Which is your pretty much ironclad affirmation that it doesn't.
I mean, who ever heard of getting backcharged for free speech.
Wisconsin is still in America, isn't it?
Incidentally, Huebsch works for the governor who told Fake Dave Koch he thought about sending hired goons to disrupt peaceful protesters.
Permits. Disgusting. To paraphrase the old expression, I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'd at least defend your right to say it. But for now, instead, I will try to regulate you to silence.
ReplyDeleteSeems that unless its a "spontaneous" lunch meeting, 4 people gathering together in the rotunda to pick a place to eat (say, two legislator brothers, and two lobbyists) without a permit could be a violation.
If the goal was to keep the pot stirred, this will do it, as this type of permitting requirement appears immediately ripe for a court challenge. Beyond that, while Bob Dreps is pretty widely quoted on many legal issues, but it would seem that Jeff Scott Olsen, who has litigated this type of case in the past, would be the person to get analysis and a quote from (although perhaps he declined as he was already preparing a filing for this). His representation over the years of the recently deceased Ben Masel (who one would expect would be at the rotunda with 3 other people by Friday morning looking to exercise their right to associate) once resulted in a decision from a three judge panel that included then court of appeals judge Patience Roggensack--an opinion striking down a Sauk County ordinance enacted to stop Weedstock. That featured a 45 day permit time frame, which was deemed too much; one supposes a Gableman/Ziegler/maybe Prosser block may find that 72 hours is ok, but if the DOA can do a permit in 72 hours, why not 12, or 24, and one would hope that a group of four justices would rule that way.
This a politically shrewd move. The dubious legality is a feature. They want it to go to court or at least for there to be big protestations. It provides a way to reinforce tribal identities.
ReplyDelete