When a city or a town is a host of a conference, it is always difficult to arrange everything. The preparation should begin as early as possible. The point is that there are many people involved, as well as many work to be done. One should take into account not only the peculiarities of a conference or a meeting, but all legal issues, as well. This essay is aimed at answering several questions on the legal peculiarities of the case. The essay will be divided into three parts: according to the amount of questions to be answered. Such analysis will help to outline the main problems that might occur in the community when arranging a conference or a meeting. Besides, having such answers, it will be easier to find solutions
Legal Claims of Private Citizens
It has been agreed that some of the public activists will attend the Convention for legal protests. This year, it was decided to use long range acoustic devices to warn the protesters. The peculiarity of the LRAD is that it omits sound in a rather wide range, which can be painful to people without any ear protection. In the plan, it has been agreed to let the activists protest in one of the city parks. The point is that every citizen of the city can accidentally appear in the same park. Consequently, such a person might be injured by the sound of the LRAD. It has been already mentioned that there was not much time left to teach the staff. Besides, both supervisors and the chairperson decided to neglect all the warnings: they could not assume that the LRAD could not harm anyone heavily.
If a police officer finds someone not from the activists’ group, he or she should call for the ambulance and give first aid. The liability of the single police officer will be small. The point is that he only performed the order. The full liability of the accident will become a burden of the supervisor and the chairperson. One of the component of a crime is the act or omission of the act. In this case, both supervisor and the chairperson neglected reading the instructions and warnings before using the LRAD. In the instruction, it is mentioned that the LRAD functions on distances between ten to three thousand meters. The point is that there is no guarantee that technics will fix everything correctly. Hence, the sound wave may injure some citizens. In this case, there are several advices to the chairperson. First, he should invite the LRAD technic, who can trim the device. Another advice is to enclose the territory for activists, so none of the citizens may come in.
Amnesty International Claims
The Amnesty International was promised to stage the protest at the Torch of Friendship. The committee defined it as the second First Amendment Zone. However, the committee denied the permission. On the other hand, it is not quite clear whether the committee relocated the second First Amendment Zone or not. According to the report of Mr. Warren, it is easy to conclude that the committee decided not to let the Amnesty International stage at all. The point is that several years ago, the Amnesty International was to protest during the FTAA. However, only one person appeared. Hence, the committee decided not to let the Amnesty International stage at this Convention, as well.
In this case, the committee violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Amendment guarantees that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Constitution of the United States of America)
Regardless the amount of people from the Amnesty International, it has the right to send people to the Convention to stage. If we assume that the second First Amendment Zone is relocating, the committee should warn the representatives of the Amnesty International beforehand.
In this case, I would advise the chairperson to meet the representatives of the Amnesty International and discuss the place of their staging. If there is no single point of view, the parties should try to find the one. Otherwise, the Amnesty International might sue the committee.
Greenpeace is willing to protest in the local shopping mall. On the one hand, it is rather dangerous. The point is that the shopping mall cannot be closed. Hence, there is a high possibility that some of the activists bring weapons or dangerous substances. On the other hand, there are several court decisions that allow police officers ask the protesters to leave the mall. In 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was hearing the case Hudgens vs. National Labor Relations Board. Some of the labor union group members were striking inside a private mall. In some time, they were asked to leave the mall. The labor union group members filed a complaint against the mall, stating that, when they were asked to leave the mall, their right of free speech. The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment does not mean that a person is allowed to exercise the freedom of speech right on a private territory.
In any case, the police does not have any right to search the bag packs of protesters. This can create certain problems. The point is that a protester may bring a weapon to the mall. Even if the police officers notice someone suspicious, they cannot stop and search the person. The fourth Amendment of the Constitution to the United States of America prohibits search and seizure without a warrant.
In this case, I would advise the chairperson to meet the representative of Greenpeace and discuss all the peculiarities of the protest. In this case, the committee has a great advantage because the law is on their side. On the other hand, when they prohibit the Greenpeace to protest, they will violate the First Amendment right for free speech. In this case, another recommendation is to make an agreement that every protester comes into the mall without any bag pack.
This essay was aimed at researching the case and providing answers on several questions. The main idea of the essay was to show that for every problem there is a solution and even some of them. In the essay, I tried to show that there are many legal issues to concern when organizing a conventional.
A legal guide for protesters. Retrieved from http://noii-van.resist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/legal-guide-for-protesters.pdf
Constitution of the United States of America. Retrieved from http://constitutionus.com/
n.a. (1976) Hudgens vs. National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/507
n.a. (n.d.) LRAD for Public Safety Applications Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.lradx.com/site/content/view/323