The decision as to which protests should be permitted needs thorough evaluation in this particular case.
The Amnesty International protest proves to be at a safe enough distance from the convention and is also a more secure situation, where police and other law enforcement can better keep suspicious bags and packages from entering the area. However, there could be a number of legal claims if the Committee grants a permit to Greenpeace to conduct a protest at the shopping mall. There is a possibility that protesters might spill into the roadway adjacent to the American Airlines Arena, where the Conference is taking place. Due to the fact that it is so close, it would be difficult to keep people from entering that area from the protest, which could be a danger to all the attendees and politicians inside. If the permit is granted, police can not lawfully conduct pat downs and search the bags of anyone in the area. In the Torch of Friendship area, police can restrict bags from being brought in, but this can not be done at the Bayside shopping mall area.
As such, denying the permit here would be for the greater public good, and not for promoting some sort of political message. Permits can be denied in order...
As such, it is recommended that the Bayside area be rejected for permitting protesting, but that the First Amendment Zone be permitted for the Amnesty International protest.
References
ACLU. (2011). Bystander sues the city of Pittsburgh over pain and hearing loss caused by the use of Long-Range Acoustic Device at G-20 protest. Press Room. Web. http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/bystandersuespittsburghove.htm
ACLU North Carolina. (2012). Right to protest. Democrats.com. Web. http://www.democrats.com/right-to-protest
Knoxville News-Sentinel. (2004). First Amendment Zones restrict free speech. Common Dreams. Web. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0125-02.htm
McKechnie, Douglas B. (2011). Don't daze, phase, or lase me bro! Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, future nonlethal weapons, and why requiring an injury cannot withstand a constitutional or practical challenge. Kansas City Law Review, 60(2011), 139-192.
Schofield, Daniel L. (1994). Controlling public protest: First Amendment implications. FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin. Web. http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/control.html
