....... listing equipment such as two tables, two bikes and jump ropes. "

HUH?

Wasup?

The March for Life has very high priority over a lame Washington DC got Talent show. They can reschedule it and noone will care or notice.

It sure wouldn't be the first time that was done.

Unless.......humm.. wonder when the 'talent show' was scheduled? Just my suspicious nature...

I'm sure it's a safe bet that the talent show permit was filed prior to that. The National Park Service issues permits on a first come, first served basis.

...when the Presidential Inaugural Committee withdrew its claim on the Ellipse adjacent to the White House to the Women's March.

There should be several other places in DC for them to go to instead of the mall.

on Pennsylvania Avenue between Third and 12th streets NW, which is the jurisdiction of the District..........................................'

If a million people show up, there will be a rally ..

regardless !!!!

Before the high school shooting or after? After the rally was announced but before the permit request was filed? Who is behind the film crew? Who paid for the permit? Does this mean we can stop Trump's ego military parade by getting a permit to hold a picnic in the middle of the parade route?

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

to modify conditions of use permits after the fact when extenuating circumstances warrant, like environmental impacts that were not identified or a potential conflict with another proposed use that was not known or identified at the time of permit issuance in particular a higher and better use. Prior filing and/or prior existing do not in themselves disqualify later applications from permit issuance. In many cases it actually does come down to a political decision. The planned rally would certainly qualify as an extenuating circumstance especially if the "talent show" footprint is as small as folks described above (suspect they were sarcasm but not sure). The applicants have the right to appeal the permit denial including taking the issue to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. This was potentially a political decision.

I had a feeling politics was involved somewhere in there. Trump got stung once by the optics of the Women's March -- I guess his handlers didn't want the same thing to happen with the kids' gun control march. A crowd filling the Mall is hard to ignore.

If the applicants actually did accept that answer from NPS (denial for pre-existing permit) and are comfortable moving it elsewhere, and the current permit holders have not responded to a request from NPS to consider other venues/dates so the rally could occur without conflict, then its legit. But applicants have the right to appeal process.

inauguration?

That would embarrass him. Might even make him mad.

Or force him to lie again.

Horrors!

Think about it. The permit needs to be revoked and assign the new permit to the March for Life which is now a high priority and must be honored.

Who gives a flip about some lame talent show? Really?

The NPS decision maker on the permit knows the options available but appears to have only gone through the motions on those options. I think the organizers could make it happen if they push it personally, but I don't know the internal dynamics of NPS, especially in the National Capital Parks.

That basis is the first to apply.

To suggest that the NPS has the right to choose which event is most important grants the government the right to determine which speech to promote - and which to suppress - in direct violation of the First Amendment.

The talent show permit is for a different use -- not a free speech/demonstration permit. The NPS has made the judgement that the two uses conflict (or at least the March conflicts with the talent show) and is therefore relying on prior-existing permit or application as the reason for denial. It does not appear that they are choosing between two conflicting free speech activities. The NPS can actually issue two or more free speech permits for the same area and time if it determines them manageable, able to co-exist, etc. "Manageable" can be established via permit conditions.

At any rate, my primary point was that there is an appeal process that applicants can use when they feel they have been wrongly drnied a permit -- for any federal land use.

Having said all that, your basic point is a good one. I agree with it in the case of competing free speech permits.

To qualify as speech. Speech is very broadly defined - basically anything expressive that does not fall into very limited categories of unprotected speech - like pornography. Exotic dancing, for example, is speech.

My understanding is that the first permit is for a filming which, unless it is pornography, is speech. That speech would certainly be interfered with by the noise level and visible presence of thousands of people from the March.

by the administration. Only to provide some basic info. Overall, knowing what we know, I agree with you 100%.

...give a flip about the talent show.

And yet they're the ones being made to look like assholes here.

The point in time that matters is the filing date. Which filed first.

A permit should always be obtained (or at least conflicts checked) before the date is broadly announced, in order to avoid someone swooping in and reserving the space for that date.

As to the permit in the middle of the parade route - that gets a bit more complicated.

The middle of the road may, or may not, be a traditional free speech zone. If it is, generally permits have to be awarded on a content neutral basis (generally first come-first serve). But since the parade speech is government speech, there are nuances I haven't researched recently. (The government has more flexibility to speak than it does to govern the speech of others.)

But change you scenario a bit - say the NRA wanted to hold a massive rally and announced its rally date - if they don't timely file their permit application, we could definitely stop it by swooping in and requesting a permit for the day they wanted to hold the rally - as long as our permit application was filed before theirs was filed.

So the moral of the story is:

** Check the venue for conflicts before announcing the date (previously filed permits take priority)
** File the permit application before announcing the date (to prevent an opposing group from "stealing" the site by filing before you get around to it).

I'd chock it up to inexperience with how things work. Fortunately they're starting to enlist the aid of the people who put on the Women's March last year. They'll be able to tell them from experience what works and doesn't work.

What's exciting are all the auxiliary marches that are being planned across the country. This feels entirely different than any response to past shootings. Passionate, articulate and motivated teens who basically own the internet (and can thus communicate with each other instantly) is a force the right wing and NRA haven't faced before, and they are trying to battle it using tried-and-true techniques. I mean, dinner with IQ45 the day he announces radical changes to the gun laws? Was that expected or what? Plus, after reading "Fire and Fury" we all know that Trump's opinion is based on the last person he talked to...

The students will eventually win. As one student put it concerning the NRA and politicians in their pocket: "We are going to outlive you."

I can't wait until they're old enough to vote -- and run for office!

Stopping the student "march" is marching right down the Yellow Brick Road to the Wizard of Fascism.

