Peaceable Assembly

The pendulum swings …

While this country was founded out of protest, the Founders themselves decided it was necessary to add an amendment to the Constitution — the first — that read (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government types often hate that, since it means a lot of people saying unpleasant things in front of them, often with the press corps busy taking their pictures.

The country has gone back and forth on this sort of thing. Certainly calling out the police, or the national guard, or the army to deal with protesters has a long (and often dark) heritage. Yet, at the same time, we still see it as a fundamental right.

In the last decade or two, under the not-entirely-dismissable aegis of “security,” we’ve seen the development of “free speech zones” being set up in conjunction with with major political events, especially as regards the president. It started (or first became publicized) during the Clinton years, but has increased during the Bush II era. Essentially, protesters (peaceful or otherwise) are told that protest is fine, and Constitutionally protected … but for security reasons, you can only do it over here, which is usually someplace lockable, away from the site of the speech/event, and away from the cameras.

It’s a tough call.

• There are, in fact, security concerns. And while someone “professional” planning on menacing the president is unlikely to be starting off holding up a sign saying, “I HATE BUSH,” it’s also not logical to simply dismiss angry protesters as a possible threat (especially in numbers).
• Are protesters there trying to get a “redress of grievances” from their government representatives, or trying to get air time on the nightly news? Is the latter as protected as the former? Given that I can stage a protest anywhere else I want, is the fact that the media aren’t going to visit my front yard mean that I have a constitutional right to go where they are visiting?

• Folks are generallly considered innocent until proven guilty in this country. Assuming that all, or even any, protesters will become violent is the sort of mind-reading/excuse-gathering that civil libertarians of all stripes should abhor.

• Do protesters have the right to disrupt a speech (regardless of whether it’s the president or not) by drowning it out or otherwise causing a ruckus? If so, does the president (or his reps) have the right to disrupt their “speech” by having them removed beforehand?

National presidential conventions have been at the forefront of protest (and suppression) for years (see Chicago, 1968). And this year is no different.

Cement barriers, 8-foot-tall chain-link fencing, and heavy black netting have been installed around the protest zone outside the FleetCenter, angering protesters who say they will be penned in and closed off from Democratic National Convention delegates.
Much of the area is located under abandoned elevated Green Line tracks that slope downward. The setup, which one netting installer called ”an internment camp,” will force tall protesters at the southern end of the zone to lower their heads to avoid banging them on green metal girders.
Furious that protesters are being shoehorned into an enclosed space, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild said they will ask a federal judge to open up or move the zone.

The netting, and “clear” plastic sheeting is to keep protesters from throwing things at the delegates who will be arriving by bus nearby. Tables for leaflets and other material will also be banned from the site, since the tables could be used “as weapons.”

The GOP has also come under similar fire:

On Monday, a federal judge in Manhattan issued an order that blocked New York police from using pens made of interlocking metal barricades at demonstrations outside the Republican National Convention without ensuring that protesters can get in and out. The judge also said that police cannot close streets and sidewalks leading to protest sites without informing the public of other ways to get to the demonstrations.

I’m not sure what the answer is. It’s far too seductive for those in power to be able to shunt off protest and dissent out of sight (or further). Give an inch, and there will be some folks who will gladly push you away a mile.

On the other hand, some level of security is obviously necessary. My right to peaceably assemble and petition doesn’t mean I get to wander into the White House any time I want and chat up the president. My desire to exercise my free speech in front of the press doesn’t mean I get to run up onto the podium and grab the mic from John Kerry.

Where does the line get drawn? My inclination is to lean most toward those First Amendment rights, but that doesn’t answer the question, just influences where to draw that hypothetical line.

(via InstaPundit)