Inside An Illegal Party In An Abandoned Subway Station Deep Under NYC

[1] http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/place-hacking-...

Just being in the middle of the Black Rock Desert can kill you , if you don't drink enough water. There are plenty of ways to die while at Burning Man and people have. In 1996 at one of the bigger burn events, the people in charge of the event were yelling at the crowd to "stand back! We're not professionals!". Much of the large-scale are is dangerous and yet people love to climb all over them and there are no safety nets. It is seriously not an environment for "hipster douchebags" at all.

You're better off relying on good will and common sense to make an unpermitted event as safe as possible than pining for some sort of procedural shield. Of course, you can get away with substantially more if you're not engaged in a commercial transaction to start with.

I'm of the opinion that an event organiser is perfectly entitled to put these sorts of restrictions on participants ability to exit an event (within some reasonable bounds), and so long as it's clearly enough explained before participants agree and attend, a "claustrophobia-induced panic attack" should be no more or less of a concern for event staff than it'd be on an international flight. The sufferer should be extended all sympathy and assistance - but the decision to "break the agreement" should be of the same sort of level as diverting a Sydney to San Francisco flight to Hawaii, sure you'd do it in the face of a clear and imminent medical emergency - but there's a certain (and perhaps large) level of discomfort which passengers are rightfully expected to "put up with" as part of the agreement. People who're "afraid of flying" and prone to panic attacks understand that, and make appropriate decisions (for them) all the time. From the article's "and it seemed that she'd happily embraced the Stockholm syndrome." it sounds to me like she accepted "the rules/agreement" in the end, while perhaps regretting the choice was in this case incorrect for her - the very negative use of the phrase "Stockholm syndrome" implies to me that she thinks the event organisers and the "two goons" did the right thing.

I'm sure other people think differently - and while I respect that different opinion - I'm not sure I agree that every event ever organised needs to cater to every possible latent bad reaction. _I_ want to be able to attend events that challenge my personal limits of comfort/security/sanity/whatever. I'm happy enough for those things to have clearly and strongly worded warnings - but I'm unhappy with someone saying "that's not a restriction imposed by a law of nature, so you can't impose it as a requirement of an event you run".

In New York City they absolutely do. I've seen lots of tickets given for regular and electric bicycles, and I've seen one delivery-guy's electric bicycle confiscated for just that.

There are still raves in fields, but nothing like to the extent there used to be.

The 50+ people that attend the event have done nothing illegal (other than possibly trespass depending on where the party is and how they get there, and anything illegal they may do while they are at the location in question)

The event organizer who may or may not have endangered all their lives in various ways from fire hazards to toxic chemical exposure to food poisoning. They have done something most would call wrong and are rightly required to submit to the rule of law for the good of the people they may cause harm to and obtain permits proving that they have met certain standards we set to avoid letting people take advantage of the public.

I'll add that I think this may be in may locations burdensome and irritating, but it is important. In the same vein as building construction standards and health inspections in restaurants are important. I do wish it was less 'red tape' but its a matter of balance. Would be nice if the guests could simply sign a waiver, but where do we draw lines? I haven't sufficient ambition to be either a lawyer or politician that I wish to try drawing these lines. I only believe that their existence is important & I know where I feel they should sit.

The answer here is: the government can restrict the time, place, and manner of free association in a content-neutral way (ie, it can't regulate based on whether the party is for Tea Partiers, Klansmen, or dubstep fans) so long as the restrictions are narrowly tailored to a valid government interest.