[sterlingice]

Maybe not the time or place, but should we have a conversation over the legality of curfews? It's pretty clear that a significant reason why they are imposing them is to (and I'm not sure these are in correct order):

A) Keep the peace - though we're obviously having some real disagreemtns about how "peaceful" this peacekeeping is
B) Squelch and arrest the more hardcore protesters (lots of stories of taking phones and not returning them, etc, to prevent them from organizing)
C) Show of force and superiority - Protesters can't do anything about these laws

I'm more of a living Constitution guy, but I'd be curious to see what the more strict Constitutionalists think about creating a rule that has a primary purpose of restricting free speech. Yes, yes, there are limits to free speech in the "fire in a theater" type examples. But letting some 100 people shout "I can't breathe" in a public park until 4am hardly constitutes that.

And up to 3 months in prison for breaking curfew? That's patently insane and definitely not proportional response. I don't think you'll see me trotting out the old "what do you think Thomas Jefferson would say about this" line very often (ever?)* but what do you think the founders would say about this kind of restriction on free speech?

*I believe the response would be something mixed between "holy crap, you can fly in giant metal contraptions and have encyclopedias in the palm of your hand" and "how are you nincompoops still trying to take everything we said literally like we're some mythical religious text"

SI