Freedom of Assembly Under Attack in St. Petersburg; Boston, New York…

St. Petersburg City Council will hold a public workshop on August 2nd and a public hearing on August 5th.

07.29.04 By Mauricio Rosas

It doesn’t seem possible but even after 228 years since the Declaration of Independence and 213 years since the Bill of Rights were ratified, Americans are still not free to peaceably assemble.

Some say it’s nonsense. Of course we can peaceably assemble. Look at all those peaceniks protesting. No one’s stopping them. They’re free to protest all they want. Ah yes they can protest. As long as they don’t disturb, bother, or inconvenience anyone and as long as they do it in the designated “Protest Zone.”

There are those who would argue the Republicans are the root cause of protest zones. Without a doubt, Republicans have used and abused protest zones to the detriment of the purpose of the First Amendment, “the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Because they’re creating and enforcing protest zones they insulate Bush from a large segment of American families denying them the right to redress their grievances directly to the President.

Mind you the Republicans aren’t alone. The Democrats have stained their hands with protest zones as well. In fact, during this year’s Democratic Convention in Boston, they have requested and gained approval of local authorities to keep protesters away.

The zone is large enough only for 1000 persons to safely congregate and is bounded by two chain link fences separated by concrete highway barriers. The outermost fence is covered with black mesh that is designed to repel liquids. Much of the area is under an abandoned elevated train line. The zone is covered by another black net which is topped by razor wire.

Its appalling that the federal Judge Woodlock, who heard a challenge to the demonstration zone by protest groups on July 22d stated in open court, "I, at first, thought before taking the view [of the site] that the characterizations of the space as being like an internment camp were litigation hyperbole. I now believe that it's an understatement. One cannot conceive of what other elements you would put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression ..." Despite what he viewed and the conclusions he came to and voiced, the judge proceeded to deny the groups' challenge to the conditions and ruled that they were justified to put innocent people who have not been convicted of any crime behind razor wired fences and treated like prisoners of war.

The next protest interment zone will be at the New York City Republican convention where thousands of protesters are expected. Even though NYC Police say they are far more concerned about a possible terrorist attack during the convention than disruption from massive demonstrations. The Republicans, however, have requested and received the right to limit free expression by creating a protest area that will be at one corner of the larger restricted zone around Madison Square Garden. For republicans, protest zones have been a standard of practice for the past three years to insulate Bush and to keep anyone who disagrees with their agenda in isolation.

Will St. Petersburg City Council (St. Pete) Join in the Politics of Fear and Oppression?

Republican council member Bill Foster, is leading the effort to introduce an ordinance to limit the rights of peaceful protesters. In the now traditional fashion of the republican propaganda machine, this will not be called a "protest zone" but will have a warm and fuzzy name "pedestrian safety zone". Foster said his first reaction is to support a protest zone, "you don't want people protesting directly in front of a pedestrian crosswalk, that's a real public safety issue." What's the danger in distributing religious or political pamphlets?

"If I choose to walk on public property and demonstrate, then I have a constitutional right to do that," said Robert N. Davis, a professor at Stetson University College of Law. The proposed ordinance may be in danger of violating state and federal constitutions. The ordinance restricts the activity of ..."standing, sitting, lying or otherwise being upon a City sidewalk, easement or other City right-of-way not designated for vehicular travel for the purpose of soliciting, demonstrating, protesting, performing or distributing materials. " How should I walk on the streets? Should I float above the sidewalk?

Not all council members are in favor of this ordinance. Council member, Renee Flowers, writes in an email, "I am not in favor of ever putting up No-Protest Zones. Those of us in society will never always agree nor should we ever try to silence those, categorize or restrain those in disagreement."

Council member, Virginia Littrel not only opposes the ordinance but questions the way it has been introduced, "I was completely surprised to see that they had scheduled a workshop on a topic we had not discussed in any subcommittee, prior workshop, council meeting, or committee of the whole meeting. You have my word that I will never support such a stupid and ill considered notion. IF - and I do mean IF- there is a safety issue caused by the protestors, I would consider closing 2nd Ave. between 1st St and 2nd St. to vehicle movement on Friday and Saturday evenings so that both protestors and pedestrians have plenty of room to do what both need to do. But " No Protest Zones" ... No Damn Way!"

Peace activists Carol Schiffler (carols@falloutshelternews.com) or Chris Ernesto (chris@stpeteforpeace.org ) urge residents to attend the workshop planned to discuss the measure on August 2nd at 2PM and on August 5th at St. Petersburg's City Hall where the public may voice their opinions at the public hearing.

St. Petersburg officials face an uphill battle because Tampa attempted to pass a similar ordinance in 2000 restricting distribution of pamphlets and fliers in order to reduce litter in historic Ybor City. In that case, the courts upheld that religious and political literature could not be restricted from distribution on a public street. In a 1939 case, Schneider vs. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "We are of the opinion that the purpose to keeping the streets clean and of good appearance is insufficient to justify an ordinance which prohibits a person rightfully on a public street from handing literature to one willing to receive it. The burden imposed upon the city authorities in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect consequence of such distribution results from the constitutional protection of the freedom of speech and press."

With barricades, razor wire, walls, zones, and restrictions becoming the standard of the day by our "benevolent" government, I am hard pressed to NOT come to the conclusion that we will next have the "Protest Interment Camp" option as a pre-emptive strike on anyone that opposes government policy.

Is this the freedom that our sons and daughters are fighting and dying for in Iraq?

www.voiceoffreedom.com