"free speech" zones

Remove all ads!

Hello.

I haven´t posted here in ages. I rarely ever post anywhere, actually. But I figured I might as well mention this somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any:

"When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event."

The full article, here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

Freedom of speech at its finest. Sure, you can protest if you disagree. As long as you do it where nobody can see or hear you. Kinda kills off the whole point of speaking your mind in the first place.

Of course, it might be argued that all this is done in the name of presidential security. Hey, for all we know *everyone* who disagrees with government policy is a potential terrorist, right? Well, no, that doesn´t make a lot of sense, either.

"The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity."

And then, there´s this:

"Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Protesting is terrorism? Since when? What if you protest because you don´t believe the war is actually helping combat terrorism in any way? What if you protest because you think the war is actually making more enemies for your country and making things worse rather than helping? What if you protest because someone in your family is fighting in a war you don´t agree with and you don´t want them to get killed there? Well, I suppose that makes you a terrorist as well. You horrible, horrible person.

"The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report."

So if you don´t agree with government policy, that could be an indication that maybe, just maybe, you could possibly commit a crime. Because everyone who disagrees with the government is immediately suspicious of being a potential criminal. Vague, but threatening nonetheless.

And so, one of the most basic of human liberties is sacrificed, ostensibly in the name of "security". I wonder which one will be the next to go.

But, horrible as it is, that´s not the worst of it. No, the worst part is, I´m pretty sure there will be people who´ll agree with this kind of thing. There will be people who will be in favor of this flagrant trampling of a basic human right.

In any case, I think I´ll just go away now. I just wanted to share this bit of news with somebody. I don´t feel like arguing. I don´t really see the point.

Maybe I´ll come back later. Until then.

[ January 07, 2004, 09:18: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

Yes exactly. You just described a policy of pre-emption.

We never know, but we can't wait until it is too late and so we pounce upon everything, even the unsuspicious, because that could be ingeniously disguided evil Soon even the Pro-bush faction won't be safe of Ashrofts excesses - as they could be Bush-bashers in disguise ...

The great thing about being paranoid is that you're never bored. There always is some real enemy to counter, or an imagined one to pre-empt

 

Yes, just like the US just pre-emptively stopped queing up for the toilet on planes. Somehow I don't think the terrorists will be detered if they can't get to the toilet easilly...

Paranoia is truly a wonderous thing

{I'm getting the feeling that Tal is seriously, seriously sick of America threads...)

[ January 07, 2004, 14:22: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

There is a longstanding tension between two concerns this brings out. I have to hurry so I'll just quote what has been said on another board that shows the tensions:

In my opinion, the free speech zone is an idea with underlying common sense value that needs to be reworked as it has historically been abused.

Let me just go ahead and post one other thing in response to this:

In order to hopefully preempt (get it?) yet another Bush thread let me copy this quote, from a guy who works for the Democrats in Congress:

I just bring this last quote up because this could be a really cool thread and since the issue has no necessary connection between Bush and free speech zones (he didn't invent them, other Pres., Gov's etc. use them) it would be cool to talk about free speech zones rather than have another "Bush sucks" thread. Your mileage may vary.

This doesn't really have any necessary connection to Bush, terrorism, Ashcroft, etc. It has to do with balancing compelling state interests with First Amendment Rights and the appropriate resolution of that, very fine, balancing act.

I hope to come back and have more later.

 

It looks like a wonderful way to manipulate the media (who it seems to me is all too often willing to let itself be manipulated) to downplay any opposition to the policies of whichever administration is in power.

Laches, I’m sorry; I understand your desire to keep this a general discussion. But I think the following example is right on topic. In the American Exceptionalism thread, you said (responding to one of my posts) that there are plenty of demonstrations against the war in Iraq, and maybe foreign media coverage is selective. I responded that, in the case of Canada, I didn’t think that the coverage was selective because much of our news comes from U.S. sources. However, perhaps it is not that foreign coverage is selective, but that all coverage is selective for the reasons outlined in this thread.

I wonder if it goes deeper than this, as well. How tightly do administrations control what goes on in the White House Briefing Room? I did a quick Google search, and came up with this, but I have no idea if it is a respectable source of information (I kind of suspect it might not be), so please don’t be afraid to shoot it down. But the question still stands - do Administrations control the White House press corps?

 

Y'now, it's just like Saddam when he showed pictures of his people cheering over him, the ones that didn't like wasn't there, they were in "free speech"-zones. Even closer to the police-state I'm talking about now.

 

I found this rather on point.

 

Except Saddams free-speech zones were mass graves.

As far as the press is concerned, they know that this is going on, they know where the protesters are. If they want to show the protesters, they can, and do.

 

But don't you understand, it's only a matter of time until they have to ban the protesting because they have to be secure that none of the protesters aren't carrying a nuke-loaded shotgun.

"Once upon a time there were freedom of speech, then it was George Bush Jr."

