April
2004
Are
You in the Zone?
By Matthew Pascarella
|
Many groups are looking forward to having their voices
heard at this summer’s Republican and Democratic national conventions.
But many fear they will not be heard; that they will be restricted to
certain areas far from where the conventions will take place, far from
where their elected officials will be speaking, and beyond the narrow
scope of the news media. In the context of expressing dissent against
American policy abroad and at home, there should be widespread concern
over the hypocrisy of infringing on free speech where the “beacon
of freedom” resides. The reflex response to label individuals
exercising their First Amendment rights as “unpatriotic”
should also be cause for concern.
When the president or other high-ranking government officials have appeared
over the last three years, in towns and cities throughout the country,
the freedom of speech and right to protest has routinely been restricted
to specific areas, regulated as “Free Speech Zones,” while
supporters of the president often enjoy closer access to practice their
First Amendment rights. Some civil rights and activist groups have complained
that Secret Service agents often arrive in the town or city a few days
before the official entourage and order local police to set up designated
areas for protesters. During the visit, those holding signs such as
“No Blood for Oil” or “Lick Bush in 2004” are
herded into the designated Free Speech Zones, while those holding signs
saying, “We love you Mr. Bush” or “God Bless You,
Our President” are allowed to remain unfettered.
Usually, the “Free Speech Zones” are confined to places
far from where the official is speaking, far from their motorcade, and
far from the news media. In one case protesters were forced to stand
behind a fleet of Greyhound buses. In another case protesters were told
their Free Speech Zone was behind a dumpster a half mile down the road.
In western Pennsylvania protesters were herded behind a six-foot chain
link fence.
Through a dozen cases and an unprecedented nationwide lawsuit, the American
Civil Liberties Union is challenging these “protest zones.”
According to an ACLU press release, they find that Secret Service and
other government officials have “discriminated against protesters
during Presidential and Vice Presidential appearances” throughout
the country, and that “because these cases are too numerous to
litigate individually, the ACLU has asked a federal court for a nationwide
injunction barring the Secret Service from directing local police to
restrict protesters’ access to appearances by President Bush and
other senior Administration officials.”
As stated by one of its own procedure manuals, the Secret Service is
not supposed to segregate protesters. However, when local police officers
have testified in these cases they almost always confirm the Secret
Service’s orders to segregate protesters in a discriminatory manner.
Stefan Presser, the ACLU legal director in Pennsylvania, said, “The
Secret Service’s directives, which have the effect of deciding
which messages are to be afforded favorable treatment, are completely
at odds with our Constitution’s guarantee of free speech and rights
of protest.”
The debate revolves around whether such actions are created for “national
security” reasons or if this is a systematic effort to keep voices
of dissent out of the camera’s—and public’s—view.
The ACLU insists the warding off of protesters is a political rather
than a security threat: “Security is not an issue because anyone
intent on harming officials would simply carry a sign with a supportive
message or no sign at all.”
Perhaps this notion of political threat becomes quite clear when we
watch news coverage of presidential visits and ask ourselves two quick
questions: During this coverage how often do you see protesters? How
often do you see supporters? Once we begin asking such questions, we
begin to notice the problem is not just rooted in governmental policy,
some restitution is owed to journalistic responsibility and integrity—or
lack thereof.
United For Peace and Justice obtained FBI documents, from October 2003,
that outline typical protest activities and organization. One document
concludes, “Law enforcement agencies should be alert to these
possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal
acts to the nearest FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.” Per the general
statements followed by specific directives in these documents, the right
of expressing dissent in America seems to have morphed into an issue
of terrorism, while presidential supporters catapult to an esteemed
level of patriotism. To date, the FBI has yet to release any documents
concerning those who gather to show support for the president.
In a variety of ways, the Free Speech Zone cases have forced certain
groups to be more proactive in organizing protests during presidential
visits. Groups such as the South Carolina Progressive Network and United
For Peace and Justice have developed manuals to offer praxis for working
with local police and government in order to exercise their First Amendment
rights. In preparation, months ago, groups even met with New York City
and Boston city officials to attain permits for rallies and marches
at the site of the upcoming political conventions. Word on the street
is that hundreds of thousands of people will show up at these demonstrations.
Perhaps this is a bit obvious: the state of communication in America
is in dire need of reform. There has always existed a systematic effort
to ignore voices of dissent and any type of grassroots movement in this
country, yet it seems to me that in the last three years it has ballooned
far beyond any remote acceptability. Just revisit recent history: one
year and two months ago, the largest protests in the history of the
world occurred. But if you blinked, you missed it. Dan Rather and Tom
Brokaw were sitting in Kuwait waiting for war to start when millions
of people were protesting only blocks from their Manhattan studios.
Time Magazine’s celebrated “Year In Photos” failed
to include even one photo taken of protests that drew 10 million people
to the streets on February 15, 2003. Our president’s response
was that the size of the protests is irrelevant: “it’s like
deciding, ‘Well I’m going to decide policy based upon a
focus group.’”
History is replete with examples of limiting the exercise of free speech
in the public arena. Some could argue, what does the use of free speech
matter if no one can hear you and if history will not remember what
you said? The problems of free speech in modernity can most likely be
traced back, in part, to resting beneath the silently sliding blade
of the American “news” media’s guillotine, but I would
argue that we have the power and ability to place our heads where we
like. History—both written and not written—has taught us
that the greatest leaders never limit their voices in order to attain
focus in the media or to the partitioned lines drawn up by some governmental
agency. It is like the great Joe Strummer used to say, “History
is waiting for you to write it,” to which I would add, “not
for the media to report it.” So maybe, after all, it doesn’t
really matter whether you are in the “zone” or not.
Matthew Pascarella is a student at Marymount Manhattan
College as well as a research associate and producer for Greg Palast,
author of the New York Times Bestseller, The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy (see www.GregPalast.com).
 |
|
|
 |
