FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Home of the Brave, Land of the Free Speech Zones

by

In the last four major 2016 election cycle events – the two nominating conventions and the two Presidential debates – one thing was noticeably absent from media coverage: protesters. The hosting cities of nationally televised events colluded with the Secret Service and local police to conceal any appearance of dissent. In a glaring violation of the First Amendment, protesters at nationally televised events are only legally allowed to express themselves within the confines of fenced enclosures located nearly a mile away from event sites. The government has named these areas “free speech zones.”

The zones are surrounded by barricaded chicken-wire fences that are remarkably similar to the fences that line the US-Mexico border. Scores of police herd protesters into the region with roadblocks, which prevents protesters access to the forum against which they intend to voice dissent. “Free speech zones” are designed to conceal protestors from the media and shield event attendees from hearing their message. Protesters are subject to arrest and trespass charges if they demonstrate outside of the allocated zone. If convicted, the maximum punishment under the law is a ten year prison sentence.

Any event that the Department of Homeland Security labels as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) permits authorities to restrict protesters to “free speech zones.” NSSE’s are not limited to political events. For instance, NCAA games and NFL games have previously been designated as NSSE.

The legality that permits the government to restrict open expression stems from a statute passed in 1971. The law, Section 1752 of the US Code, forbids people from entering restricted government areas or impeding official government business. The legislation was passed presumably to prevent large-scale protests from occurring at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions of 1972 after marches outside the previous Democratic National Convention disrupted the event.

The protests at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in 1968 were remarkably successful in impacting government policy. Thousands of protesters descended upon the DNC site in Chicago, Illinois, where they demonstrated directly outside of the convention site. This resulted in a massive police presence and subsequent violent crackdown on protesters, which was well-documented by the media. Television broadcasts of the demonstrations amplified the protesters’ message to millions of Americans and live reporting on the police’s excessive use of force caused viewers to sympathize with protesters.

The success of the demonstrations at the DNC are evident in the ratification of the twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the changes made to the Democratic Party’s primary system. The twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in 1971, which lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. This was important because previously, eighteen-year-olds could be drafted by the military, but could not participate in elections. Additionally, the Democratic Party modified their primary system to prevent party leaders from hand-selecting the candidate of their choosing. At the 1968 DNC, Hubert Humphrey was chosen by party leaders as the Democratic party’s nominee for President, despite not running in a single primary. The public display of dissenting voices at the DNC in 1968 encouraged meaningful and longstanding changes in America. However, these changes were only possible because the protesters’ message could be heard.

The use of “free speech zones” was first employed extensively under the George W. Bush administration, perhaps as a response to quash dissenters of the 2000 election or the Iraq War. According to the testimony of a Pennsylvania police officer in the criminal trial of a protester who demonstrated outside of a free speech area along the route of the President’s motorcade, the Secret Service ordered police to confine anyone with views opposing the Bush administration into partitioned areas that would not be visible to the media or event attendees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) subsequently sued the Secret Service for their suppression of protesters at Bush events.

Most convictions of protesters under the Bush administration were overturned because federal prosecutors could not prove demonstrators “willingly and knowingly” violated the law. However, the Obama administration amended this law to make it easier for courts to secure protesters’ convictions. The amended bill criminalizes people that knowingly express themselves outside of “free speech zones”.

The government’s refusal to provide protesters an open forum to express their opinions is a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees individuals and groups to express themselves without obstruction or restraint by the government. As seen at the 1968 DNC, protests can have massive impacts to effect political change, but today, opposing voices are being stifled in “free speech zones.”

At the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, protesters were cordoned off by a police perimeter that featured a nearly five-mile-long fence surrounded by hundreds of police officers. Police doused flag-burning protesters with pepper spray in Cleveland and struck dissenters who left the free-speech zone in Philadelphia with batons .

Similarly, the first Presidential Debate at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York used extensive police roadblocks that forced demonstrators on a three-mile walk to the restrictive “free speech zones.” More than 1,000 police officers in tactical gear kept the protesters confined behind the fences. Twenty-four people were arrested for demonstrating outside of the barricaded area.

Demonstrators who attended the second Presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri on October 9th were also met with the same level of impediment against open expression. An outlying section of the University was set aside for protesters. The encampment was called the “public expression zone” and featured the same silencing of government opposition as “free speech zones.”

The government is constricting open democracy and criminalizing dissent. Barriers shelter critics of the government. Desolate locations muffle dissenting voices. Excessive force and prison sentences restrict freedom of expression. Views that conflict with government policy and can influence substantial change in our country will be silenced wherever “free speech zones” stand.

More articles by:
February 21, 2018
Cecil Bothwell
Billy Graham and the Gospel of Fear
Ajamu Baraka
Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire
Edward Hunt
Treating North Korea Rough
Binoy Kampmark
Meddling for Empire: the CIA Comes Clean
Ron Jacobs
Stamping Out Hunger
Ammar Kourany – Martha Myers
So, You Think You Are My Partner? International NGOs and National NGOs, Costs of Asymmetrical Relationships
Michael Welton
1980s: From Star Wars to the End of the Cold War
Judith Deutsch
Finkelstein on Gaza: Who or What Has a Right to Exist? 
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Military Realities
Steve Early
Refinery Safety Campaign Frays Blue-Green Alliance
Ali Mohsin
Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump
Julian Vigo
UK Mass Digital Surveillance Regime Ruled Illegal
Peter Crowley
Revisiting ‘Make America Great Again’
Andrew Stewart
Black Panther: Afrofuturism Gets a Superb Film, Marvel Grows Up and I Don’t Know How to Review It
CounterPunch News Service
A Call to Celebrate 2018 as the Year of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois by the Saturday Free School
February 20, 2018
Nick Pemberton
The Gun Violence the Media Shows Us and the State Violence They Don’t
John Eskow
Sympathy for the Drivel: On the Vocabulary of President Nitwit
John Steppling
Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk Into a Bar…
John W. Whitehead
America’s Cult of Violence Turns Deadly
Ishmael Reed
Charles F. Harris: He Popularized Black History
Will Podmore
Paying the Price: the TUC and Brexit
George Burchett
Plumpes Denken: Crude thinking
Binoy Kampmark
The Caring Profession: Peacekeeping, Blue Helmets and Sexual Abuse
Lawrence Wittner
The Trump Administration’s War on Workers
David Swanson
The Question of Sanctions: South Africa and Palestine
Walter Clemens
Murderers in High Places
Dean Baker
How Does the Washington Post Know that Trump’s Plan Really “Aims” to Pump $1.5 Trillion Into Infrastructure Projects?
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail