As I understand it, every time the D.C. Chapter of FR wants to have TWO people stand on a corner holding signs they have to get a permit. Why wouldn't we require FOUR HUNDRED people to get one?
The better question is: are 'permits to assemble' constitutional? I know it's moot in reality, but we need to be careful about giving more than grudging support to deviations from the Constitution, however necessary they may be.
Wrong. A permit is required for 25 or more. The DC Chapter does it to reserve an area to prohibit interlopers. It also notice the LEOs of our plans and smooths relationships. Makes for a better protest.
As for the punks' lawyers that received a cash award, there was not much peaceful in their assembly. You should recall that one group was pushing a trash container all over the streets looking to vandalize property. Innocent bystanders - I don't think so.
This is selective application of the law.
As I understand it, no permit required for groups of 24 or less.
The police wholesale enclosing the park and arresting everyone in it is a bit too much heavyhandedness on their part IMO.