![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 18th, 2004 01:39 amI thought I would write up my impressions of the wonderful gathering at Cambridge City Hall on Sunday night/Monday morning, but various people have provided much better writeups than I could. I’ll borrow theirs.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
the_muted_horn’s writeup
bouncingleaf’s writeup
gizmoek’s writeup (and gizmoek caught a bouquet thrown by one couple)
However, one article* I saw disturbed me, specifically this quote:
First Amendment zones, also known as free speech zones, are the dirty trick used by the current administration to keep protestors away from their parades, speeches, or any other event they’d like to avoid having interrupted. I’ve found some sample writeups (there are lots more) at The American Conservative magazine, The South Carolina Progressive Network, and in an editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune. The purpose of a free speech zone is to keep inconvenient protestors away from whoever the event is for, and away from their surrounding favorable crowd. The effect is to make it appear that there is no dissent to the person or event, as those protestors who leave the free speech zone or refuse to go into the zone are subject to arrest. But the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” I don’t know what legislative authority any government claims supports their use of free speech zones, but whatever it is (if there’s anything at all) likely violates the Constitution. Either the legislature has passed an unconstitutional law, which should be struck down; or governments are taking power not granted them by the legislature, which is an abuse of power, and should be struck down.
The short form is that while both the current administration and at least Cambridge, MA are using free speech zones, I strongly think they are a direct violation of the First Amendment, and will eventually be held unconstitutional. Cambridge is just as reprehensible as Bush and Ashcroft for using them. I would have expected better.
* Because of The Boston Globe’s annoying pay-to-access-archives policy, this article will eventually disappear.
the_muted_horn’s writeupbouncingleaf’s writeupgizmoek’s writeup (and gizmoek caught a bouquet thrown by one couple)However, one article* I saw disturbed me, specifically this quote:
When police ushered Roper and her crew across Massachusetts Avenue to the designated “First Amendment” zone, the crowd let out a loud, mocking whoop.
First Amendment zones, also known as free speech zones, are the dirty trick used by the current administration to keep protestors away from their parades, speeches, or any other event they’d like to avoid having interrupted. I’ve found some sample writeups (there are lots more) at The American Conservative magazine, The South Carolina Progressive Network, and in an editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune. The purpose of a free speech zone is to keep inconvenient protestors away from whoever the event is for, and away from their surrounding favorable crowd. The effect is to make it appear that there is no dissent to the person or event, as those protestors who leave the free speech zone or refuse to go into the zone are subject to arrest. But the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” I don’t know what legislative authority any government claims supports their use of free speech zones, but whatever it is (if there’s anything at all) likely violates the Constitution. Either the legislature has passed an unconstitutional law, which should be struck down; or governments are taking power not granted them by the legislature, which is an abuse of power, and should be struck down.
The short form is that while both the current administration and at least Cambridge, MA are using free speech zones, I strongly think they are a direct violation of the First Amendment, and will eventually be held unconstitutional. Cambridge is just as reprehensible as Bush and Ashcroft for using them. I would have expected better.
* Because of The Boston Globe’s annoying pay-to-access-archives policy, this article will eventually disappear.
