I’ve seen a lot of people asking why we don’t just get permits for our marches, and I’d just like to voice the reasons why I’m A-OK with nonpermitted marches and I’m tired of us getting flack for having them:
- First and most imporrtantly, we are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble/protest by the First Amendment of our Constitution, which specifically states that we cannot pass laws that abridge those rights. It does not state that there are areas we cannot peacefully assemble, it does not state that we have to have a permit to do so.
- A permit process implies that someone on the other end of the process is approving those permits, which puts that person in a position of power over our freedom to express ourselves. I personally do not believe that giving anyone that power is a good thing.
- When we get a permit, where and when we are allowed to march is controlled by the city. Frequently the routes allowed by a permit are *not* condusive to what we are meaning to express as a group. Important note: They do that on purpose.
- Contrary to popular non-Occupy opinion, permit processes do not exist to ‘protect people’. They exist to control people, because the city (as a political entity) is afraid of mass activity. One reason I am so wholeheartedly involved in Occupy is because I believe that that desire for control and that level of distrust for our own fellow citizens is very wrong.
So essentially: A non-permitted march allows us to exercise the rights given to us at the formation of this nation, it puts control of our actions into our hands, and it allows us to pick a route that will get us the most visibility.
That’s basically it. I just wanted to share in a central place rather than copy/paste this to eighteen million threads.