Free speech zone
The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.
To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication.
Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.
Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[3][4] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries.
Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony.
[5] These zones continued through the presidency of Barack Obama, who signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.
A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage.
Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars.
"The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.
At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".
[11] In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits ...
[15] "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs.
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".
According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression.
As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places – building vestibules, parking garages, or vans – and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.'
Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through.
[22] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.
In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech.
[28] "These [free speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
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.
"[20] At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away.
A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Stefan Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders.
[35] The Secret Service says it does establish 'public viewing areas' to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech.
First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.
In September 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down the free-speech-zone policy at Texas Tech University.
The court declared the university's policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums.
[52][53] At Marquette University, an unattributed Dave Barry quote was attached to the door of the office that graduate student Stuart Ditsler shared with three other teaching assistants.
[57] The Consuming Fire Fellowship, a church located in rural Woodville, Mississippi, often sends members to convene at the university's Free Speech Alley to preach their views of Christianity.
"[60] As of March 2017[update], four states had passed legislation outlawing public colleges and universities from establishing free speech zones.
[64] Designated protest areas were established during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Summit in Ottawa, Canada.
