...Germany calls it a registration, and in both countries the legal doctrine generally requires accommodation because of the enshrined protections of freedom of expression.

per·mis·sion
pərˈmiSHən/Senden
noun
consent; authorization.
"they had entered the country without permission"
synonyms: authorization, consent, leave, authority, sanction, license, dispensation, assent, acquiescence, agreement, approval, seal/stamp of approval, approbation, endorsement, blessing, imprimatur, clearance, allowance, tolerance, sufferance, empowerment; More
an official document giving authorization.
plural noun: permissions
"permissions to reproduce copyright material"

The word does not describe what is going on here, because there isn´t consent or authorization involved and either you are using the work permission contrary to its dictionary definition or the legal situation is different.

I don't think it's a question of dictionary definitions. In both our countries there is no "asking" to use your right to free expression ("May I please demonstrate on Wall Street" as you put it...there's no permission required in that sense). However, in both the US and Germany there is clearly an authorization process for legally hosting a large-scale march/demonstration which, according to the definition you posted, could be construed as a type of "permission." But again, in the original sense that you were implying ("May I please demonstrate..."), as in Germany there is no "permission" required to exercise freedom of expression/assembly.

tommy1808 wrote:

2. you are discussing with the wrong person, i didn´t claim you can be charged in the US, Bob did.

Was only setting the record straight for you.

tommy1808 wrote:

Sorry, but once again, there's no actionable or legal difference between the US and Germany here. The linguistic difference of "permission" you keep trying to pick at is meaningless since in both the US and Germany there is no philosophical basis of needing permission to exercise your rights;

again, you are barking up the wrong tree, Bob claims you need permission in the US. Permission has a distinctive meaning, wich goes beyond picking up the phone and telling a bureaucrat "we will have a march here next saturday at 10 am, i expect 10k people and you can reach me under this number".

And I'm just telling you what the reality of the situation is, which is that there's no practical difference between the US and Germany on this subject.

tommy1808 wrote:

But the rights of his supporters who are legal residents of Germany do. In the US, the Bill of Rights applies to anyone on US soil, including non-citizens.

Well, they should have organized the march then and not a Turkish party.

To my knowledge the organizers were legal Germany residents. In any case though, I'm not saying I even disagree with Germany's stance there, I was simply using it to point out that there is indeed an authorization process in Germany for large rallies.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Don't bother to respond if you remain in a state of denial.

Cheers

"State of denial"... you and your ad hominem attacks.

There is nothing ad hominem about a statement of fact. I'm pretty sure you will come up with a different definition of ad hominem, but the one I follow is:

"Appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect."

I am not appealing to your feelings or to those of any other person when I suggest that you are in a state of denial.

The persistent complaints by you and Dutchy of ad hominem attacks (also known as yammering) are a sign of weakness.

Man up.

Flyguy89 is doing wonderfully to shoot down your other arguments, so I am happy to leave the rest to him.

Cheers

flyguy89 wrote:

The word does not describe what is going on here, because there isn´t consent or authorization involved and either you are using the work permission contrary to its dictionary definition or the legal situation is different.

I don't think it's a question of dictionary definitions. In both our countries there is no "asking" to use your right to free expression ("May I please demonstrate on Wall Street" as you put it...there's no permission required in that sense).[/quote]

Well, words are always a question of definition.

However, in both the US and Germany there is clearly an authorization process for legally hosting a large-scale march/demonstration which, according to the definition you posted, could be construed as a type of "permission." But again, in the original sense that you were implying ("May I please demonstrate..."), as in Germany there is no "permission" required to exercise freedom of expression/assembly.

Thank you for that clarification. So, if you don´t hear back from the authorities after telling them that you are going to march, you are good to go?
Only remaining issue i´d have is the cost bearing that Bob mentioned, is that true, sad as that may be, or did he get that wrong as well.

tommy1808 wrote:

2. you are discussing with the wrong person, i didn´t claim you can be charged in the US, Bob did.

Was only setting the record straight for you.

Thank you for that.I guess a simple "i don´t mean Permission in the strict sense" would have sufficed...

And I'm just telling you what the reality of the situation is, which is that there's no practical difference between the US and Germany on this subject.

Unless you really need to pay for portapotties and cleaning up, it appears that there is no practical difference.

To my knowledge the organizers were legal Germany residents. In any case though, I'm not saying I even disagree with Germany's stance there, I was simply using it to point out that there is indeed an authorization process in Germany for large rallies.

I had to refresh my memory as well, it is a tat more complicated. I could not find any Turkish Demostation that got prohibited at all, nor could our in-House Erdogan fan recall any such prohibition. All problematic events where indoor, not even subject that any laws regarding assembly aside of fire codes and such, and none was prohibited, only holding them in that location was (one for example had no fire alarm system and simply wasn´t legal to use with the number of people the organizers expected).