PEOPLE.....BE VERY AFRAID...

The Cadet Bone Spurs IQ45 wants his title change to Cadet Bone Spurs SLUS [Supreme Leader of the US]

Who does he idolize?

the Malaysian leader that executes drug deals [ and getting other countries to follow ]
Little Rocket Man, executed his own uncle, CBS45 beats up his opponents to submission [1 step from killing]
PARADES, uh...like N Korea, Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, et. al.
China [very afraid] just got the 2 term limit dropped and is in for life now.

....and there are many more.

They are not stopping the student march. It is a matter of conflicting permits. Permits to traditional free speech areas have to be issued on a content neutral basis - precisely to avoid the government picking and choosing which speech to prioritize.

You can't just announce a day for a march and expect everyone else to cede the mall to you. The other group applied first - to bump them would be a violation of their first amendment rights, and would make the kind of abuses you fear much more likely.

on PA. Ave. between 3rd and 12th Streets, NW in DC. --- The decline of their permit is some stuff!

At 11th and penn

Building, 1899 and previously known as The Pavillion/Shops.

Let's get this president out of office and his name off that stupid hotel of bribery.

... to send them requests to do just that?

no response yet.

Does anyone have specific info about the organization? Maybe they could trade venues with March for Our Lives.

Two tables two bikes and a jump rope. Really. Cancel that permit and give it to the students exercising their free speech. Much more important

The first amendment requires that permits to traditional free speech areas be awarded on a content neutral basis, to avoid allowing the government to pick and choose which speech it wants to allow (or abridge).

If the government could just cancel permits because it believed the speech wasn't important, do you really thing the Trump administration wouldn't have canceled the Women's march the day after it took office? (or that Nixon wouldn't have canceled the vietnam era marches?)

What you are advocating is very dangerous.

Every time. This one is too important to refuse. NPS has to revoke that permit for the "talent show" that willl be sparsely attended and noone cares.

The government (NPS) cannot pick and choose which speech to permit based on the content.

It is really irrelevant whether anyone in the world cares - the government, through the NPS, cannot abridge their right to speak in favor of the students'.

If you believe the NPS should be able to determine which speech is more important, you will have no right to object if they subsequently decide that the NRA's speech is more important than the students' speech - should the NRA apply for a permit to the same space on the same day. After all, you agreed that the government (through the NPS) had the right to deem someone else's speech unimportant; what right do you have to object when it deems your rights less important than the NRA?

That is the principle of the first amendment, and if we allow it to be violated because we don't happen to care about the speech that is being suppressed, we lose the right to demand our own right to speak be respected.

I suspect some of those who would be quick to pull the pre-existing permit would take a different view if the second march was one sponsored by the NRA or an anti-abortion group.

Maybe it will get worked out. If it doesn't, it's not the end of the world. The March will still take place, it will still get a lot of coverage, it will still piss off the NRA and Trump.

That would be rational.

Extend this scenario to a small gathering to protest the lack of recognition for polygamous marriages v. a large gathering that promotes "traditional family values." By your reasoning, the traditional family values should be able to oust the rally seeking recognition of polygamous marriages.

Any characteristic that prioritizes speech based on popularity (larger crowd v. smaller crowd is unconstitutional. The decision-making factor has to truly grant all messages the same access to traditional areas of free speech. If bigger (more popular) second-in-time groups can oust smaller (less popular) first-in-time groups, any unpopular message is subject to being repressed by the government when it later gives the space away to a more popular group that saw the rally they disagreed with and decided to silence the message by planning a bigger event.

Both groups are exercising free speech. One of them played by the rules and filled out their permits first.

You don't really have a good grasp on the First Amendment, do you?

Permits are issued on a first come, first served basis without regard to ideology or planned attendance, and are certainly not cancelled because one side thinks their rally is more important than what is currently taking place.

Maybe Oprah could have the talent show appear on her program in exchange for them conceding their claim?

...so perhaps they will. It's their prerogative; I won't blame them because they happened to reserve the location first. From the same article:

Because the talent show is not going to be attended and noone cares. The March for Life has high priority and NPS has to do it right.

No one who values the first amendment should be suggesting that we let the government decide what speech is important.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2002080

But some folks are impervious to facts and reason.

and easy to forget that the means we use to reach those results can just easily be used as weapons against us.

I understand the impulse, but the result isn't worth sacrificing our right to freely protest against the government. As a child of the 60s (and a lawyer) I am highly offended at the notion that we ought to let the government pick and choose who gets to speak, merely because we think they might choose our side this time.

What school wouldn't immediately reschedule or move their talent show for this march? I call bullshit. It was a hand-written request that just happened to be filed the same day but hours earlier.

too many responses on this thread reveal a serious lack of critical thinking, understanding of the democratic process, and of the Constitution. I also suspect a couple of trolls seeking to disrupt. Ms Toad is correct!

You can’t take someone else’s hair appointment because you think your coronation is more important than their prom. That’s not how the beauty parlor works.

We would issue permits for among other things, a small outdoor chapel for weddings.

I can’t tell you how many times someone walked in and insisted they were more important than whomever rented the space before them and how I or they simply HAD to cancel to accommodate them.

Obviously not saying that’s the case here, but some people embody that type of arrogance.

The Mall can swallow up a million people in a minute, while 500,000 in the streets will seem like "the largest crowd to see the inauguration ever. Period."

I'm sure other groups, Anonymous or some imitators, mayhem-loving anarchists, white supremacists, Russian-hired thugs, etc, will try to infiltrate, disrupt.

I hope this one can remain focused, disciplined.