Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: October 11, 2018 19:21:32 JST
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall
> A government proposal mirrors Trump’s hostility to the First Amendment.
> By Arthur Spitzer, Legal Co-Director, ACLU of D.C.
> Oct 9 2018
> <https://medium.com/aclu/trump-administration-seeks-to-stifle-protests-near-white-house-and-on-national-mall-cbbfdbe0d93d>
>
> President Trump has a record of attacking the rights of protesters, from suggestingthat protest be illegal to 
> praising dictators who crush any kind of dissent.
>
> Now, the Trump administration proposes to dramatically limit the right to demonstrate near the White House and on the 
> National Mall, including in ways that would violate court orders that have stood for decades. The proposal would 
> close 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, put new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and open the door to 
> charging fees for protesting.
>
> Fee requirements could make mass protests like Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 March on Washington and its “I 
> have a dream” speech too expensive to happen.
>
> The public has until October 15 to comment on the plans, and on Monday, we submitted our formal written comment 
> explaining why the planned changes are unconstitutional.
>
> In 1967, in the middle of the Vietnam War, the federal government tried to impose severe limits on protests near the 
> White House. The ACLU of the District of Columbia sued, and after years of litigation, the courts rebuffed the 
> government’s effort and reminded the National Park Service, which administers these areas, that Lafayette Park is not 
> Yellowstone and that the White House area and the National Mall “constitute a unique [site] for the exercise of First 
> Amendment rights.” Under court orders, the park service issued regulations allowing large demonstrations, 
> guaranteeing quick action on applications for permits, and accommodating spontaneous protests as much as possible.
>
> Closing the White House sidewalk
>
> The park service plans to close 20 feet of the 25-foot-wide White House sidewalk, limiting demonstrators to a 5-foot 
> sliver along Pennsylvania Avenue. This is perhaps the most iconic public forum in America, allowing “We the People” 
> to express our views directly to the chief executive, going back at least to the women’s suffrage movement 100 years 
> ago.
>
> The closure would violate the earlier court order, which permits demonstrations by at least 750 people on the White 
> House sidewalk and declares that any lower limit is “invalid and void as an unconstitutional infringement of 
> plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for a redress of 
> grievances.”
>
> The park service didn’t offer any justification for closing the sidewalk. Even if it were based on security grounds, 
> that wouldn’t pass muster because the White House fence is about to be replaced with a new, taller fence with special 
> anti-climbing features, approved last year specifically to “meet contemporary security standards” while allowing the 
> sidewalk to remain open.
>
> As the Secret Service stated when the plans for the new fence were submitted for approval, “Our priority is to 
> maintain the public’s access … It is in fact a quintessential First Amendment site.” The Secret Service got it right. 
> The park service proposal has no valid basis in security — it’s just an effort to keep the pesky protesters away.
>
> Charging for free speech
>
> An even more effective way to keep the pesky protesters away is to charge a fee for the right to protest. According 
> to the new proposal, the park service is considering charging demonstrators for things like “sanitation and trash 
> removal” and “harm to turf.” But of course, the park service does not plan to charge the 45 million non-demonstrators 
> who visit the National Mall every year for the fencing and sanitation their presence requires or for the harm to the 
> turf that they cause.
>
> Park service regulations distinguish between demonstrations and “special events” — things like sports events, 
> historical reenactments, and festivals. The park service has always charged for the costs of special events, but it 
> now claims that some demonstrations have “elements that are special events” and that it is free to charge 
> “administrative, equipment, and monitoring costs” for those “elements.” The proposal gives no clue about what those 
> “elements” may be, but the courts have made clear that things like singing, dancing, and music in the context of 
> demonstrations are fully protected by the First Amendment. Such “elements” shouldn’t make a demonstration subject to 
> fees.
>
> Managing public lands for the benefit of the American people is what Congress funds the National Park Service to do. 
> That includes demonstrators just as much as tourists or hikers. While the park service may be strapped for funds, it 
> cannot balance its budget on the backs of people seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20181011070217:1BC1873A-CD45-11E8-A69A-8A60789D826E
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com