Legally, who does a rally permit cover? Does it allow the named grantee to eject counterprotesters

[muriel_volestrangler]

or does it imply that it is just a permit for people to congregate and form an obstruction in public places without being moved on - and covering any counterprotesters as well?

Anyone know American law on this, and if it varies by state?

I note that permits for 2 counterprotests at separate parks were granted for Saturday, anyway: http://www.nbc29.com/story/36099395/city-of-charlottesville-grants-two-permits-for-counterprotests-of-unite-the-right

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. In general they are just permission from a city to hold a gathering of people

in a public space. Permits are required for these events so cities can plan for blocked traffic, crowd control, refuse collection, etc. but at least the ones I looked up don't contain any provisions relating to whether the permit holder can prevent anyone else from attending. Permits only have to do with the use of the public areas.

[jmg257]

2. From watching the HOB Vice tape, it looked like, permit or not, the rally can/was be moved

along due to inherent dangers. They had to go from Emancipation park to the back-up when things started getting hairy..

[Ken Burch]

6. I hadn't realized that they'd had it at "Emancipation Park".

[Control-Z]

3. When I participated at the March for Women's Lives

in DC, 2004, we had a permit to occupy quite a bit of space; certain streets and intersections, the National Mall, etc. The small group of anti-choice counter protesters got 2 blocks and, iirc, they had to stay on the sidewalks as we walked by them on the street.

To my surprise there was a group of volunteers whose job it was to block their disgusting signs. When they tried to wave them at us the volunteers would step in and block their signs with their own bigger, taller signs. They were great!

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Interesting. Do you know or think the counterprotesters had a separate permit

or was that just the police making a decision on what space seemed 'fair' for the march and opposition?

From what TVO says in #1, the general idea could be just "a permit is needed to allow the authorities to plan for what will happen" - in which case, Trump's "the counter-protesters didn't have a permit" is a load of bullshit.

Sounds like your march was well organised, if 'big blocking signs' were ready!

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Wash Post factchecker says the counterprotesters didn't need their own permit

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141846291

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/16/president-trumps-false-claim-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/?utm_term=.612dd723defb

and the police chief blames the white supremacist protesters for not following the plan to keep them separate from the counterprotesters.

They also say the university allows access to its grounds, so there wasn't a need for a permit for that. But the university president calls the alt-right behaviour "intimidating and abhorrent".