Free Speech Zones: USA v. Bursey

[RoyGBiv]

What follows is a summary of what I believe to be the issues involved in the current flap about so-called "free speech" zones. This is by no means a complete accounting of the questions involved. An enormous amount of information exists on this topic, much of it currently being overshadowed by the stories surrounding the DNC. (This, I think, is part of the point.)

First, I have a question I hope someone can answer. I haven't been able to find a good, clear answer with a web search, and I'm too far from Boston to see for myself. Where exactly are these protest zones in relation to the DNC convention site? Are they in view of it, or are they out of site of anyone who might be the target of a protest group's message? This is an important detail because it relates to the issue as it is currently being argued in the courts.

Background: The idea of a "protest zone" is nothing new. It did not originate with Bush or with any particular person or political group specifically. To some extent, it's a response to the violent protests of the 60's and 70's, both in good and bad ways. The current policy being exercised by the US Secret Service when dealing with security for visits from the President or other officials is the culmination of various policies enacted by local police agencies throughout the country and administrators of other places where protests are likely to take place, particularly college campuses. This is not an endorsement of this security tactic, rather a notation that the matter itself has deeper historical roots than just the last four years. In fact, it has received a great deal of attention in relation to protests against abortion. (FWIW, I have been personally involved in this as a member of an escort team providing protection to those entering clincs where abortions were conducted. We constantly had to argue with police to keep protestors at a safe distance in order to avoid physical threats on ours and the patients' lives.)

What is new and what is the focus of legal efforts by groups like the ACLU is that the SS has developed a method of establishing protest zones out of site of those to whom the protests are directed. Previous, usually local efforts to establish security by separating protesters from those being protested against have centered on maintaining a "safe distance," but not separating the groups so completely that one was not aware of the presence of the other. It has been alleged by individuals arrested for violating the zones that they are in effect having their 1st Amendment right of directly protesting its government's actions violated by the extent of the tactic.

The current case running through the court system most dramatically illustrating the issues involved is USA v. Brett Bursey. You can see a full and detailed summary of the case so far by following this link:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-docket-dsc-03cr309.html

The government's case turns on the issue of "equal application." Bursey's team argues that certain groups highly critical of the President are being singled out for sequestering in protest zones while those more friendly to the administration are given free reign to voice their opinions without such restrictions. Bursey's lawyers have entered evidence of many cases of this taking place. So far, from what I've read to this point, the counter to this by the government rests on "national security" interests, the logic supposedly being that those protesting the President are a greater security risk than those turning out to voice their agreement with his policies.

Seen in this light, the matter of the protest zones at the DNC takes on a new meaning. Neither John Kerry nor the Democratic Party has direct control of security for the event. It is controlled by the Secret Service with the cooperation of the city of Boston and the Boston police department. Fundamentally, however, the policy for the protest zones is set and organized by the SS. (This does not, btw, mean Kerry should not voice his opposition, rather that whether his opposition would have a direct impact on the policy's implementation is questionable.) In other words, if the SS establishes protest zones for Kerry and DNC equivalent to those established for Bush or the RNC, Bursey's case, and the case against the zones in general, is undermined.

Personally, I think the entire policy as currently implemented stinks to high heaven, and nothing I have said here should be taken to indicate otherwise. However, I think it's important that we give "credit" where it is due and try to determine exactly what the underlying motivations might be.

[unblock]

1. excellent backgrounder, thanks!

[unblock]

2. seems to me having the protesters penned-in is backwards

the protesters shouldn't be penned in because you're not concerned about them going anywhere other than to the event they're protesting.

it's the main event that's the safety problem. the fences and razor wire should surround the main event, preventing ANYONE from getting in, protesters and supporters alike, except with an invitation.

they're the ones causing the security problem.

then, it will be obvious to all that these are private events, not public ones.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Penning-in...

That's the particularly odious part of this, imo.

Supposedly, this is about security for everyone, but it's the protestors that are in the "guarded compounds," for lack of a better phrase.

Again, I'll highlight the issue as it relates to abortion protests. People have a right to protest abortions. They do not have a right to endanger the lives of those having or performing abortions. But we, the ones going into the clinics, were the ones in effect behind the barbed-wire fence because what was needed was to keep the protesters who had physically threatened us away. No abortion protesters, in my personal experience, were ever penned-in. They blocked out, but we could still see and just as importantly from a free-speech standpoint hear them. We felt lucky if they were simply kept across the street.

[DBoon]

4. Slightly off topic but

I'm very concerned about the screening of audience members that takes place for Bush's events. Basically, they only want partisan supporters present.

Any elected public official should be required to hold open events at which all members of the public may attend.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Not really off-topic...

From the varied reading I've done on this the last couple days, it's related.

From the point of view of the Bush administration, the intent is to silence dissent both directly through the use of free speech zones located so far away from the principle that no one but those involved notice it and indirectly by presenting the appearance of no dissent at all. If any dissent is noticed, it is to be associated with being in cages. What you note is part of this.

I don't think I'm engaging in too much hyperbole by noting that Nazis were experts at the use of aesthetics and suggesting this tactic is very similar.

[DBoon]

6. And being refused admission to a government function

because of your political views implies there is something wrong with your views.

[Democracy Died 2004]

7. what the frigg is a free speach zone?

that the new speak we are at now?

[RoyGBiv]

8. Don't know who coined the term...

It started showing up in the last few years. I wouldn't doubt it comes from Karl Rove, but who knows exactly.

We've had protest zones forever. Free speech zones are the same thing in theory, but the way Bush uses them makes the something different and much worse.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Where exactly are these protest zones in relation to the DNC site?

I just wanted to kick that question...

[RoyGBiv]

10. Thanks...

A kick for myself. :-)

I really would like to know. I've still been unable to find out. The media, from what I've seen, is just reporting their existence, not where they are.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. It's amazing how often the key piece of information

needed to make a informed judgement about something is left out of the reporting.