Friday, September 16, 2011


to inconvenience. to disturb. tr.
Currently, for arrests in front of the White House, you do not need to present the person inconvenienced, or claim that there is such a person.
But even if there exists a person who is inconvenienced, can it be that the first amendment protects actions only as long as no one is bothered by them?
There is the additional question, who is being inconvenienced more? Those who have to squeeze in among demonstrators to see the fountain, or those who have to travel to Washington to demonstrate against corruption at the highest levels?
Is there any reason that the interests of those who have a permit should not be satisfied first?
Or, failing that, first-come, first-served?

No comments:

Post a Comment