<div>On 4/30/06, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Jerry Monaco wrote:   The cops were not as >heavy handed as at some marches but they still turned people away >from entry points and gave people the run around!  Since you're a lawyer...has anyone ever sued over this practice? Are there grounds for a suit? Doug </blockquote></div> The short answer is not specifically.  But there is a more complicated answer to this question and a more complex reflection upon social power that goes with it.  I could write hundreds words (more actually) but I will boil it down to a few sentences.  The real division is between what the law says and real existing law between cops and people on the streets.  So the notion of "free speech zones" has been regulated, and arbitrariness in parade permit laws, etc. but the courts generally agree that the cops can keep order, regulate traffic, etc.  In effect anything that the cops do can be put under this rubric, and as long as it is not too discriminatory it is hard to find a legal edge.  Judges make statements before demonstrations, such as, "The court will not second guess or substitute its judgment for that of the NYPD" when these issues are brought up. The law tends to work its way through individual cases, but when the cops act simply a part of the administrative and regulatory government it is pretty hard to do anything.  Essentially, in non-legal language, one has to  show that the actions of the cops are intended to limit free speech, that their actions limit free speech, and that they limited free speech in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, or applied the law in such a manner.  All of this is repeatedly litigated in New York and law enforcement agencies continually come up with new ways to regulate demonstrations and again you go to court.  But this is simply the legal way of looking at it.  Think of it another way.  I have heard family stories of big labor demonstrations in upstate New York industrial towns during the 1930s.  Essentially the shop stewards ran the demonstrations and the cops were told by their superiors to back off.  This was considered the best way to maintain "order" and avoid "violence."  I have talked to people in Italy and France and this is essentially the way planned demonstrations are organized. The main point of negotiation to guarantee free speech is then between the demonstration organizers and the government and cops. I have participated as marshall in demonstrations during the 1980s that worked a little like this.  Look at the contrast between the 15 Feb. 2003 protest in New York where the police where so heavy handed that they couldn't control the protest at all and there were large numbers of people who complained to their representatives quite loudly and subsequent demonstrations where the police and city that it was easier to control the demonstration if they simply negotiated with the organizers.  It seems to me that relying on the law alone is a weakness.  If we had enough united social power we could negotiate to police our own demonstrations, including access routes, etc. and the cops would be left to the roles of observing the demonstration and redirecting automobile traffic.  The law can only help us so much to get to this point where the cops have virtually no regulatory interference on demonstrations.  It sets the outer boundaries in specific cases. But I am sure you know most of this.  It's nice to clarify it for myself in bits and bites.  Jerry