The scale of the violence that struck Seattle on November 30, 1999 and the obvious and current risks to world leaders who participated in the WTO conference make Collins inzusaton. In Collins, the violence San Francisco faced before limiting the protest was far less serious than Seattle in this case. In addition, San Francisco limited all speeches, while Seattle simply restricted access within a clearly defined security zone to facilitate a public event. The formation of the area on Capitol Hill was preceded by a week of tense interactions between protesters and police, which began on June 1 and escalated on June 7, after a man drove his vehicle into the crowd and shot dead a protester (near 11th Ave. and Pine St.).   Tear gas, lightning and tear gas were used several times by police in the densely populated residential area.  Mayor Jenny Durkan declared a ban on tear gas on 5 June.  On June 6, city, county and state officials joined protesters on the front lines when lightning and tear gas struck the crowd.  On 7 June, the SPD reported that the amount of stones, bottles, fireworks and bright green lasers had thrown into the eyes of the officers.  Around midnight on 8 June, despite the mayor`s ban, tear gas was again used.  Later that morning, the police climbed up and moved away from the East Precinct to defuse the situation.  Finally, and fundamentally, Order No.
3 was not closely suited to the interests of the city, because, according to Klotz, “we tried to pursue the wrong target . . . . That is, the Order guaranteed that WTO delegates could safely travel from their hotels to the convention centre on the city`s sidewalks. But as mentioned above, the important interest of the city was not so close; The city had less restrictive alternatives that would have served both its interest in security and security. We found that “if the city does not need to use the least restrictive alternative to promote its interest in public safety, “if there are many alternatives, apparently less cumbersome, to limit [protected] discourse, it is certainly a relevant reflection to determine whether the “adjustment” between objectives and means is appropriate. Edwards v.