 

@ Splunge:

I was approaching the topic as if it were about "Free Speech Zones." Your last paragraph isn't about free speech zones it is about a lack of ethics etc. on the part of journalists.

There is a qualitative difference between forcing someone from a certain area where they were protesting and telling a member of the media that he or she will not in the future get inside sources, which they aren't entitled to, if he or she prints 'X'. One takes away an entitlement/right, the other refuses to grant a privelege.

The 'free speech zones' have clear First Amendment implications ('You can't talk here') while threatening to not provide future leaks doesn't have the same implications. These tactics may be coercive but they aren't violative of anyone's rights.

If the 'free speech zones' are abused it is, in my opinion, "shame on you White House/Governor/Senate etc." If something isn't published or is altered because someone told the reporter that if it was published in a certain manner then that reporter won't get future inside leaks then it is, in my opinion, "shame on you Mr. Reporter/Newspaper/Radio etc."

Well...damn....the rest of my post was just eaten. It was terribly enlightening and enthralling too.

I can't spend as much time on it the second time around - suffice it to say I think that it is quite a stretch to lay the issues raised in your second paragraph at the feet of 'free speech zones.' If perceptions are distorted or if certain coverage is lacking I feel there are likely other reasons (primarily that, for example, the recent march in Washington wouldn't generate as high of ratings as other stories since we've been a bit desensitized to that type of news I suspect).

All that and thusfar there has been virtually no mention of the First Amendment (the 'free speech zones' originate in the US' First Amendment jurisprudence.)

'Free speech zones' have a pretty long history and, as mentioned earlier, have long been used/abused.

Surely there is a compelling interest in protecting the life of, say, the President, Governor etc. The questions become:

1)how do we reconcile that interest with the Freedom of Speech, one of if not the most precious right that we have, when those two interests collide?

2)if it is ever ok to tell someone they can't protest in a certain area, when is it ok to do so?

3)who gets to decide when someone can't protest in a certain area?

4)where may that person/entity force them to protest instead?

5)what type of oversight should be provided?

6)what type of remedies for a violation should there be?

These are, for me, fascinating and incredibly important questions.

 

@ Laches – I guess I was looking at it from a bit of a different angle – the possible effect that keeping the “free speech zones” away from the president will reduce media coverage of the protests; then I extrapolated that to the press corps. But your point about “shame on the media” is a good one, in that the media allows themselves to be coerced.

On topic: To me, the question is “what constitutes a security risk?” If the concern is that a protest could turn ugly, I would think that there would still be enough time to get the President, Governor, etc. out before he/she was at any real risk. If the concern is over a possible terrorist act, I agree with other comments that it is highly unlikely that a potential terrorist would pose as a protester.

IMO, a reasonable compromise would be to set up an area within an audible and visible distance (say, under 150 yards) from the President, Governor, etc. for protesters to gather; have the area secured by barricades of some kind to prevent a sudden “charging of the stage”. The area would be supervised by various law enforcement personnel. This way, protesters could still be heard, but security risks could be contained.

This may be a bit simplistic, but I don't have a lot of time, and I thought I'd get (or keep) the ball rolling.

 

1)how do we reconcile that interest with the Freedom of Speech, one of if not the most precious right that we have, when those two interests collide?

Typically the Federal Supreme Court has balanced The Right of Freedom of Speech against others inherit rights and freedoms. For instance, is not not legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Naturally, people can say whatever they please, but balance is needed to protect others.


2)if it is ever ok to tell someone they can't protest in a certain area, when is it ok to do so?

I've been to quite a few protests in my life. The Police only really intervene if you are stepping on the rights of others. In my experience, the only real time this happens is if the protesters are blocking traffic or interferring with it.

3)who gets to decide when someone can't protest in a certain area?

Local governments - mainly the cities decide. The respective state can intervene. The Feds have no jurisdiction - unless the Constitution is violated.

4)where may that person/entity force them to protest instead?

Usually nearby. Practically all places where there are major meetings are surrounded by parks. Protesters usually stand near the entrance of the Building the event is taking place.

5)what type of oversight should be provided?

Do you mean security? The role of the Police is to keep counter protests from getting ugly. It rarely happens. In fact, I've seen a kind of cowboy/respect the opponant type of situation arise. Afterwards, the two sides help each other clean up and go share lunch.

6)what type of remedies for a violation should there be?

If the protesters get out of hand - such as committing crimes or getting out of control (i.e. emotional), they are usually just held for a couple of hours.

 

Free speech zones isnt only an American phenomenom, it exists in one form or another in all democracies. Here in Sweden you have to apply for a permit if you want to have a demostration and in your application state where you are going to be. If the demonstration stray from the agreed upon zones it is illegal. These permissions are granted almost all the time unless there are very special cases as to why not allow them. Everything needs to be organised, even free speech, it is when the organising rules gets abused things gets uncomfortable. I really dont see though why a politician wouldnt want to see the people demonstrating against him, isnt it better to know who are against him and why?

