City Agrees To Remove Ordinance Requiring Permission To Protest
"Americans don't need a permission slip to speak in front of city hall. The First Amendment is their permission slip," said one attorney involved in the case.

In 2021, police in Blackshear, Georgia, issued a criminal citation against Jeff Gray for holding a sign that read "God Bless the Homeless Vets" outside the town's city hall. The town's police chief even admitted while he was citing Gray that the local law was "kind of silly" but nonetheless ticketed him for failing to obtain Blackshear City Council's permission before holding a "parade, procession, or demonstration."
However, following a lawsuit challenging the local ordinance on First Amendment grounds, the city has now agreed to remove the regulation—and make a donation to a charity for homeless veterans.
"It's a new dawn in Blackshear," FIRE attorney Harrison Rosenthal said in a Thursday press release. "Americans don't need a permission slip to speak in front of city hall. The First Amendment is their permission slip."
Since 2011, Jeff Gray has carried out a series of "civil rights investigations" in towns across the southern U.S. on his YouTube channel. In his videos, Gray peacefully exercises his rights—such as the right to film police during a traffic stop or to peacefully protest—in order to test whether local law enforcement will respect his civil rights.
On August 18, 2021, Gray engaged in one of these "investigations" outside Blackshear's city hall, holding a sign that read "God Bless the Homeless Vets." Soon after, he was approached by Police Chief Wright who asked if he was "trying to demonstrate a little bit." When Gray replied that he was, Wright responded that Gray would need "to get a permit first to demonstrate on any public property," adding that the law was "kind of silly, but that's what the rules are." The police chief further informed Gray that city law required him to send a letter to the City Council explaining the "cause" of his protest and wait for a permit. When Gray refused to leave, Wright issued a criminal citation to him for violating the city ordinance.
In January of this year, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit, filed a lawsuit on Gray's behalf, arguing that the ordinance was plainly unconstitutional.
"Members of the public have a clearly established First Amendment right to engage in expressive activities in traditional public fora without obtaining advance permission from government officials," the suit noted. "In enforcing the ordinances against Gray, Chief Wright violated Gray's First Amendment rights by prematurely ending Gray's expressive activity, chilling his ability to speak further, issuing him a criminal citation, and asserting under color of law that Gray's expressive rights are conditioned on the prior approval of city officials."
On Thursday, FIRE announced that it had reached a settlement with the city. The city agreed to revoke the unconstitutional ordinance requiring permits before demonstrations and to make a symbolic $1,791 donation (reflecting the year the First Amendment was ratified) to a charity for homeless veterans.
"This is the sort of situation where a municipality or a city has left a dusty old law lingering on the books, and it was a law that was very clearly unconstitutional. But because cities tend to leave unconstitutional laws on the books, rather than repealing them, sooner or later a police officer was going to pick up that book and throw it at somebody," FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh tells Reason, adding that the settlement serves as "a warning to cities that you can't leave dusty old unconstitutional laws lingering on the books because they're going to create risks for the rights of your citizens and for your city."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I've made42,000usd so far last year working online.I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.. .. go to this site home tab for more details.
COPY THIS WEBSITE-------------------------->>> http://www.dailypro7.com
I getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister's told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do. everybody will get this job.Go to home media tab for additional details.
See---->>> http://www.Topoffer1.com
Money making home based work to start earning every day more than $600 simplydoing copy and paste work online. Previous month imade $18320 from this job andi gave this only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. Very simple to do work andregular earning from this are much better than other regular 9 to 5 jobs. Go tothis site right now for more info.
.
.
HERE ————->> http://WWW.JOIN.HIRING9.COM
I'll ask the same question I asked in the Drag Queen Kids Hour show at that public park where the permit was denied... why don't they just forego the permit and make it a broad free speech case?
You mean like this?
Right, but that city still requires permits*, and if I recall the details of that case, the city was forced by the courts to issue a permit, because of the first amendment. I asked in the comment section of that paper, why didn’t Drag Queen Story Hour just say fuck you and your permits, we’re holding the event, and then have the permit system nullified, instead of reinforced?
*the city where drag queen story hour was held.
This is Blackshear Georgia. I don't remember where it was the Drag Queen Toddlers Hour was trying to run.
But permits have had the Supreme Court stamp of approval for decades, on the grounds of allocating scarce resources (streets, plazas) and time (not at 3am in residential areas).
Like everything else, it comes down to what some humans think is reasonable.
Right. SCOTUS invented the "time, place, and manner" restriction long ago.
