you're supposed to get a permit for events over 50 people, and you're supposed to have separate permits to the publicly-owned venue, there are supposed to be bathrooms, proper fire escapes, yadda yadda. And in fairness, these requirements exist for good reasons, because for every artsy type that runs such an event in a reasonable responsible fashion, there's a greedy promoter that will do the same sort of thing for purely mercenary purposes and who is willing to sacrifice the safety of the guests on the altar of profit.
You know, like here in Brazil where people bribed the fire department to get a permit for a night club with not enough emergency exits, and when a fire happened 200 people died?
You should study the Constitution (really, it's interesting; I'm not trying to be snarky).
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.
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.
In the UK you cannot have unpermitted gatherings on your own property where the music being played "includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats."
I like the way they also printed some of the sticker notes on the actual labels. You can see this if you click on the teal sleeve image at the top left.
It's hardly surprising, really. The generation who lived through the hedonistic days of the swinging 60s and changing political landscape of the 1970s while enjoying student grants and free university tuition would only naturally litigate against young people wanting to have a party in a field once they grew old.
