Arkady
President
Here's an issue that will hopefully cross partisan lines: the rise of so-called "free speech zones." The idea behind these zones is to set up an area where people can exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances -- which essentially means infringing on the exercise of that Constitutional right outside of the designated zone.
Although there's something inherently offensive about abridging that right in any way, certain concessions to practicality make sense. For example, in light of the ability of modern technology to make such assemblies vastly louder than the kinds of assemblies the Founders were anticipating, ordinances limiting the use of loudspeakers, etc., can make sense, as a way of balancing the interests of the protesters in being heard, and the interests of others in the area in being able to go about their lives without overwhelming noise.
We're also a much more populous and densely-populated nation now, such that you can get crowds of hundreds of hundreds of thousands or even millions, creating challenges that simply didn't exist at the time of the Founding, when an assembly of a few thousand constituted a huge event. For example, in Revolutionary times, five to six thousand people coming to Boston to assemble around the Old South Meeting House was huge, whereas more recently, around 3 million people came to Boston for a Red Sox parade. Free Speech Zones can be a way to address some of the challenges inherent in such huge crowds (making sure there's access for emergency services, preventing mass trampling, etc.) There's also the issue of terrorism -- how to keep people from using a crowd as cover for a terrorist attack, which is more of an issue today than in the time of the Founding, thanks to technology making mass destruction so much more portable.
So, there are arguments in favor of these zones, The problem, though, is that the idea gets abused, with huge exclusion zones that are set up and enforced in a way that prevents exactly what the First Amendment was meant to allow -- exclusion zones that push the protesters out of site, out of mind, so that they can't, in any meaningful sense, petition their government by way of assembly. For example, for the upcoming RNC, the Republicans have set up a record-setting exclusion zone with a 3 and 1/2 mile perimeter. Even after modifications, thanks to ACLU litigation, there will be a 1.7 square mile zone where protesters need permits and still are subjected to a long list of restrictions. The protesters will have no way of making their voices heard by the convention-goers. It's just hard to understand how courts are managing to square that with an amendment that clearly prohibits infringement on the right to assemble to petition the government.
Although there's something inherently offensive about abridging that right in any way, certain concessions to practicality make sense. For example, in light of the ability of modern technology to make such assemblies vastly louder than the kinds of assemblies the Founders were anticipating, ordinances limiting the use of loudspeakers, etc., can make sense, as a way of balancing the interests of the protesters in being heard, and the interests of others in the area in being able to go about their lives without overwhelming noise.
We're also a much more populous and densely-populated nation now, such that you can get crowds of hundreds of hundreds of thousands or even millions, creating challenges that simply didn't exist at the time of the Founding, when an assembly of a few thousand constituted a huge event. For example, in Revolutionary times, five to six thousand people coming to Boston to assemble around the Old South Meeting House was huge, whereas more recently, around 3 million people came to Boston for a Red Sox parade. Free Speech Zones can be a way to address some of the challenges inherent in such huge crowds (making sure there's access for emergency services, preventing mass trampling, etc.) There's also the issue of terrorism -- how to keep people from using a crowd as cover for a terrorist attack, which is more of an issue today than in the time of the Founding, thanks to technology making mass destruction so much more portable.
So, there are arguments in favor of these zones, The problem, though, is that the idea gets abused, with huge exclusion zones that are set up and enforced in a way that prevents exactly what the First Amendment was meant to allow -- exclusion zones that push the protesters out of site, out of mind, so that they can't, in any meaningful sense, petition their government by way of assembly. For example, for the upcoming RNC, the Republicans have set up a record-setting exclusion zone with a 3 and 1/2 mile perimeter. Even after modifications, thanks to ACLU litigation, there will be a 1.7 square mile zone where protesters need permits and still are subjected to a long list of restrictions. The protesters will have no way of making their voices heard by the convention-goers. It's just hard to understand how courts are managing to square that with an amendment that clearly prohibits infringement on the right to assemble to petition the government.