Yes, and as much as I would rather the government butt out altogether, including owning roads and plazas, whoever owns them has some reasonable need to schedule parades and protests.
So are single family home zones identical to free speech not allowed zones?
Certainly it affects property values
And I told you the answer.
Because the moment that the drag queens decide to say "fuck you and your permit requirements", then it gives you and your tribe license to denounce them not only as perverts and pedophiles, but now also DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.
Performing drag shows in kindergartens and naked members gyrating their naked members in front of kids is the part where the pedophile monickers are earned.
Mmmm, taste the collectivism.
It's simple. They don't want to get rid of the permit system. If you look at Blackshear's "dusty old law", you will probably find that it was made to prevent Blacks from protesting. Dig a little further and I'm sure that you will find that it was passed by a Democrat City Government.
If the Drag Queens had gotten the permit law thrown out, it wouldn't be there to be used against Conservatives.
If you think differently all you have to do is to look at places like Portland, San Francisco and New York City. The Liberal Socialists can protest, burn down the block and it is a "peaceful protest" and there's no mention of their needing a permit. If a Conservative group holds a protest, they first have to jump through the hoops of getting a permit and then when they hold their event, the Liberal Socialists, will hold a counter protest, without a permit and the City will revoke the Conservative's permit, threatening them with arrest if they don't leave. Prove me wrong.
I can see permits if your protest is so large it would disrupt traffic, or movement by citizens or require police support, protection etc.
> and make it a broad free speech case?
Because they're not actually broads. They're just dressing up like 'em.
Drag Queen Kids Hour show is not a protest but entertainment. Many municipalities permit entertainment in parks.
Wonder what would have happened had he been holding a sign that read "God Bless the City Council".
He would have been struck by lightning.
The protestors or city haul would have been struck by lightening?
Thankfully, Mr. Gray did not have a dog with him at the time he was issued the citation by police.
Would a person preaching the virtues of jury nullification outside a courthouse be protected?
They have had those cases, and I *think* the general result has been it's ok as long as not directed at specific cases.
Last Demand
Fuck City Hall is better sign to get ticketed for.
Not if you want a pay day in court. Can you imagine a jury of 12.... "Yeah, he has a right to be a d*ck.... but he is being a d*ck"
“Americans don’t need a permission slip to speak in front of city hall. The First Amendment is their permission slip,” said one attorney involved in the case.
Well, we damn well need a permission slip to keep and bear arms. That guy should have needed 60 hours of free speech training, an full background check, and fingerprinting ( all at his own expense) before that permit could have been issued.
Second amendment = First amendment.
Free speech background check and no high capacity messages.
One high powered speech is worth 1,000 assault rifles.
Our "free speech zone" is the whole country, and the First Amendment is all the permission slip we need. Really we don't even need that, it's what the government promised in exchange for the government being allowed to exist.
Permitting is a great way for the local government to shut up protestors the government disagrees with on certain issues.
Yet where I live the local government gives the permit, but charges for the protesters for extra policing during their protest event. Saves the local taxpayers money when the protesters are from out of the area, which they usually are in the village where I live.
Everyone can make ( £26,000 __ £38,000 ) A Month Online Making nb money online more than £20k just by doing simple work With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot just
Open this link==>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
A rare example of a municipality responding to a reasonable legal action with a reasonable response. Although it is probably unreasonable to expect every government entity in America to go back through all their old, "dusty" and unconstitutional ordinances, laws, regulations and executive orders to consider repealing them, when one is pointed out to them legally it's refreshing to have them take appropriate action. Thanks, Jeff and FIRE!
This "remedy" is totally insufficient. Those who voted for the law should all face prison time for criminal conspiracy to violate the Constitutional rights of every town citizen.
You realize of course that those who voted for the ordinance a hundred years ago are all dead and gone? And, by the way, that it's highly likely that the Supreme Court had not yet ruled that the First Amendment applied to local jurisdictions at the time they passed it? I think you should just be glad that, when it was pointed out to current leaders they responded with, "Oops! You're right! We'll repeal that right away!" instead of wasting money on appeals to higher courts before giving in.
Jeff has posted some videos on YouTube from Mississippi over the past few weeks that would cause any righteous American to have a severe case of depression from watching these hyper ignorant cops absolutely destroy the First Amendment.
I don't think it's the proper position for police to know Constitutional law principles. It's the proper position for police to enforce the laws. It's the job of police chiefs to make sure they know what the law is and to reprimand those who don't follow their orders properly. It's the job of the Mayor or City Council to make sure that the laws the police are enforcing are Constitutional.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com