Comments on: Valencia protester cries, ‘down with this sort of thing!’

By: GStorm

GStorm — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:05:37 +0000

The city is clueless on this issue which is why it is a colossally dumb law. I asked where I could get a permit to sit as a street performer and no one at city hall, the board or supervisors or the police department could tell me how to obtain one or whether my activity was illegal or not.

By: GStorm

GStorm — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:01:09 +0000

The law allows an exception only for an abutting homeowner. Otherwise, it is against the law. As always, another law that those with money are exempt from.

By: Cranky Old Mission Guy

Cranky Old Mission Guy — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:02:41 +0000

Actually, being a condescending jerk will backfire every time. Just sayin’.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:41:14 +0000

Well, that’s where it gets a little complicated. The thing is that SF doesn’t actually REQUIRE a permit for a protest of this size/type.

So, it seems like a fairly reasonable assumption that the demonstrators would not have gone out of their way to apply for a permit that was not otherwise necessary outside of the specific Sit/Lie law.

By: Daryl F.

Daryl F. — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:23:25 +0000

Well that’s how it could not apply. I don’t have any information regarding the existence or lack of a permit in this case.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:21:36 +0000

I have, but the exception is only for protests that have been issued a city permit, at least that is my understanding. Am I wrong about that?

By: Daryl F.

Daryl F. — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:11:27 +0000

How could it not apply? Because sit/lie has a clear provision allowing for free speech and peaceful assembly. Have you not read the ordinance?

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:58:15 +0000

Same.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:57:41 +0000

Thank you for your casually sexist and patronizing input. I’m sure it will be taken under advisement.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:56:48 +0000

GG: Well, it seems like sit/lie, as written, would cover this. I mean, assuming the protestors are sitting down (as she is in this photo, and as the anti-Planned Parenthood protestors have been most times I have seen them outside that office), how could it not apply?

By: manymachines

manymachines — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:06:47 +0000

By my armchair/IANAL reading, you’re correct. This is (part of) why I voted against sit/lie — because it’s not making a real rule, it’s just creating a power that could be exercised arbitrarily.

By: Daryl F.

Daryl F. — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:26:29 +0000

Honey, if you stopped being so defensive and insulting, intelligent people might be more likely to try and understand your reasoning. Childishly trying to prove yourself intellectually superior will backfire every time.

By: Cranky Old Mission Guy

Cranky Old Mission Guy — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:13:26 +0000

“I was addressing intelligent people and/or people who might know something about the topic”

See, there’s your mistake right there!

By: GG

GG — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:37:18 +0000

(Also, just to clarify, the ordinance exempts demonstrations, etc. “in compliance with a street use or other applicable permit,” but I’m assuming she does not have a permit.)

By: GG

GG — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:33:53 +0000

What??? Not sure how you possibly read anything related to Occupy protesters into that comment. I’m also not sure how, as an attorney, my questioning whether this violates sit/lie is “cry[ing] that what she’s doing is illegal.” I was addressing intelligent people and/or people who might know something about the topic, because I would imagine that not having an exception for people holding protests would seem to make the ordinance vulnerable to being stricken on First Amendment grounds — but you appear to be neither. To anyone else, I’m still curious. I’ve read the text of sit/lie but I am not very familiar with how it’s being interpreted by SFPD in contexts like these.