Order Number 3 Essay

Order Number 3 established a 25-block restriction zone in Downtown Seattle, justified by city’s obligation to maintain order and protect the delegates and citizens from violent protestors. Order Number 3 was supposed to create a zone where delegates could go to and from the conference safely, without the threat of violence protestors, who threatened their safety and the continuance of the WTO conference. The police said the threat of violence, although only done by a small percentage of protesters (less than 1%), they posed a very serious threat, and in the big crowd of protestors, policemen were unable to detain these violators or stop the continued violence. Two main issues were whether Order Number 3 was constitutional- or was a correct …show more content…
In this case, that would mean Order Number 3 was written and enforced in a way that only limited the expression of violence, or potentially-violent protesters. That it didn’t limit and restrict those from the zone or expression that did not pose a threat. The City of Seattle argued that Order Number 3 was narrowly tailored because it specifically said who could enter the restricted zone, and the restricted area’s purpose was to provide safety by encompassing the delegate’s hotels and places the conference was held. Qualifying as “content neutral” asserts that the government order doesn’t target a specific group or type of speech; essentially limiting the government’s ability to act on bias, but works to determine situations where the expression can take place. The Plaintiffs’ fight that Order Number 3, specifically the nature of its enforcement, showed bias against anyone who showed any type of interest or involvement with the WTO conference. Whether that was their purpose of entering the zone, the plaintiffs argue the officer’s demand to forceful removal of anything that referring to the conference showed t bias against those affiliated with the conference. (Answers question 4 too