Thursday, November 01, 2018


Leftist demonstrations to be restricted

If anti-abortion pickets are regarded as a nuisance to be kept out of the way, why not similar treatment for Leftist causes?

The National Mall in D.C. and the sidewalk in front of the White House have long been hallowed public forums. The mall has hosted some of the country’s most iconic protests, such as the Women’s March and the 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom, while demonstrations have been taking place in front of the White House at least since the Suffragette parades of the early 20th century. But if Trump’s National Park Service gets its way, demonstrations in the nation’s capital could get a lot more complicated—and, potentially, a lot more expensive.

In August, the National Park Service released proposed rules that would limit the ability of citizens to enact their First Amendment rights in the capital, including proposals to close most of the White House sidewalk to demonstration, remove the current regulation that requires park officials to respond to demonstration permit requests within 24 hours, establish new limits on how long permits can be held, and charge for demonstration permits. The rule closed for public comment October 15, at which point the Interior Department had received over 70,000 comments on the proposals. 

Civil liberties watchdogs and other public interest organizations warn that the new rules, if finalized, would hamper the ability of citizens to stage political protests in the nation’s capital. “We are concerned about this because Washington is a prime location, if not the prime location for people to exercise First Amendment rights in this country,” said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, who warned about the speed with which the proposal has been developed. “This isn’t something that the National Park Service was working on before the Trump administration. This wasn’t something with a long gestation period.”

SOURCE

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everywhere should be a free speech zone.
If any restrictions are necessary they should be quick, simple, and cheap - however I am not yet convinced there is any need for permits, or limiting locations.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:41,

Time, place and manner restrictions for speech are sometimes needed.

For example, should people have the right to protest and block a street from traffic? Should courts be disrupted? Should legislative bodies be disrupted? Should people be able to protest outside of your house at 3 AM using bullhorns in order to keep you awake? Should protests be allowed inside college classrooms, meaning people that paid thousands of dollars have their money wasted? Should cities be able to keep two opposing and threatening groups of protesters apart?

TPM restrictions are sometimes needed and are required to serve a narrow a legitimate governmental interest.

While I would agree that often governments and governmental entities go too far in restrictions, that doesn't mean that all restrictions are bad.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Anon 5:32 - that is why I said that simple, quick and cheap restrictions can be ok, but permits or location restrictions need to be justified.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:18,

That's not what you said.

There's a difference between "but permits or location restrictions need to be justified" and "I am not yet convinced there is any need for permits, or limiting locations."

One is a blanket aversion to all location restrictions and one allows for them in some cases.

If your position is the that some location restrictions can be made and initially stated your position was not quite what you meant, that's fine.

Thanks for the clarification.