By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new state rule restricting weekend permits for Capitol Complex rallies is being challenged by organizers who claim it infringes upon First Amendment rights. State officials assert the rule, implemented last month, aims to reduce costs by limiting events requiring permits to weekdays and business hours, particularly those needing equipment like sound stages. While organizers of the upcoming “No Kings” rally plan to adapt by using a street as a makeshift stage, they argue this restriction hinders free speech and assembly. The rule’s timing and the exclusion of weekend public access are also points of contention, potentially disenfranchising working individuals who rely on weekend events.
Read the original article here
Montana has recently implemented a significant change in its permitting policy for rallies at the State Capitol, specifically halting the issuance of permits for all weekend events. This new rule, quietly enacted last month, has directly impacted the upcoming “No Kings” rally scheduled for Saturday, March 28th, effectively thwarting its planned gathering. Organizers of this particular event have voiced strong objections, asserting that this new state rule infringes upon their First Amendment rights to assemble and express their views.
The updated guidelines, now posted on Montana.gov, state that public events requiring a permit “may only occur on weekdays and between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., excluding holidays.” These revisions extend to all state-owned or leased spaces within the Capitol Complex, a location that has historically served as a popular venue for a variety of public gatherings, including the well-attended “No Kings” rallies that have previously drawn thousands. The previous policy had allowed for permits to be granted on most weekends and holidays, a flexibility that many relied upon for their events.
State officials, however, have offered a justification for this sudden shift, claiming that the new rule was implemented with the primary intention of saving money. They maintain that the Department of Administration’s General Services Division, which oversees the Capitol, had the authority to approve these revisions without public notification. This explanation, however, has done little to assuage the concerns of those who see this as a deliberate attempt to suppress dissent and limit public discourse, especially considering the timing and the specific impact on weekend events.
The reasoning provided by state officials contrasts sharply with the perspectives of rally organizers and many observers. For instance, one organizer pointed out that scheduling events on a Sunday was a conscious effort to ensure broader participation, allowing individuals who work traditional day jobs to attend. The sentiment expressed is that as taxpayers, citizens should have the ability to utilize public spaces like the Capitol for their gatherings as they see fit. Limiting these opportunities, particularly to weekdays, is seen as disenfranchising a significant portion of the population.
Furthermore, the very act of requiring permits for protesting is viewed by many as antithetical to the principles of American liberty. Critics argue that a state, especially one often associated with libertarian ideals, should be more protective of First Amendment rights rather than creating obstacles to their exercise. The idea that Americans need permission from the government to voice their opposition, particularly the message of “no kings,” is seen as a fundamental contradiction to the nation’s founding principles. The historical parallel of the Boston Tea Party, where no permit was sought from the King, is often invoked to highlight the perceived absurdity of needing government approval to protest government actions.
The notion that these new restrictions are intended to save money is met with skepticism by many who believe this is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle certain types of protests. There is a prevailing suspicion that waivers or exceptions might be granted to events that align with the state’s favored narratives, while those critical of authority will be effectively sidelined. This selective application of rules, if it were to occur, would further erode trust and highlight a perceived bias in the enforcement of public assembly guidelines.
The response from many individuals on social media platforms and in discussions surrounding this issue has been largely one of defiance. There is a strong sentiment that these rules are unconstitutional and that people should proceed with their planned demonstrations regardless of the permit status. Many are advocating for direct action, suggesting that people should simply show up and gather, thereby exercising their rights without seeking official sanction. The argument is that the Constitution itself serves as the ultimate permit for the right to assemble, rendering any additional governmental requirement unnecessary and illegitimate.
The strategy of making protests inconvenient or disruptive is also being discussed as a potential response. Some point to past protest tactics that involved occupying public spaces or creating traffic disruptions as effective means of drawing attention to grievances. The concern is that by eliminating weekend and after-hours protest opportunities, the state is inadvertently pushing people towards more disruptive forms of protest because the permissible times are simply insufficient for meaningful collective action. The civil rights movement, for example, did not adhere to a strict schedule of weekday, business-hour protests.
Ultimately, the core of the debate revolves around the interpretation and application of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to peaceably assemble. While the state cites cost-saving as its motivation, the practical effect of the new policy is the restriction of weekend gatherings, disproportionately affecting individuals who cannot participate during weekdays. Many see this as a significant overreach by the government, an attempt to control the narrative and limit the voices of its citizens, particularly those who wish to express dissent against established authority. The resistance to these new rules underscores a deep-seated belief that the right to protest and assemble is a fundamental freedom that should not be subject to bureaucratic hurdles or arbitrary limitations.