BobPatterson wrote:

Flyguy89 is doing wonderfully to shoot down your other arguments, so I am happy to leave the rest to him.

yup, he made crystal clear that you had no clue what you are talking about and corrected your errors. Or as he put it

Was only setting the record straight for you

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Only remaining issue i´d have is the cost bearing that Bob mentioned, is that true, sad as that may be, or did he get that wrong as well.

I didn´t claim you can be charged in the US, Bob did.

You are beating a dead horse. Here is how the portapotie situation is handled, as a requirement of permit, not as a "charge" or fee for the permit itself:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... tties.html

Of course, if you don't agree to the terms of the permit, then you don't get the permit.

tommy1808 wrote:

However, in both the US and Germany there is clearly an authorization process for legally hosting a large-scale march/demonstration which, according to the definition you posted, could be construed as a type of "permission." But again, in the original sense that you were implying ("May I please demonstrate..."), as in Germany there is no "permission" required to exercise freedom of expression/assembly.

Thank you for that clarification. So, if you don´t hear back from the authorities after telling them that you are going to march, you are good to go?

More or less. The authorities will nearly always respond in the affirmative or negative once you submit your information. If you submitted all the necessary info in the required time frame and didn't hear anything back, American legal doctrine on free expression rights places the burden on authorities to process and act on the information they receive. So in other words, local authorities wouldn't be able to swoop in at the last moment and prohibit the protest (with the exception of safety or some other compelling reason). Basically courts would not accept bureaucratic backlog or local authorities being late in processing information as a valid justification for prohibiting a large protest...they would view it as incumbent upon local authorities to make sure they're accommodating people's rights.

tommy1808 wrote:

Only remaining issue i´d have is the cost bearing that Bob mentioned, is that true, sad as that may be, or did he get that wrong as well.

It's somewhat true. Local authorities can assess certain fees directly related to the cost of regulating the site. This might include clean-up fees, the cost of some barrier partitions if other groups also want to use the same site, etc. The assessment of these fees is incredibly restricted however, any local authorities who do charge fees must always exempt groups unable to pay. The law holds that no one can be denied the right to protest due to any financial burden imposed by local authorities. And again this is in regards to large-scale organized demonstrations. So yes, there can sometimes be a cost, but it's regulated in such a way that the cost could never preclude groups from protesting.

BobPatterson wrote:

You are beating a dead horse. Here is how the portapotie situation is handled, as a requirement of permit, not as a "charge" or fee for the permit itself:

Since you never claimed you have to pay for the permission itself, nor did i ever question that, why do you keep hammering that?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/20/anti-trump-protests-causing-a-boom-in-one-industry-porta-potties.html

Of course, if you don't agree to the terms of the permit, then you don't get the permit.

So, freedom of assembly only for people with money. Disgusting. And still a permit also disgusting. I like flygus89´s america much better than yours.

flyguy89 wrote:

It's somewhat true. Local authorities can assess certain fees directly related to the cost of regulating the site. This might include clean-up fees, the cost of some barrier partitions if other groups also want to use the same site, etc. The assessment of these fees is incredibly restricted however, any local authorities who do charge fees must always exempt groups unable to pay.

That still sounds like nonsense in principle, why would anyone have to pay for anything bringing a lot of people into places they can be at for free individually, it does however sound a lot more differentiated then the you need permission and pay for costs version from Bob. Thank you vor clearing that up.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

It's somewhat true. Local authorities can assess certain fees directly related to the cost of regulating the site. This might include clean-up fees, the cost of some barrier partitions if other groups also want to use the same site, etc. The assessment of these fees is incredibly restricted however, any local authorities who do charge fees must always exempt groups unable to pay.

That still sounds like nonsense in principle, why would anyone have to pay for anything bringing a lot of people into places they can be at for free individually, it does however sound a lot more differentiated then the you need permission and pay for costs version from Bob. Thank you vor clearing that up.

I believe the legal background of it typically revolves around the idea that because the venues are publicly owned and maintained, and because all tax payers would bear the clean up costs regardless of whether they use the space, having the organizers bear some of the costs is justified...unless they're unable to pay, of course. As I mentioned though, its heavily restricted. For example, local authorities are only allowed to charge the actual cost, no profit-making is allowed.

flyguy89 wrote:

For example, local authorities are only allowed to charge the actual cost, no profit-making is allowed.

With many services provided by private companies ... doesn´t that in principle just mean that authorities can´t make a profit, the subcontractors can however make as much profit as they want?

and because all tax payers would bear the clean up costs regardless of whether they use the space

Isn´t that what taxes are for, enabling citizens to exercise their rights and protect the ability to do so? Or does the police charge the actual cost as well?

Here the bar is set so high that even the loveparade didn´t get charged for more than a decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Parade#Legal_issues

best regards
Thomas