I’m pleased to mention that a shorter and somewhat revised version of my October 18 post, “Whose Streets?”–on the supposed need for permits for street protest–has been published in TapInto Princeton. Thanks to editor Richard Rein for the invite.
Author Sireen Sawalha and activist Gina Hsu at Newark Airport, Oct. 31, 2026. Gina was arrested and deported from the West Bank along with thirteen other activists for the “crime” of harvesting olives on private land without a permit.
Incidentally, our next rally for Palestine and against the Iran War will take place at 2 pm on Saturday, November 14, starting on Nassau St at Palmer Square. We don’t have a permit, and don’t intend to get one.
From the Facebook comments:
Facebook
Joe Perino
It’s acceptable in a civilized society not to tolerate intolerance.
Irfan Khawaja
That’s true, but it has no bearing on my argument. My argument is that there is no need, legally or otherwise, to get a permit to assemble peaceably on the streets, regardless of the content of your message. As I explicitly said, one problem with demanding permits is that if Nazis get permits and march while concealing the date of their march, those of us who oppose Nazism cannot express our intolerance for it in real time by counter-marching. Because we lack permits, we can’t assemble to oppose them in real time. That’s self-defeating and pointless.
LikeLike
Jonathan Bozzick
“Second, arguably, the demand for a permit violates the law – constitutional law. It’s settled law in this country that you have the right to assemble peaceably without asking anyone’s permission. There’s nothing there about permits. At a fundamental level, a permit requirement implies that spontaneous assembly is a privilege rather than a right. But that gets things backwards: free assembly is a right. A right is something that requires no permission for its exercise. It’s yours to exercise at your discretion. In the case of free assembly and speech, that means that the default rule is that you can assemble and speak without having to ask anyone for permission to do so.” Would like to see Irfan Khawaja apply this to the 2nd amendment and not just the 1st.
Irfan Khawaja
Well, peaceable assembly is just a different act than possession of weapons, and the constitutional protections afforded to the one are different than those accorded to the other. Peaceable assembly is also, for that matter, different from driving a car or practicing medicine. So it would be unreasonable to expect me to apply the strictures of peaceable assembly to driving a car, practicing medicine, or acquiring a firearm other mechanized weapon. Peaceable assembly imposes no risks on others per se, but weapons possession, medical practice, and driving do. There’s one analogy between assembly and weapons possession that I accept. As assembly gets bigger, it imposes costs and risks. In those cases, permits are acceptable. As weapons get bigger, their possession imposes much bigger costs and risks. So both permits and ultimately prohibition are acceptable.
LikeLike
Antonio Merolli
Neo-national-socialists who life threaten the Jews, or supporters of the palestinian terrorists who also life threaten the Jews, are not assembling peacefully in the exercise of their freedom of speech: they are just violating the law, because threatening is a crime. Do not put these teenagers from Pennsylvania on pardon just because you want to have an excuse to justify the increased antisemitism of the Democratic Party.
Irfan Khawaja
I don’t see the relevance of any of these claims to anything I wrote. What I see is an irresponsible set of insinuations based on a total lack of evidence. There is no evidence that the August 29 demonstrators threatened the lives of Jews or anyone else. If you have such evidence, now would be the time to provide it. I know of none. Their main message was to “Keep New Jersey White.” I am not white, and while I find the message offensive, I don’t regard it as a threat to my life or anyone else’s. The claim they made about Jews was that they are “hooked nosed bankers” who control the country. That is (as I said) dumb and evil, but it is not a threat. It’s not clear what claim you’re trying to make about “supporters of the Palestinian terrorist who also” threaten the lives of Jews, but the insinuation seems to be that those who support the Palestinian cause, as I do, are all terrorists who threaten the lives of Jews. Either way, you might clarify what you’re saying. I would just remind you that falsely calling someone a terrorist and accusing them of making threats is defamation, actionable at law. You suggest that these protesters (and pro-Palestine ones) are “just violating the law.” What law? Cite it. Finally, you suggest pretty directly that I’ve made my argument because I “want to have an excuse to justify the increased antisemitism of the Democratic Party.” That IS defamation, and my suggestion is that you withdraw it unless you want to be sued.
LikeLike