Free speech zone

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech. Although such zones existed earlier, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration. Civil libertarians claim that they are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal opposition from the public and elected officials. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas - the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who claim that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.

Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations where the president is to pass through or speak at. Officals target those who carry anti-Bush signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officals from displaying on camera or speaking to protestors within the zone. Protestors who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom used federal law was brought up that says that 'entering a restricted area around the President of the United States' is a crime.

The Supreme Court has ruled that picketing and marching in public areas has some degree of protection under the First Amendment, but less than that afforded to pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations for such activities, however, may not target the content of the expression. The Bush administration has justified the zones in several ways. Some have claimed it is needed so that protestors won't be accidentally injured or harmed by passing motorcades. Homeland security along with the Joint Terrorism Taskforce of the FBI however have stated that war demonstators and protestors should be considered by local authorities as possible terrorists. And some have claimed that economic disruption (like the WTO protests in Seattle) are indeed terrorist acts.

This issue was recently called to light in a fictional court case on the television show The Practice.

Examples

• "When President George W. 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 are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. "When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path... police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views'"1 (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)

• "...Brett Bursey, of South Carolina, attended a speech given by the president George W. Bush at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. He was standing among thousands of other citizens. Bursey held up a sign stating: 'No more war for oil.' ...Bursey did not pose a threat to the president, nor was he located in an area restricted to official personnel. Bursey wasn't blocking a corridor the Secret Service needed to keep clear for security reasons. He was standing among citizens who were enthusiastically greeting Bush. Bursey, however, was the only one holding an anti-Bush sign.... He was ordered to put down his sign or move to a designated protest site more than half a mile away, outside the sight and hearing of the president. Bursey refused. He was then arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police.... However, those charges were dropped. Understandably, courts across the nation have upheld the right to protest on public property.... Instead, Bursey was indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president. Bursey faces up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine." 2 (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11092003/commenta/109238.asp)

• "Protesters at this [(2004)] summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates by a maze of Central Artery service roads, MBTA rail tracks, and a temporary parking lot holding scores of buses and media trucks.... Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July." 3 (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/20/convention_plan_puts_protesters_blocks_away?mode=PF)

External Links

• skywriting.com (http://www.skywriting.com/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/) Photographs of the "Free Speech Zone" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
• Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64349,00.html?tw=wn_story_related)
• Sinfest has two strips about the issue : [1] (http://sinfest.net/d/20040803.html) and [2] (http://sinfest.net/d/20040804.html)

Reference

• This article uses material from the Disinfopedia article on free speech zone (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Free_speech_zone) under the terms of the GFDL.