People need to stop comparing the Super Bowl celebration to Ferguson protests (or protests of any kind).

@1 Why?

@1 Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but: hunh?

@2,3:

Because he approves of one and not the other would be my guess...

The Seahawks got a parade permit, people had notice that downtown was going to be all jammed up, mitigation measures were put in place, etc.

That is not the same as what these protesters did in public streets where they marched with little or no notice, no permits, no opportunity for traffic mitigation, and willfully left sidewalks to obstruct non-protesters 1st Amendment rights.

Non-protesters have freedom of assembly rights under the 1st Amendment as well. They have the right to assemble to express holiday cheer at a tree lighting ceremony, to assemble at cash registers and express their desire for merchandise, or to assemble for their book-club, Democratic District meeting, etc. on the way home from work (provided they are not unlawfully obstructed from going to it by people spontaneously invading an intersection) and remaining until arrested.

Government is supposed to guarantee those 1st Amendment rights for everyone, regardless of any moral equivalency, or lack there of, of the expressive activity or the assembly activity.

The Ferguson Protesters can get permits like anyone else. They can respect private property. If they don't want to get permits, then they can stay on public property, and not impede others in their attempts to move and freely associate with whom they choose.

The 1st Amendment cuts both ways.

@5: No protest I've seen around here stopped people from expressing themselves or assembling. Protesters didn't close the Westlake transit station; police did.

Government is not, as you assert, supposed to guarantee rights protected by the 1st Amendment. Government is prohibited by the 1st Amendment from abridging those rights. The Bill of Rights exists to constrain the actions of our government staff, not to grant rights to us. All people are born with those rights.

Nobody needs a permit to protest. A permit is the difference between a protest and a parade. Seattle Police Department staff are effective at keeping vehicular traffic away from people who take to the streets in protest. For example, they "[provided] public safety services to a planned demonstration" last week. Things got messy when they stop providing safety services to the public and began prioritizing downtown retailers' profits.

The problem isn't really with the protesters, it's with the anarchists (so-called) and others who co-opt legit protests and use them as cover for vandalism.

From what I've seen and heard about, SPD has been trying to prevent vandalism and similar mayhem. Leaving legit protesters free to send their message and not have it derailed by a few bad actors.

Did anyone getting arrested celebrating right after the Super Bowl? Did anyone that broke the structure in Pioneer Square get in trouble?
No one requested permits for the roving bands of celebrants after the Super Bowl or after electoral victories for Obama and marriage equality.
So police are happy to stand aside and make sure people demonstrating for happy things are protected, but angry people demonstrating for changes to the system need to be control?

@7

Exactly! End of story. Frivolous inquest otherwise. If I was a police officer, I'd wear riot/safety gear too, looking at the long history of extreme violence that the anarchists bring. I think SPD should be commended for using great restraint under the circumstances.

@5. What about the kids who did not get to express themselves in song at the Westlake tree lighting ceremony? What about the people who did not get to assemble with friends and express themselves to one another and others for the three hours that Ferguson protesters closed the mall? What about the person who could not assemble with people they where scheduled to meet with because they were stuck in an illegally blocked intersection. What about their 1st amendment rights to assemble, speak, and freely express themselves? Or do Ferguson (or pick your cause) get to preempt everyone else's 1st amendment rights?

Isn't the job of defense attorneys to represent people accused of breaking the law? In other words, if the cops broke the law and needed an attorney, they would potentially be represented by public defenders. How is what they're talking about doing not a potential conflict with what their job is?

@8 Uhm, after the Super Bowl SPD was in Pioneer Square with riot gear after things starting getting rowdy.



They were absolutely "... preventing [people] from moving in particular direction and selectively denying access to public space based on [them being rowdy]". I know - I live there and had to walk a few blocks around the riot line that SPD had set up in order to get home.



I also saw them threatening to arrest people who didn't comply (no idea if they did). If no one was arrested for the Pergola, I have a feeling it was likely because it wasn't clear who broke it. Sorta like the people who threw the rock through the window of the Ferrari dealership and smashed in a police car a few days ago, no? It's also worth pointing out that with the Pergola, people actually raised money to fix the damned thing. I won't hold my breath to waiting for the Kickstarter for the broken windows in CapHill though.



Given all of this, it's funny that the PDA is considering "litigation and other approaches to ensure that people raising issues of racial bias in the justice system have the same freedom to walk the streets and sidewalks and express their views as Seahawks fans after the Superbowl" . The Superbowl is NOT a counterpoint to the way SPD has handled the recent events - they handled it the same way!

@15 - okay. Why is a taxpayer funded agency that is supposed to represent people accused of crimes considering filing a civil lawsuit about anything? What does the stuff in this story have to do with what their job is -- which is representing people accused of crimes?

It's amazing that just in the past week or two these people were complaining about potential budget cuts when apparently they have the resources to do things completely outside the scope of their mission.

@11, @15, @16

The Public Defender Association is not what you might assume from the name.

The Public Defender Association no longer provides public defense attorneys. They receive no tax revenue, directly or indirectly.

Ansel Herz pieces always come with some assembly required; be prepared to do a little bit of your own journalistic legwork when you see his name on the byline.

Let's try that link again:

http://defender.org/about

@17: Your link is broken. Public Defender Association (PDA) is"a non-profit corporation representing indigent clients and advocating for criminal justice system reform.

"Between 1969 and 2013, PDA served as one of four non-profit agencies that provided public defense services to King County. PDA, and King County's non-profit system generally, were regarded as a national model. On July 1, 2013, for reasons that received much local and national attention, King County elected to end its contracts with the non-profit agencies and move its public defense program in-house.

"PDA has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the County until December 31, 2013. The County assumed much of PDA's public defense services within a Division of the King County Department of Public Defense. The name of the Division is "The Defender Association", which was formerly a trade name of the Public Defender Association. The Defender Association Division (TDAD) is a successor firm to PDA and employs many former PDA staff. TDAD and PDA are both housed on the 8th floor of the Central Building, but are separate law offices."

PDA projects include Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, Northwest Juvenile Defender Center, Racial Disparity Project, TeamChild, and Washington Death Penalty Assistance Center.

I know at least three people who are part of PDA, and they are fucking awesome.

@19

It does look like they do good things, but they are not an organization that supplies defense attorneys at state expense to defendants. The name obviously implies that they do, though, and Ansel does nothing to correct that false implication, resulting in comments like @11, @15, and @16.

@17, @20: thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. Where does the funding come from for the new (old) agency (which I guess is now a non profit) referred to in this post?