 

Free speech zones also guarantee the freedom of speech for both parties. Most protests that I have been to turn into shouting matches. The protestors only consider it a victory if they shout so loudly that the protestee cannot be heard.

 

Agreed. The problem is, if the zones are set up half a mile away, you are effectively taking away the protestors' rights.

To reword an old philosophical question: If a protest is held in a forest, and there is nobody around to witness it, did the protestors make a sound?

 

@ Blackhawk:

My questions were poorly worded I think. I didn’t really mean, for example, how do we reconcile conflicting interests but rather how SHOULD we reconcile these interests. Obviously SCOTUS gets to decide many of these issues but the more interesting question, to me, is HOW should SCOTUS decide these issues.

What tests SHOULD be used to determine when it is ok to tell someone they can’t protest in a certain area? The right to speak is a fundamental right (another question – what makes it a right?) yet there seem to be compelling security and safety concerns.

The US has had presidents assassinated. There have been attempted assassinations. Governors have been attacked. Ditto Congressmen. So, pushing a crowd to certain areas to protect these people seems like a prudent step. However, the individuals in a crowd have a right to express their view and by pushing that crowd back limits the individual’s ability to effectively speak. As technology changes won’t that effect this determination as well. 150 feet may have provided an effective safety zone during the slings and arrows age but is it effective today in an age of high powered rifles? Does it matter?

Should the ability to force people into different areas of ‘free speech zones’ vary with the person whose safety is purportedly being protected? For example, some people are clearly bigger targets than, say, the Gov. of Alaska. So, should the Gov of Alaska’s security have less leeway in how far it pushes protestors back?

Also, I believe that local governments may decide where and when protestors are pushed back but I think you underestimate the Federal Government’s power to make these determinations. Look at it from a practical standpoint – when the Pres visits Small Town USA it is the Presidential security and perhaps other advisors who decides where people can and can not protest – don’t kid yourself.

When I asked what kind of oversight and compensation should there be I meant, if it turns out that free speech rights are violated what should be the oversight and compensation. Or better, how does it work? Should the entity responsible for pushing back protestors be forced to make a public statement of some type justifying its decision and the location to which protestors were moved? Should there be some type of administrative appeal? Should the administrative appeal be required prior to an appeal through the courts. If an entity did force protestors back in violation of their First Amendment rights, what happens then? What is the remedy? Money? Who gets money? How much – what is the price tag for interfering with someone’s First Amendment rights?

For me, these are all really interesting and complex questions.

I think a real problem will occur if/when protestors are forced to move while others are not. I think that the government, at whatever level, should not be in the business of picking and choosing which viewpoints it will allow to be expressed where. Once a determination is made regarding how safety and free speech rights are reconciled (and assuming that complex question is answered), a crowd can be pushed back. I think the crowd has to be pushed back universally. It is unacceptable, in my opinion, to push back certain segments of the crowd based upon what those members have to say while allowing other members to remain. This is, in my opinion, a clear violation of the First Amendment Right to Speak.

Others have mentioned the idea that these zones allow people to protest without becoming shouting matches though. And I don’t see how you can reconcile my view that the government should never be allowed to pick and choose where people may speak on the basis of their viewpoint with the idea of creating different speech zone areas for different groups. It’s all or nothing in my view. If groups shout at each other – so be it. Shouting isn’t illegal. Any accompanying physical assault would be. It could create a tense situations but with regards to ‘free speech zones’ I want the government to be deaf with regards to what the message is.

This is fun. I’m a geek.

 

Please read my message all the way through before "yelling" at me. I have no quarrel with "free speech zones". If I go to hear a speaker I want to be able to hear the speaker not a bunch of protestors. (off-topic-I didn't vote for Bush the first time.)
I think the above post is quite good.
Free Speech is a basic right in the USA guaranteed by the constitution. Without it we are no longer free. However free speech does not give me the right to step on others rights. There are things I can't say without the possibility of being sued. Free speech is a poltical right so that we do not end up a dictatorship. We are right to question any curtailment of that right.

 

A couple of comments.

First, with respect to how far away a “free speech zone” should be. If the concern is about guns, I’m not really sure why, if the zone is more than a couple of hundred feet away. Now I’m no gun expert, but I would think that it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to get an accurate shot off from more than a few feet away when you’re being jostled in the middle of a crowd and needing to get the shot off quickly. I just don’t see the risk.

Second, with respect to “shouting matches”. At any of the public speeches I’ve seen, the speaker isn’t saying anything new that he/she hasn’t said several times before. So if the people in attendance can’t hear the speaker over the protestors, so what? Of course, that would raise the question of what would be the point to having public appearances in the first place, but since they’re usually just meant as PR anyway, I wouldn’t be too upset if they didn’t occur at all.

 

Splunge, I have to reply to you. Your right. In fact I have never gone to hear a public speaker outside of an enclosed (indoor) area.
My point is don't step on my rights and I won't step on yours.