Seconded, mostly. Just saying, this isn't court winnable at the moment.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Will Gauss <email@example.com>
Then the Supreme Court decided unjustly and in contravention of liberty. Looks like another decision which must be overturned, or made irrelevant by mass civil disobedience.
Sent from my iPhone
Okay… but the Supreme Court disagrees.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM, hextic <firstname.lastname@example.org>
It is too late to put this to GA attention, so I will tweet now on the
one condition that we make an effort to pass a resolution that in the
future we completely reject the entire idea of requiring a "permit" to
exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of what possible,
conceivable use is a freedom of speech and assembly which we must ask
for? Asking for permissions implies legitimacy of a "no" answer. The
entire purpose of this freedom is to give us the ability to
unilaterally assert ourselves when our representatives fail to
represent us. The requirement of a permit is a direct nullification
of what is an unbridgeable right.
> Hello, OWS twitter-squad. Please update your info tweets to note that the
> mass 4:30pm rally tomorrow at City Hall Park has been moved to Foley Square
> so it can be given a marching permit (i.e. essentially no risk of arrest).